I think the reasons are more practical. It's rare that it rains very hard in Portland. Carrying an umbrella throughout six to eight months of the year just in case is inconvenient, and you'll probably end up losing it anyway. A light rain jacket is easier to deal with and also blocks the wind. I don't think pride has much to do with it.
This PSU site may be of interest to anyone who's made it this far into the thread: http://neighborhoodpulsepdx.org/. It has some charts and maps that explore some of the data relating to population growth in the Portland area.
I don't think anyone does `git bisect` all that often, but... when you need to do it, you hope the history is clean. Otherwise, figuring out what went wrong and where can be a nightmare.
I just went to one of my repos on Bitbucket, and it only took me one click to get to the source for master and then another click to get to the source for another branch.
You can also set up a project so the source is shown by default on the "landing page" instead of the overview.
The main reason I prefer a lighter bike is for when I need to carry it up some stairs or something like that. For most everyday riding I don't think weight matters much.
I feel the same about carrying the bikes up stairs :-)
However there is a noticeable difference in riding as well, unless you ride only on short distances.
You can simulate the difference on the same bicycle so the comparison is not tainted by different tires and mechanical components. You can add 5 kg (or 10 pounds) here and there or even in a backpack (but it will harm your performance in other ways). Maybe don't put weight on the steering/front wheel because that will make for a difficult handling. You can use water, so you can release it at any time and feel the difference.
You'll notice that with the extra weight you accelerate less and climb worse. All sort of disadvantages derive from that. If you do 100 km and you have a choice, you'll go for the lighter bicycle. Unfortunately that means a lighter purse as well, maybe much lighter.
I would think that when someone writes a document like this that the context is really important for the record and that they're not so concerned with making an "impact".
I initially only glanced at the about page without reading it, but after I saw your comment, I went back and read the whole thing. Most of it is just (interesting IMO) info about the site and the technology behind it.
Or, at a higher level, maybe their approach to soliciting candidates is wrong. A lot of the job descriptions I see are sloppy. Or they're so vague that you can't figure out what you'd actually be doing (or what the day-to-day would be like). Some of them throw in peripheral technologies just to cover all the bases or something.
It seems like a lot of hiring managers/companies treat a job description as an afterthought when it actually has a huge effect on who applies for a position (_obviously_). People who have more options will tend to ignore the sloppy, vague postings.
The person who wrote this article seems more conscientious than this, but it's something to consider.
I use DRF with Angular at work, so I'm interested in seeing where this series goes.
Tangentially, I can't imagine using Django without DRF. It makes setting up RESTful(ish) APIs so easy. Even if you don't care much about the RESTful aspects, it provides a much nicer way to organize your code than default Django IMO. I especially like how serialization works versus Django forms.
I found the best thing about DRF was how well it conforms to Django conventions. Model serializers work very like model forms and the class based views are almost the same.
What's really bizarre is that they actually deliver the article content in the initial HTML response. It's just hidden using CSS. You can read it by turning off CSS for the page.
