I interned as an orthodontic assistant before entering the software engineering field. Dental school admissions are highly competitive, require several years of additional schooling, and will place the student in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. My anecdote follows.
The orthodontist I worked for put in serious hours well beyond many of the "crunch time" horror stories we hear in tech, typically arriving at her practice at 5:30am and leaving at 8pm (prepping the office, working on orthodontic appliances, case studies, paperwork), and working Saturdays as a part time Dean at the local dental school.
There were also state mandated continuing education requirements, the occasional emergency call, lawsuit, delinquent payments, marketing and sales for her practice, the occasional sales call from a vendor rolling out "Smart Brackets", and the need to manage 10+ employees and maintain professional relationships with other dental medicine practitioners for referrals and covering sick days.
She was incredibly driven and competitive, probably an outlier, but was also certainly a multimillionaire and an accomplished dentist.
What do Atom and Visual Studio Code offer that Sublime Text doesn't?
I have tried both within the last year and wasn't able to find any significant advantages (except for VS Code's excellent TypeScript experience), but they both ran slower and used more memory. Perhaps I should have used Nuclide?
(Not asking about Webstorm because I've used the IntelliJ family of IDEs and understand their advantages)
It would greatly suprise me if either Atom of VSCode shut up tomorrow. They couldn't entirely shut up, as they are both entirely open source projects.
The Sublime Text website could just close tomorrow if one person got badly hurt / lost interest, and then the executable could not work on Mac OS X 10.11.6 for some reason, and it is done.
I've had too many pieces of software go that way to get another one which is so fundamentally important to me (text editor).
That plugins are written in javascript (larger developer base) and allows more customization of Atom (more open plugin api) also yields more niche plugins.
To be honest I use Atom mostly for writing Markdown. I am a paid subscriber for Webstorm, but I have found that I am using it a bit less lately and have been using Visual Studio Code a lot more, partially because I use TypeScript, love the intellisense and overall the editor is super fast and stable. Atom definitely has some slowness issues they need to overcome and ironically Visual Studio Code is based on Atom, but it is a great editor and there are a heap of plugins out there for it.
In terms of memory usage, Sublime would arguably win the fight (at least it feels that way). I think ST is also lacking in the plugin department these days as well, but I could be wrong about that. The interface of both Atom and VSCode is arguably better as well and maybe things have changed, but the ST3 betas have been pretty buggy in my experience as well. The native Git integration is also pretty great as well (especially in VSCode).
Sublime also lacks a native package manager of which VSCode and Atom have, but there is a third party package manager which works well, so it's a moot point.
It's a small thing, but I really love how Atom highlights the files that have changed in the tree view out of the box. Haven't figured out how to do that in Atom...
Yes. When you open a directory that is a git repository, the files in the sidebar will have different color if they're modified, new, etc. When viewing actual files, edited/new/deletes lines will also have markers in the gutter.
They are free and development is much more active. Community is also getting stronger, as they are both open source. This means that plugins are always up to date.
Also if you have tried Atom at some point, try it again, they made it much better and faster. Only thing I miss is how incredibly fast Sublime Text is.
From the team at TrueVault, a GitHub repo with a developer's guide to HIPAA compliance. Similar to Aptible, they pitch themselves within the guide but still a good resource:
The guide is pretty good and definitely helped me get up to speed with HIPAA. The product, not so much. They had 10 days of downtime around Thanksgiving. Not a happy holiday for my team.
Nice report, sounds like a nightmare scenario. You seem to take care to don't mention any names of the used technologies/vendors even though the report specifically says they have admitted to misleading you. Is this because you have reached some kind of settlement with them?
But who decides who has control over their mental faculties? Who decides who is competent? The state? The family? The physician?
Can you imagine scenarios where the state, or the family, or the physician are incompetent, selfish, or malicious in determining the competence of a person? I believe there are MANY such scenarios.
This isn't a hypothetical for me... like the author of the article we're discussing, I've had close friends suffer from schizophrenia and depression, and seen one of them involuntarily institutionalized. I wish it was so clear cut SpaghettiCat, but I think the majority of mental health cases are not so black and white as the one in the article.
> But who decides who has control over their mental faculties? Who decides who is competent? The state? The family? The physician?
Who is the most competent to make this decision? The medical professional. Of course government (advised by medical professionals) will set the policy which will constrain the possible decisions.
> Can you imagine scenarios where the state, or the family, or the physician are incompetent, selfish, or malicious in determining the competence of a person? I believe there are MANY such scenarios.
This could apply to absolutely everything: evil police officers taking bribes and releasing criminals, doctors not prescribing expensive medicine to save their hospital money, etc. Does that mean we do away with police protection and hospital services entirely? No, as in this case, we have to accept the risk of the person in authority to make the good decision.
> Who is the most competent to make this decision? The medical professional. Of course government (advised by medical professionals) will set the policy which will constrain the possible decisions.
This has gone poorly quite often throughout history, which is why it's a tough question. Homosexually was officially considered a mental illness in America until 1974.
Note that countries used to do a lot more forced institutionalization than they do now. There were lots of abuses (even in the West, to say nothing of the way it worked in the Soviet Union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_... should be a must-read for anyone arguing for government involvement in institutionalization decisions) and people have backed away from that sort of thing.
It's possible that Europe and the US have swung too much to the other extreme now, of course. But as you say this is very much not black and white.
