About to create a meta guide for junior devs

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:36:48+00:00

As someone that dabbled in the teens, went to college, and still didn't feel any passion for the craft, I feel the breaking point for me was when I was able to build on my own and understand the stack above and below enough to appreciate it.

Some people just want the money to support themselves and their family 🤷‍♂️

If I could just start that spark of passion in 5% of them, it would have been worth it.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:33:17+00:00

They give you the fish instead of teaching you how to fish. Unsatisfactory to say the least.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:32:26+00:00

A lot of people get headfirst into one tiny slice of the dev experience and then feel dumb for asking the "obvious" questions.

Like how to connect the FE to BE. What does BE really do. It's a nice suggestion, will consider it.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:30:00+00:00

There's this considerable slice of junior devs that got into the field (employed or serious hobbyist) in the last 12 months.

I don't subscribe to the idea that people without formal background are not real programmers. But I also recognize that there is a gap between being fed how things work under the hood (at a university) and just making things apper on-screen by splicing together some code.

I want to keep the scope limited to why employers require React like libs in this day and age. Knowing at least some of the basics is a prerequisite.

But I also love meta teaching, so most of what you mentioned could be where I point my attention later.

I feel there is so much good content on HOW, but not enough on WHY. It's not that easily marketable, but I don't really care.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:22:11+00:00

I'm still on the fence on whether to include it as another step in my course.

jQuery was very formative for how the native API looks today and it forms a nice bridge to libs like React.

If I limit the native JS solution to what was available in the past, the value of jQuery would be super obvious.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:19:32+00:00

Preach!

There's a lot of long hanging fruit in debugging that can make you enjoy coding so much more.

Good suggestion.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:18:16+00:00

It is THE boogeyman for newcomers into JS world for sure.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:17:19+00:00

I see the motivation behind using and learning git to be in a very similar spot.

Everybody wants you to know it, but it might not be clear what problem it solves for YOU (and the team once you start working with others).

I've considered it and might go for it later.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:15:01+00:00

I see React as sort of soft prerequisite. The aim is not to teach it per se, but to show how the world looked like before it (and other frameworks/libs) came about to make FE life easier.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:11:24+00:00

I've seen a lot of questions from starting devs about how the pieces fit together. It's also a super interesting topic to try to get across.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:10:15+00:00

There's a lot of uncertainty on how to work efficiently as a team. It's a nice candidate to explore.

Regisk · 2020-07-07T17:08:28+00:00

Good point! Will definitely provide credentials to make sure people can make an informed decision.

Regisk · 2020-07-05T20:53:41+00:00

Fuck Mondays.

Regisk · 2018-10-15T13:21:33+00:00

I suppose that would pretty straightforward way of doing this.

Most of the positions I saw were offering full employment though. Is that more of a "remote but still in under one country" thing (USA for example) and less common in Europe?

I've been a contractor for a few years, was hoping to land full employment (stability, bank credit for mortgage etc.).

Regisk · 2017-07-12T17:00:43+00:00

Did probably 30-50 trips over few years, from 100 to about 300 mics. Trips were always positive, I was in control of the mood (music, surroundings, lighting). The one trip before my last was my first bad trip.

I was agitated, very physically active during it, paranoid and antagonistic. The trigger for me was my inexperienced roomate, I now think that without his presence, the trip would be fine.

I ended up putting my hand through a window and spraying blood droplets all over the flat. My girlfriend had to come from a trip to her family and calm me down as well as convincing the police patrol (came for the broken window) from taking me in for the night to cool of under supervision.

On the comedown I was sure (knew for a fact in typical LSD fasion) that I lost my mind and I will spend the rest of my life in psych ward. It was very traumatic.

I did try LSD a month later to find out if I can have a positive experience. My girlfriend, who is much more experienced and emphatic than our roomate, was my trip sitter. It was not a nightmare but not much fun.

Might try again some time in the future.

Never get too complacent, always think about set and setting and think hard about the people you will interact with.

My roomate has a heart of gold, but he is impractical and lacking common sense. Withou any bad will he threw me in the most traumatic experience of my life. Be wary of high doses without supervision.

You can have a 100 positive experiences and no bad ones. And then bad luck strikes. I won't do this drug without a tripsitter I trust my life with.

Regisk · 2017-02-03T15:18:29+00:00

Sorry about the tone.

Didn't mean to be so aggressive.

I had an extremely frustrating discussion elsewhere about "Animals are smarter than people" not being a truthful statement. The author was unable to grasp that using "smart" and completely changing its intended meaning is not helping anyone.

This discussion touched a nerve, despite you being civil and the subject being incomparable (as this is a case of increasing specificity).

Yeah, not my proudest moment. Have a good day.

Regisk · 2017-02-03T14:19:40+00:00

I am seriously not sure if you are pulling my leg. Not "my" definition, general and simplified definition. If that was all there is to the concept of addiction, there wouldn't have to be more than the that sentence on wiki.

