I understand what you’re saying. But I am not talking about distracted talk. Even workplace and project focused talks. I find the culture to be very different in non engineering teams.
It's tightly integrated with it, so if not "only for Storybook," then near to it. I like Storybook, but it's not worth implementing solely for visual CI testing IMO.
But phrases like "snapshot testing" and "visual regression testing" are what you you/your FE team should be Googling – hopefully there's a tool out there that fits your existing architecture!
Otherwise, as sibling commenters have noted, a policy of screenshots also works.
The standard is a classic patchwork of whatever is used by IMS members currently.
LTI 1.3 is the current active version, which deprecated 2.0.
But wait LTI is actually a collection of standards. AGS (assignment and grade services), DL (deep linking), dynamic registration, etc.
And they are optional, and LMSes implement them in slightly different ways.
So good times.
But wait, there's also the afterthought of 1.3 compatibility jury rigged on top of 1.0/1.1 implementations. Which leads to comical implementation details poking their ugly heads out :)
The author is convinced that the couple’s life sucks.
He/she is writing from a point of view of superiority - “look, this is what they’re lacking, they can’t afford a Rs.8000 dinner”. To a billionaire, my software engineer life will look miserable - “They have to go eat at Panera and Olive Garden. For their employer, a nice dineout costs $5000.”
Can we stop looking down on people because they cannot afford what’s normal for us? I agree about the freedom and social parts here, so let’s focus on that. Most of the article seems to be written to evoke shock and awe from a middle-class person - look what they can’t afford! Lets focus on their social struggles instead of what they can or cannot afford.
> The author is convinced that the couple’s life sucks.
Objectively, their life does kinda suck. The woman is living in a slum and cleaning houses for a living, earning very little for a lot of exhausting labor. The man is doing little better. They have to be creative in finding places to just hang out with each other, which is really the foundation for any relationship.
This isn't a judgement call on their relative economic status; life is just more difficult for them. I didn't feel the author was looking down on them as much as pointing out the obscene difference in ease of living between the upper and lower classes.
I agree with some of your points. And kudos to the journalists for exploring this topic.
However, look at the following:
“She’s the first woman from her family who makes her own money.”
To her, that might be an amazing success. Getting out of your default path and making it on your own is a big thing. Why do we need to emphasize that she can’t afford to eat at a Zomato restaurant? Is that a minimum bar for life being good?
I agree with your point that they do have a lack of freedom and a lot of societal issues. Also basic facilities. Those should obviously be called out and kudos to the journalists for this.
I’m mainly commenting on the author’s choice of contrasting it with luxury brands:
> “I don’t really want any expensive gifts, or to go to big restaurants. These things are superficial,” said Anuradha, who said she likes watching romance movies and is a big Shah Rukh Khan fan.
Kudos to her, she doesn’t consider those important, then why does the author keep calling out luxuries she doesn’t have? Malls, expensive restaurants, Zomato, Tinder.
Sadly in Indian soceity, these luxury items are given too much importance in determining your “class”. In the US (and many less rich countries), take a look at articles on poverty. They focus on problems and solutions, not on brands they can’t afford.
Why do you think the author is convinced these people's lives suck? I didn't get that impression from the article. It describes their life. Some might have the reaction, "oh that sucks". Others might not.
In my humble opinion it all boils down to cost, and I don't mean monetary cost. I mean real cost. The cost of attention from a computational perspective.
What you described traces its roots in sensationalism, which is useful to catch people's attention (or so the piece becomes memorable for them).
As a soceity, we are always seeking to lower the cost of obtaining stimuli and qualia[1]. Combining this with the fact that people's lives become ever more complex, the cost of attention increases. Among the masses, short-attention span is now the norm.
Therefore it is important to practise mindfulness. And this is why I believe psychedelics and meditation are fundemental for us to transition into a more sensible soceity.
It's a matter of perspective though. Would you rather be with the love of your life and not have much disposable income or vice versa? I've actually experienced the opposite - living in Delhi with plenty of disposable income but no way to meet people, let alone women. I just hung out at home playing video games.
Would I trade places with them? No, I was content with my life. But would these folks swap with me? Based on how happy they are with each other, I'd guess not.
Does their life really suck though? It's probably harder with fewer luxuries but happiness is not proportional how much money you have/make. You could be a rich and miserable but you could also could be poor and happy/content.
I’ve wondered that too. In countries with massive class disparities why don’t the classes band together and revolt?
