You are doing what you are accusing the author of this piece of doing.
Do you have anything to add about the total lack of evidence of the Bulstrode piece?
Are you claiming that the 18% number the Museum of London piece is claiming is anything less than fantastical? Can you engage with the argument with any evidence?
The reason the author couldn't find hard evidence about the number of black people in London in the 1300s is because there were so few that in this context it is a silly question.
If they are doubling your salary at the start up your compensation at your previous role is probably at about the bottom or even below the bottom of what you would make on the market if the startup goes bust.
If the economy gets so bad that you get laid off from the startup and (seems unlikely at this point) that you would be unable to get any job at your current low salary, there is a decent chance you would have been laid off at the first job regardless.
I would say go for it, completely ignoring all quality of life variables like work life balance, getting along with your team, doing interesting work, and so forth. These things matter a lot as well so it's worth thinking about those. In terms of money it seems like a no brainer to me.
Its funny because my experience has been the exact opposite. I have sold three cars to them in the past 2 years (long story) and all of them were several thousand above what other dealers in the area or carvana/shift/vroom were willing to pay. Every time I got one of their offers I was like, "Huh. Ok".
However in buying cars from them, everything seems a overpriced compared to the local market.
My understanding of it is that they make money by doing used car arbitrage. They knew they could make money on the cars I sold them by shipping them across the country. And I think people are willing to pay a little more to buy a car from them because of all of the guarantees and how painless it is.
As soon as I see the JSX critique I roll my eyes. This has been around since reacts inception and it just doesn't hold any water for me. I remember interviewing with a company in 2019 that was still on Angular 1 because they didn't like JSX, and didn't want to learn typescript. It just "looked yucky" to them.
Very very poor reasoning. I have never thought to myself, man I wish this wasn't JSX and just normal Javascript, to myself in the 6 or so years I've been using React. It just isn't something that anyone should care about and it shows the author has probably been biased against React forever, for no good reason.
I understand the instinctive reaction against JSX. I did a lot of Perl and PHP way back when, when it was super common to have bits of template sprinkled hither and thither with logic woven in here and there, and it made maintainability a nightmare. When the world moved on to dumb templates and embrace of MVC, it was a huge relief. JSX felt like a regression in that regard, but in practice, I think it ends up being pretty straightforward, in part due to the lack of any real flow control inside of it, and in part because of the convention of having small functional components which return a JSX tree, rather than bits of JSX just popping up everywhere here and there.
> JSX felt like a regression in that regard, but in practice, I think it ends up being pretty straightforward
> rather than bits of JSX just popping up everywhere here and there.
I did see lots of codebase write jsx like this. So I hate it. I starts the journey of front-end from jquery, ejs, angular.js, react to vue. And jsx of react always feels like a bad step to me.
Yes, If you write jsx properly, then it is just as readable as a normal template. But somehow some people never get it. And react also never made any attempt to stop insane codebase like this to exist.
(And you'd better pray your previous codebase owner isn't one of these, or you are in a big trouble)
You can definitely do JSX wrong. React doesn't do a whole lot to protect you from it, it's true. But, in a project which uses it well, I hate it a lot less than I once did.
That's the thing about react, there basically are no edges or very very few edges left. There were edges in like 2018, but the team has made it relatively easy to do anything you want to do, while writing scalable and maintainable code.
Electricians are a service job which usually have references and reviews and a government body which is indirectly required to monitor their performance by collecting complaints.
Doctors are also a service job with references but they also have a surgical record for various surgeries and a board they answer to which can revoke their ability to practice medicine.
Many mechanical engineers will have something they can show from a previous employer because for ME the field is about improving processes/machines, not the machines that are produced. Others also have CAD that they do on their free time. With 3d printers becoming more accessible I have seen some ME students/grads do some cool stuff on the side.
Chemists, that is the only one I don't know anyone in the field and a field which is not very regulated.
I do not follow. None of those you mentioned are personal hobby projects, they're the same kind of references you can ask software engineer for. I'm regularly asked to provide at least 2-3 contact points from my previous jobs but that's largely insufficient to get the offer and is most usually done only at the end of the hiring process (meaning that it probably does not pose a big factor).
So, what's the deal? Why have we ingrained serious doubts when it comes to software engineering skills? Why a 10+ year experienced SE must go through a process of "proving" the skills through 5-6 interviewing rounds while a 10+ year experienced doctor doesn't?
I don't think this correlates to job regulations as some seem to be suggesting here but I also don't have a better answer myself. It's intriguing to me overall.
People who use them illegally and without caution in this case.
Realistically its a lack of drug education. It isn't hard to understand high powered versions of a substance will be much stronger in effect. We see the same issue with people chugging down energy drinks with 350mg+ of caffeine and complaining of the end result.
This seems like it was more or less just a straight-up scam. They told customers that they were investing their funds in a diversified set of stablecoins. They promised the customers they could not lose money because the stablecoins were all backed. They then put all of the money into Terra, an algorithmic stablecoin, which is not backed by anything.
Terra gave yields near 20%, but Stablegains gave 15%, so they were basically just skimming 5% off the top. I wonder if it will be possible to sue or even prosecute.
You can't simultaneously be stable while also gaining in value. Remember the golden rule of trading: in order for someone to sell an asset for a price, someone else must want to buy that asset for that same price. Luna continually going up must destabilize Terra. The trick is that you moved all the instability to one side of the equation, trying to pretend it's not there.
It's a scam on its very face because it's promising a stable, perpetual motion machine.
Doesn't stop the legions of commenters who will join discussions like these to proudly assert that the US dollar is "backed by" the US economy, the US military, etc.
In my experience none of what you are talking about is necessary to have a successful tech career. In my case I have an English degree, went to a boot camp, and worked fairly hard at medium sized companies for a few years. I work at a company where I make as much or more than a lot of doctors. A lot of my colleagues are from places like Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc.
I could probably not have even gone to college, it was just getting the first job that mattered. Probably wouldn't have gotten into Google or whatever with that first job, but it isn't hard to work your way up if you interview well.
Maybe we disagree about what "really successful" means. I personally feel that the way things are now if I was actually motivated to make as much as possible I could get promoted and ladder my way up about as far as I wanted to in this industry, but I have no desire to do this because I make plenty of money and only work about 25 hours a week. If I wanted to I could also go work for some exciting startup, but I would have to work a lot harder which is something I don't want to do.
The point being that what you do in high school, college, or even most of your career doesn't really matter that much if you are smart and can actually figure out what you are doing.
Do you have anything to add about the total lack of evidence of the Bulstrode piece?
Are you claiming that the 18% number the Museum of London piece is claiming is anything less than fantastical? Can you engage with the argument with any evidence?
The reason the author couldn't find hard evidence about the number of black people in London in the 1300s is because there were so few that in this context it is a silly question.