If you get good at the second one, building things, you can generally find employment. If your primary concern is finding employment you will find yourself chasing resume points that aren't helpful in writing original software.
Also, always look for areas of software with the higher barriers of entry. Those jobs are fewer, but the candidates for those jobs are fewer still. My experience has taught me high barrier of entry jobs tend to be more stable and your peers substantially better qualified. I spent 15 years as a JavaScript developer and while I loved writing JavaScript applications, most people who do that work tend to be very bad at what they do and are extremely insecure about it. Fulfillment in any career comes from building amazing things and working with exceptional people, which you won't get in a low barrier of entry area of software.
I completely disagree with almost the entirety of the article. It’s all about prior experience building large things many times yourself, not using some framework or other external abstraction.
When you have done this many times you absolutely can design a large application without touching the code. This is part planning and risk analysis experience and part architecture experience. You absolutely need a lot of experience creating large applications multiple times and going through that organizational grind but prior experience in management and writing high level plans is extremely helpful.
You’re speaking of implementing yet another system of a familiar kind, I.e. a new project. The OP says that generic design works for new projects. He’s mostly talking about designing new features to be added to an existing system, in which case the design has to be contingent on the existing system.
Software developers like to think they are special. They aren't. Software, from a planning perspective, is not much different than physical construction.
When it comes to extending an existing application it really comes down to how well the base application was planned to begin with. In most cases the base application developers have no idea, because they either outsourced the planning to some external artifact or simply pushed through it one line at a time and never looked back. Either way the person writing the extension will be more concerned with the corresponding service data and accessibility than conformance to the base application code if it is not well documented and not well tested in a test automation scheme.
Why are you rewriting the same application a second time?
I've personally yet to have a situation where that comes up. And every application I've ever worked on has its architecture evolve over time, as behavior changes and new domain concepts are identified.
There are recurring patterns (one might even call them Design Patterns), but by the time we've internalized them we have even less need for up-front planning. Why write the doc when you can just implement the code?
I have watched this comment bounce up and down in votes all day from 0 earlier in the day up to a max of 4 up votes and now back to 0. I really think this controversy goes to the extreme Dunning-Kruger of software. There are so many developers that are just unqualified button pressers who cannot see what they don't know, but for people who have enough experience to write original software there is common knowledge that most lesser developers cannot accept.
The problem is that this looks like an excuse to just murder people under military occupation. It does not look like it has anything to do with defense.
If you want this to be about defense then end the occupation. Emancipate all occupied peoples into full citizenship with equivalent protection under the same civilian legal code. Until that happens the government of Israel looks like a bunch of racist savages hell bent on murder.
It is not apartheid because the law is not actually making this distinction. The article does three things, and the title ... the title just does not cover the contents:
1) a law is proposed to make it possible to get the death sentence for the worst terrorism offenses. The law does not specify the religion of the terrorist as a factor, though obviously it would predictably affect one group much more than another.
2) a far-right politician with very bad taste in Jewellery claims that no Jew would ever commit terrorism. Incidentally, this politician has been convicted many times by the Israeli legal system. And then he got elected again.
Imho, these two statements do not correctly combine to the sensationalized title of the article.
3) the article points out that this is not the first time a law like this is proposed in Israel, for the same exact reason: the PA uses funds from the UN to pay terrorists and their families, literally per Jew killed. This is why there are claims that the UN pays for terrorists to hunt Jews, because that statement is literally true, just not directly. Palestinians swear in English they'll stop this practice on a regular basis since at least 1995. In arabic they shout on TV they'll never stop doing this. And then they don't stop doing that.
Note: these pay-per-slay payments are referred to by most media, even the BBC, as the "social safety net" of Palestine. Reality: can't work? (try to) kill some Jews, and the Palestinian government will pay your family a living wage based on how much damage you did.
> It was characterised by an authoritarian political culture based on baasskap (lit. 'boss-ship' or 'boss-hood'), which ensured that South Africa was dominated politically, socially, and economically by the nation's minority white population.[4] Under this minoritarian system, white citizens held the highest status, followed by Indians, Coloureds and black Africans, in that order.
Israeli settlers living in the West Bank fall under a different legal code than the non-Israeli citizens living there. Israelis fall under Israel's civilian legal code while the occupied non-citizens fall under a harsher military occupation system without due process. That system of segregation and separated legal codes is the very nature of apartheid. One class of people has less protections than the other without a means of redress.