I don’t think this paints the full picture but I believe this is at least partially due to differences in regional identities even within the class. India has multiple major languages, several castes and sub-castes (reference to this has been made in the article). This makes class solidarity much harder among the lower classes, who also have difficulty in accessing good education.
The upper classes on the other hand all speak English or Hindi. They can communicate with one another. Their easier access to education and frequent contact with people from other regions of the country makes them care less about those divisions. There is much more class solidarity in the upper classes.
> In countries with massive class disparities why don’t the classes band together and revolt?
A lot of factors come into play there. Protesting and political engagement require a lot of time and energy. Many of the poorest people need to spend huge amounts of both just to survive to day to day.
Their health is often poor, they may not be as well educated, they're exhausted from back-breaking physical labor and from living in constant stress. It'd seem hard to expect people in that situation to organize a grassroots movement let alone an army.
Even if someone had the time, the energy, the physical and mental well-being to fight for change, and they could do all the work involved in determining exactly who it is that needs overthrowing, how to best set about doing that, and what should be done if they somehow succeed, they then still have to convince others who are lost in their own struggles for survival to abandon what little they've managed to secure for themselves and join them.
That's already a lot of overcome and doesn't even get into the countless ways people are conditioned to feel helpless, powerless, inadequate, responsible for their own suffering, or divided and intentionally pitted against each other or at least some "other" who can be blamed for their problems.
Then of course, even if they do manage to overcome all of that, they're still up against an enemy with vast amounts of resources and power. The only thing they've got going for them are their numbers and that they don't have all that much to lose.
It's amazing to me that revolts happen at all really.
It'd probably go a lot easier if it didn't start from the bottom. Get the declining middle classes involved or some sympathetic members of the upper class and it's another story entirely.
Very well said, and a sobering reality of the world - whenever and wherever "the few" hold the majority to ransom in a grotesque asymmetric power equilibrium.
Unfortunately, the same dynamic applies at the national/international level and can often be seen in attitudes between "developed" and "developing" nations.
Relative to a billionaire all our lives suck economically - "those poor wretches without even the resources to individually colonize space". (Pardon me for any billionaires reading). But there are a lot of ways to measure "suck" - independence, resourcefulness and self determination; Gross National Happiness Index; health/longevity; education; etc..
I got a different message from the article: the article brings a very different perspective to what the upper classes know of. These wage earners work the same wage for many of my friends in Delhi, irrespective of whether my friends earn $50k or $500k. Most of the upper classes literally look down on these folks, thinking perhaps that they are unable to date or go out and have fun, etc. The article shows that barring the price point, they engage in many of the same activities.
Some anecdotal evidence I've observed when visiting the homes of the lower wage workers in Delhi:-
1.) If they have a proper brick and mortar house, even on rent, they consider themselves successful. They do a very good job of maintaining their local colonies, even better than some of the upper class areas.
2.) The people in the above situation were often adamant about sending their kids to school, and in some cases, even private schools.
3.) They use most of the electronics we use, just cheaper versions. TVs, fridges, even a laptop in one household.
4.) The biggest differentiator between a happy lower income household and a dysfunctional one was alcohol and drug abuse.
5.) The "bad" ones are usually counseled by neighbors and members of the community, and if that was to no avail, later ostracized. There was always a support mechanism in place for the (nearly always female) victim so that she could continue living in the community.
In all of the above cases, we see that their lives mirror ours, or in some cases, they've had to adapt unique social systems despite the challenges, which ultimately seem to be better than the ones we upper class folks seem to have.
> He/she is writing from a point of view of superiority - “look, this is what they’re lacking, they can’t afford a Rs.8000 dinner”. To a billionaire, my software engineer life will look miserable - “They have to go eat at Panera and Olive Garden. For their employer, a nice dineout costs $5000.”
For all the hate these interviews get, they do make you a better programmer. Before doing these problems I had no framework for thinking about how to program optimally. Doing these problems helps a lot.
Don't fall for the hate people give. Every selective interview process gets hate. It's extremely useful for your development as a programmer.
Edit: I do think it's not good when there are bad interviewers. For example, interviewers who don't give you a chance to think, or expect you to know the perfect solution rightaway. Or just arrogant interviewers :(
I hate it when interviewer is an asshole. Somehow in my experience companies that have 'Leetcode' or that kind of thing in process have interviewer that is an asshole.
