Yep, but the other way around. Open source was Microsoft's fiercest enemy, and now it's managed to root deep inside the company, eating it from the inside out, turning Microsoft into something very very different than what it was 15 years ago. We won!
I remember someone replied with that to a comment of mine. I find it hard to find words for it as a non-native speaker, as I don't have to express this often, but it's rather derogatory/denigrating/belittling, as if someone is speaking complete nonsense. At the same time, it's not an obvious personal / ad hominem statement, so it's unlikely to be moderated.
Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the attitude here.
Game of Thrones reference. It’s usually not intended to be quite as snarky as it sounds, as it’s often used just because fans of the show are tempted to apply it. Otherwise, your perception is accurate.
> Ask at the onset whether or not people would pay for the product you intend to develop. This is the Willingness-to-Pay talk,” Ramanujam argues. “Frontloading this question is powerful because customers won’t be in the mindset of negotiating price. Instead, they’ll give you objective feedback that you can use to prioritize what you’re building.
Nah. People aren't objective about their purchasing decisions like that. The only way to find about willingness to pay is through actual experimentation.
Tech leadership is extremely hard. You either get at one extreme the MBA trained to think producing sugared beverages is equivalent to producing software, and at the other the formerly great coder that couldn't metamorphose himself to be able to manage people. Having all the required qualities is extremely rare.
It's still, also by many indexes, one of the safest countries in the world, despite the objectively isolated issues you see in the media... Unless you come from another top OECD, coming back doesn't sound like a great deal.
What's your definition of "isolated issue"? Most people use it to mean a random one-off that isn't part of a pattern, which can't reasonably be applied to mass shootings in the US at this point.
Mass shooting and terrorist atacks are still extremely rare events, very much like plane crashes, compared to the many other ways one could get killed or injured.
I agree that mass shootings aren't a large statistical risk for an individual. I'm only objecting to the use of language that suggests they aren't a systemic issue.
Considering there's a shortage of labour supply in this industry, if you're good enough, at some point it is you who is screening candidate companies you'd like to work with and not the other around. And just as it's hard for companies to find the right candidates, it's hard for you to really tell how work is gonna be like with any given company. Things like ageism, culture-fit crap, ping-pong tables benefits (instead of better pay) are all great hints that give away places you don't wanna work in. Not just because those things are bad by themselves, but also they reveal a lack of moral principles that's gonna be reflected later on in the job in many other ways.