That distinction in practical terms is that people in the citizen status are rarely held to account for violent crimes against the people in the non-citizen class while the people in the non-citizen class are severely punished for extremely minor offenses. For example there are cases were IDF soldiers commit first degree homicide on video and yet still receive lighter penalties than minors of the non-citizen class for throwing stones.
By the way, the US used to have a less formalized system of apartheid system as well called separate but equal, but it was eliminated in 1954.
> Israelis fall under Israel's civilian legal code while the occupied non-citizens fall under a harsher military occupation system without due process.
Every country treats citizens and non-citizens differently. Apartheid is about discrimination based on race, not based on citizenship.
You are incorrectly commingling the concepts of legal status and legal system. People can have different status assignments and still fall under the same legal system, which is how most countries work, but not Israel.
It does make it apartheid when one group imposes separate legal systems to intentionally advantage one party over another. That is the most essential nature behind the term apartheid. In both cases of South Africa and Israel the primary motivation is to transfer land from the disadvantaged party without their consent.
It’s like saying that border control with Mexico is apartheid because the main motivation is racism against Mexicans. There’s a grain of truth (racism exists), but it’s not really the reason we have border control, and even if it was it still wouldn’t be apartheid.
To see why Israel ended up with the current system, we have to consider a bunch of possible alternatives (eg giving citizenship to all residents), each of which runs into legal and/or security problems.
Wow, if this is how you think, you must really hate Palestine and even Islam ... after all that is exactly what Islam as a religion proscribes, and the Palestine government applies those laws and makes them worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi, note the laws on ownership and inheritance. That is definitely taking advantage of one party. And, of course, it's muslims taking advantage.
But Palestine, of course, has actually gone further, and has done exactly what you say makes a system apartheid, alter laws to transfer land from a disadvantaged party without consent:
So now we pretend you see your mistake and you don't just change what was never your opinion on apartheid, just to keep hating Jews? I mean I expect you to call me a racist for pointing out that you're making up excuses for hating Jews, but I keep getting told to expect the best from people.
I'm not changing the subject, I just pointed out that your description of apartheid really fits the people you claim are victims here. Somehow I think you do not wish to discuss what your definition means about them. Because, well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say: you checked ... and found that I'm right about at the very least the contents and existence of those laws. And of course that those laws, both the Palestinian ones and the islamic laws are racist and frankly inhumane. That they both violate human rights and are far worse than anything you've mentioned ... and that they are directly related to the subject.
So you're grooving on the Palestinian discriminatory laws he cited but sidestepping that whole issue because it's inconvenient? Or, let me guess, what-about-ism?
A PhD means you can do novel research. As a full stack developer what novel subject(s) did you explore? That is the middle you are missing.
A big part of the problem is that you were spending time with tech stacks and frameworks. These have almost no practical utility value aside from attaining employment in a low skill area of software. I am saying that as a former 15 year JavaScript developer. Instead use your research background to solve real problems faced by businesses and users that you can measure.
I am in management of enterprise API development. AI might replace coders but it won’t eliminate people who can work between teams and make firm decisions that drive complex projects forward. Many developers appear to struggle with this and when completely lost they look to waste effort on building SOPs instead of just formulating an original product.
Before this I was a JavaScript developer. I can absolutely see AI replacing most JavaScript developers. It felt really autistic with most people completely terrified to write original code. Everything had to be a React template with a ton of copy/paste. Watch the emotional apocalypse when you take React away.
When I started there used to be database analysts and server administrators. There still are but they're in far fewer supply because developers have mostly taken on those roles.
And I think you're right. Cross-function is super important. That's why I think the next consolidation is going to roll up to product development. Basically the product developers that can use AI and manage the full stack are going to be successful but I don't know how long that will last.
What's even more unsettling to me is it's probably going to end up being completely different in a way that nobody can predict. Your predictions, my predictions might be completely wrong, which is par for the course.
> I write “brought about” advisedly. What distinguishes the Gaza genocide is the West’s direct responsibility.
Paid for by US tax dollars and executed with US weapons. Most Americans look at the recent genocides in Darfur and Myanmar as a billion miles away and fully unrelated to American statecraft.
Then we look at numerous photos and videos of mutilated Gaza children and hundreds of assassinated journalists knowing that Americans are directly responsible for this with our taxes and praise from most of our politicians. It’s no surprise that so many Americans feel shame and disgust. Simultaneously, Americans are also watching enablers trying to purchase our media enterprise while the most senior Israeli politicians make incendiary racist statements praising the murder of thousands of small children.
If capitalism is actually the goal then wealthy heirs are a hugely inefficient drain on the system of production, retail, and transactions.
reply