If someone thinks he is better than me just because he is in a position to ask questions, well that leaves me frustrated for the rest of the day after interview.
It is specially frustrating when you already have the experience, I am now almost 10 years and a senior dev and I cannot really put up with it.
When I was a junior trying to find any job I was not offended at all, but I still remember all bad interviews.
Everybody hates to be in front of an asshole no matter the context. Care to elaborate specific things you wish interviewers didn't do?
Context: I do conduct a fair amount of technical interviews and it can be quite awkward to be in front of an engineer with arguably more experience but that struggles to write a correct solution to a relatively simple problem.
Worst was being actively aggressive in their tone shooting questions and approach "well you have an engineering degree, we will see about that". Then there were quite some dismissive with sighing when not getting answers they like to hear.
They could keep it to themselves and go back to their colleagues and nag about "what a waste of time, that guy was".
I am also interviewing people from time to time, but I see it as part of my job not some kind of punishment. So maybe don't push technical colleagues, who are not happy about it, to do it.
> "well you have an engineering degree, we will see about that".
Well this means you dodged a bullet early :) It's better they wasted your time for the interview (couple hours or days of preparing?) than months or years of your time working there.
Yes, bullet possibly dodged but that still makes it frustrating and a time waster. And these types of interviews don’t expose or test on knowledge needed on the actual codebase. I see it as a cockyness contest which I don’t want to be part of.
I don't mind solving fizzbuzz, I don't mind take home assignments.
They don't know me and besides my CV they have to see that I can write code or see that I can use a computer. I can invest up to 2h into some task if I am switching jobs and offer/company is interesting for me.
For some specialistic roles I don't mind questions about specific technologies, just keep in mind that for example "Web Development" spans so many topics that we might have vastly different experience and questions that you ask or the way you ask them might not connect to my experience.
That is why it should be more of a discussion to try to find out common understanding than grill:quizz, shooting question and 0.5s answer.
I agree to an extent, but at my company we have hired a few very intelligent people who ace these leet code algorithmic interviews, but they're at the same time the most incompetent engineers in the company.
On top of prematurely optimising code that executes once in a blue moon and creating an unnecessary maintenance burden, they also lacked any skill in designing codebases whatsoever, and generally pick the worst solution for a problem (which is sometimes detrimental to performance overall, even if the "local implemenation" is great) Most of my refactoring nightmare situations were caused by leetcoders.
Maybw it's just anecdotal, but in my experience there's been a strong correlation.
Also an aside: they tend to be quite a bit snobby/circlejerky and vastly overestimate their skills. IMO, leetcoding is a skill but not the most important one. And also, once you start approaching software as design/engineering, the leetcode will start coming gradually and naturally to you.
Also 'CS' has grown into a huge and varied field that can include everything from highly abstract mathematics to cognitive behavior and human psychology. If you want to it is absolutely possible to get through an entire CS curriculum without doing much actual practical programming.
Quite an entitled comment. Studying CS in school doesn't mean you've learned everything there is while practicing programming. Yes, you learn these skills on the job, but doing programming interview questions helped me learn skills too.
Frankly, as a return student, most students I've encountered at my crappy state school are incredibly entitled. On top of that, don't know how to code. That's because my shitty state school lumped in programming with general IT support as if they're the same field. I don't understand why a network analyst or database admin needs to know about OOP or Algorithms when the most complicated thing they're gonna do is work with AD or maybe manage a server.
It's not an entitled comment, it's a genuine question. If you claim you "had no framework" you need to explain why.
The point of any CS curriculum is just that, providing you with a framework (which should ideally be a balance of theoretical and practical knowledge). It doesn't teach you the job. Neither do leetcode questions.
Sorry if I misunderstood. I don't think most CS curriculums teach you analyzing programs and writing them efficiently. My data structures and algorithms classes were great but still not enough practical knowledge to implement programs day to day. On top of that, there was practically no code review. I don't think there's enough time for professors and TAs to analyze your code and tell you if this is a good way of doing things or is it clean or will it waste a lot of memory.
Still, leetcode might teach you to write code that passes time and memory constraints, but it certainly won't teach you how to write clean code that passes a code review.
I agree. I don't think Leetcode is a good reflection of programming interviews. In programming interviews, you're supposed to have a sound thought process, write clean code, and don't need to pass hundreds of test cases. Leetcode is just a programming environment that, imo, is not the same as a programming interview.
I'd rather learn interview algorithms from books. And by getting feedback from trusted peers.