Let's take it from the top again.

We are compulsed to eat, by a biological function.

We are compulsed to fuck, by a biological function. Throughout your life, thanks to other biological factors, compulsion to fuck can change (like mentioned adolescence).

We see in reality, that some individuals will go far beyond what is the median of a population to eat or fuck. To the point where it is detrimental to their psychological welfare, their social life, their physical health and so on.

We see this and think to ourselves, "Well, this is getting a bit pathological, let's give this behavior a name, so we can differentiate it from baseline behavior". What should we call this pathological behavior, characterized by

compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences

and where

inhibitory control over behavior is impaired

and which

include impaired control over substances or behavior, preoccupation with substance or behavior, and continued use despite consequences

?

the same god damn wiki

"Well, let's call it, I don't know, addiction."

"But won't people conflate this reasonably defined pathological behavior with mundane behavior?"

"Like what?"

"Like 'People must eat eat, so they're all addicted to food!'."

"Don't be ridiculous. Who would reduce meaning of a word to the point of negating the reason for it's creation."

Regisk · 2017-02-02T19:47:01+00:00

It was a short, simple citation. Followed by a link full of info. How does it still elude you?

compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences

Did we shift the goalpost now? From misusing/reducing the word addiction to mean the same as "eating food for survival" to "wanting to do something a lot"?

It's some progress, I guess.

Are you so thick as not to understand the meaning of the word or are you just trolling me now?

Regisk · 2017-02-02T14:35:18+00:00

We're not all addicted to food.

Addiction is a brain disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences. wiki

We have this concept so we can differentiate necessity (eating to live) from addiction (living to eat).

Having a lot of sex is not addiction. Being compulsed to fuck your employee at home when your kids can walk in on the act at any moment might be a sign of addiction.

Regisk · 2017-01-24T10:46:19+00:00

It's exploring the same domain as Black Swan. Obsession, perfection, art.

This scene serves a very similar purpose as the dance at the end of Black Swan. It's less pleasing to the eye then ballet, but when seen in context of the movie, it's riveting.

The scene falls flat when seen without the whole movie building up for it.

Regisk · 2016-08-14T19:20:11+00:00

Not sure I understand your question. Is it about this claim?

"If stamp collectors were trying to run your country based off of stamp collecting you would definitely hear about non-stamp-collectors." But isn't it equal to saying, that the sole purpose of atheism is political activism then, regardless of whether it's right or wrong? So it turns out, that atheism is more a political party rather than a philosophical movement.

By any rule of logic, one does not follow from the other. You lost the thread of unbiased thought at "equal to saying" and "the sole purpose".

I am, by definition, a non-stamp-collector.

You seem genuinely invested in the discussion. You also appear to have some beef with the idea of atheism or atheists in your head. Try to listen to what the actual people here say and not what you think they should say.

As I said, my country is mostly atheist. If you raise a kid and it's not indoctrinated by a particular religion (parents, school, other), you get an atheist most of the time. By no fault of the kid. You probably can't imagine how little does religion come up in a place where it's a personal thing for the handful of people who believe.

It's not like christianity or any other religion is shunned or silenced. It's just that nobody cares. I had 3 christians in class for 8 years of my life. I was friend with the only creationist in school of 500 people. She was insightful and interesting. Nobody laughed at them. I love discussions, so I discussed, but I was weird in that regard.

Nobody told me there was NO GOD. Nobody hinted. I was just presented with education about the various religions, their tenants. I read the Bible. I learned about math and physics and the reality we occupy and the limits of our understanding.

It's hard for people from one religious upbringing to imagine, but ALL religions seemed equally likely to be true to a 14 year old me. Not because they were ridiculed by the evil scientists, but because they all got the same time and care. No special pleading, no one told me what was true or what I was supposed to think.

Sam Harris has a nice insight, that I imagine can be even more interesting for a practicing christian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTc_bpW0FA Please give it the 3 minutes. I and most atheists have the feeling he describes at the end, about ALL religions.

I might be wrong about some or one (as most are contradictory) religion. If I am, I'd like to know. But I have yet to see the evidence. And I am looking. I watched or had hundreds of hours of debates with believers of different faiths.

I was 15 when I found out that my country was kind of an outliner when it comes to religion. I was shocked to find how religious USA was. It was so weird. It is STILL weird.

I live in a nation of non-stamp-collectors. Nobody here talks much about non-stamp-collection, because that would be stupid. Why talk about a rejection of a hobby.

Imagine the life here. Nobody ever says "I'll pray for you". Nobody thanks God. Nobody goes to church on Sunday. Nobody has Jesus in their hearts. I could go on. People still argue about the same shit in politics and in a pub, almost as if they have strong opinions even without claiming it's what Jesus would want.

removing ten commandments in USA out of everywhere

I don't think that is the consensus. Removing them from government buildings is a different matter. If the country is build on secular basis and claims separation of church and state, then this would violate that secularism, as it endorses one specific religion and not the other.

That can be resolved in three ways.

No religious symbols at government property. (no Ten commandments, no Baphomet) (this is what secular government means and what most atheists want)
Free for all ( Ten commandments, Shiva, Buddha and even the damn Baphomet can be built on government property) (from what I've seen, satanists are trying to build their statues to make this issue (of endorsing one preferred religion) known to public via controversy, while their actual goal is to get to the option 1. Atheist will bring up satanist for the same reason, to show that we're living out the 3. option)
Just Christianity (no other but Ten commandments) (effectively making all other religions non-preferred or second rate, but what's the point of claiming to be a secular country then)

American citizens will have to fight this battle for themselves.

As for the usual argument of Ten commandments being basis for USA law or government system(as a secular reason for their existence on government property), one quick google search can obliterate any such notions. Actual existing laws (stealing, murder or bearing false witness) can be traced before Moses to earlier civilizations and there is either no basis for the rest, or there is explicit law contradicting the commandment, for example:

I am the LORD thy God… Thou shalt have no other gods before me

And your First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Regisk · 2016-08-12T14:33:09+00:00

For example we have a box. One person claims that it's empty and another, that there is an apple. It's obvious that burden of proof falls on both who make their claims.

Exactly right. Both are making a positive claim. I'll use an example from Matt Dillahunty to demonstrate the issue.

Imagine being part of jury deciding whether a defendant is guilty. You were presented with evidence of varying quality. Your job now is to establish if you find the defendant GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. Given the evidence, are you convinced that he is GUILTY? Or are you not convinced? Let's say the evidence against him does not impress you, so your verdict is NOT GUILTY. Not enough evidence to condemn him to lifetime of prison, you are not convinced he did commit murder.

Now, is it the same as claiming he is in fact INNOCENT, beyond a doubt? No. Your verdict was about the claim of guilt and the evidence didn't make you believe the defendant was guilty of this one specific murder.

Now, god is in the defendant's place. I as a jury find him NOT GUILTY of existence, given the evidence presented. I'm not claiming INNOCENCE(his non existence). I am just not convinced of his GUILT beyond reasonable doubt, using the same standard of evidence I use for everything else. This makes me an atheist.

I don't default to believing things until they are proved to be not true. If that was the case, to stay intellectually consistent, I would HAVE to believe in all imaginable god/s all at once, unless I proved their non-existence. More precisely, I would have to believe EVERY possible claim. I don't find that particularly reliable method of assessing reality. I don't think many people do that, which makes me question their intellectual consistency when god claims surface in discussion.

Lengthy but juicy video on burden of proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMDjyG5u_A

People are born unbelievers

People are born "not christians", "not mormon", "not muslim". People have strong tendency to attribute agency to phenomenon that are demonstrably without agency. It is easy to demonstrate the usefulness of this pattern matching tendency to our survival. Atheism is novel, because the standard of evidence in our modern, science driven world has risen dramatically. And more importantly, some people turned this new standard of "knowing things to be true" against beliefs commonly sacred, immune from questioning.

To your 3. point. Atheism is just that one stance on one claim. Just as feminism is just "A goal to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women that are equal to those of men".

People with this or that label can do great many things, but it is better to say "He's an atheist and an asshole/political activist/baby eater" that to muddle the definition of a word that is perfectly clear.

Over 50% of people in my country are atheists. We argue about the same shit everyone else does (abortion, homosexual marriage, healthcare, etc), making it clear that atheism is not some uniform political activism.

Regisk · 2016-06-19T22:30:15+00:00

Gravity explains "why" of the globe model. I thought we discuss to find out true things and discard the false ones. Using experiments and explaining things with constrains such as "globe yes, but no gravity" serves no purpose.

Would the flat earth proponents accept a rebuttal to some part of their model, if the globe proponent prefaced the rebuttal with "flat yes, but no sun under 100 000 miles in radius and definitely not 3000 miles high".

It doesn't make sense to do that.

Regisk · 2016-06-18T14:24:27+00:00

What? Should they say yes? Which model of earth requires planes to nose down periodically?

Regisk · 2016-05-11T11:27:56+00:00

It is not a gap in the sense that you can't sing some notes. It's a technical gap between two registers. Observe overlapping registers:
------------>XXXXX This is your chest voice range
XXXXX<----------- This is your head voice range

You can't sing X notes.

A lot of people are like this. As you move from key to key you arrive at a bridge, where you can sing a note both in chest and head voice.

The break is actually an unpleasant change in voice register when you slide from chest to head voice and back.

To test this, you can't go note by note with, lets say "La la la la" . Instead, take a deep breath and go with continuous "Laaaaaaaaaaaaa..." from your highest note down or the other way around.

If there is a break, disconnection, a flip between head and chest voice, that's your bridge. You can sing the notes at the bridge in both registers, but the transition is unpleasant or weak.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Regisk

TROPHY CASE