And there have been at least as many cases of political abuse of the police force, should we also cut down on that just because there is a potential for abuse? Many instutions that are intended to good can be abused or used as political weapons under a totallitarian government, but I think the potential for abuse is much reduced under a more benevolent political system.
Police abuse in a "benevolent political system" generally reads to things like bills of rights and restrictions on when the police can arrest people. Sometimes that means criminals go free.
That's precisely what happened with psychiatric institutionalization: abuses (not just in totalitation regimes) led to restrictions on when it can happen. Sometimes that means that people who maybe should be institutionalized are not.
My childhood best friend and college roommate shocked me by calling one of our CS classmates a "huge bitch" for not going on a date with him after they had lunch together our first week of college.
I've lost track of how many sexist lines I've heard, like:
"make me a sammich bitch, haha",
"don't be an emo bitch about it, haha",
"if we don't let people freely express themselves on the CS listserv, then this is a tyrannical school that has been ruined by feminists (this one after of course, a guy posted a several page rant about why women are bitches, 'haha')".
Also, let me tell you this story of two friends I knew who applied at a certain internet start-up on Market Street in San Francisco in 2014:
A was male, 21 years old, a stoner and business school drop-out with a portfolio consisting of a Java tower defense game.
B was female, 30 years old, with several years experience doing QA on computer peripheral drivers who had re-trained herself as a web developer and had a Rails StackOverflow clone and a Meteor KhanAcademy clone for her portfolio.
A got offered a six-figure full time position.
B got offered an internship.
Final point, I've seen so much elitist and arrogant behavior from MEN directed towards OTHER MEN. Nothing could be further from the truth than software being completely welcoming. Of course it's still a very good industry overall; it's by no means the worst.
"that guy was kind of a dick" is an offhand comment that just means "rude" or "jerk" and you hear it all the time from college age women when referencing the slightest deviations from their standards of behavior. It refers to the male genitalia in a negative connotation and is terefor far more explicit than the dog word.
It sounds like you're trolling, but if you aren't:
1. One wrong does not make another wrong right.
2. "Dick" is used as an offhand comment usually because it is considered less offensive than other words with the same meaning, like "asshole" or "piece of shit".
3. I agree that women treat men badly as well. People suck.
4. Imagine your daughter or mother being called an "emo bitch" because they reacted angrily to an insult. Would you tell her "well at least they didn't explicitly insult your genitalia?"
True but the two neutralize each other when thinking in terms of a running tally of gender-specific offensive terminology.
> used as an offhand comment usually because it is considered less offensive than other words with the same meaning
the fact that it's considered less offensive simply illustrates a bias towards the acceptance of gender-specific negative remarks or "putdowns" when they're directed away from the feminine and towards the masculine. This goes to my point that actually women do throw a lot of these remarks around but we've just learned to tune them out. If a man makes a 'putdown' remark towards a young lady in class which references the female reproductive anatomy then he's on shaky ground and theoretically could have to worry about a lawsuit, but not the other way around.
> 4. Imagine your daughter or mother being called an "emo bitch" because they reacted angrily to an insult. Would you tell her "well at least they didn't explicitly insult your genitalia?"
I don't know a ton about the word "emo" but I assume it means "overly emotional" and the word "bitch" is a gender-specific word which insinuates that she's not attractive. While I'm sure we both agree that such a rude and insulting phrase is a terrible thing to say to anyone it's still only aimed at the individual.
On the other hand when you use a phallus reference as an implied negative connotation then you've just made a sexist remark because it denigrates an entire gender.
If I had to choose one or the other I'd rather my mother or daughter be exposed to rudeness or insult before obvious yet normalized sexist remarks.
> A was male, 21 years old, a stoner and business school drop-out with a portfolio consisting of a Java tower defense game.
> B was female, 30 years old, with several years experience doing QA on computer peripheral drivers who had re-trained herself as a web developer and had a Rails StackOverflow clone and a Meteor KhanAcademy clone for her portfolio.
Unfortunately, that's how college kids talk. I wish they wouldn't be so crude, but the language isn't CS-specific. That women in general are doing so well in college in general relative to men suggests crude language on the part of college men is not a serious problem. In the professional world, that kind of denigration would be completely unacceptable.
> Also, let me tell you this story of two friends I knew who applied at a certain internet start-up on Market Street in San Francisco in 2014
I don't think it's reasonable to generalize from this anecdote. Maybe he aced his interviews and she flubbed them.
I feel like you're taking an elitist position... I've heard this applied to professionals at every level of education. A quick find-and-replace applied to your comment follows.
---
The difference between having a job in programming and having a career in programming is your grasp of the fundamentals of computing. This is because the ability of a person to learn new technologies and techniques is largely a function of their grasp of fundamentals.
Fundamentals that Undergraduate Computer Science Programs uniformly skip over in the interests of getting to experience faster.
In the abstract, it is of course fully, completely, and totally possible for a person to learn this independently or on the job. In practice, that is sufficiently rare as to not be worth discussing. Jobs where Recent Developments in Deep Learning at Stanford are taught in the office are, I suspect, similarly rare.
Undergraduate Computer Science skills are only useful so long as the person never needs to learn a different paradigm, learn significantly different technologies that require thinking differently, move into a different type of programming, or desires significant technical career advancement. Those things require a mix of fundamental knowledge and experience.
I've been accused of elitism before on this subject.
Let me tell you about a person who did so. This person wanted to help the team design database schemas. This person did not have a background with strong computer science fundamentals and did not understand relational calculus. The person struggled to contribute, ultimately becoming a drag on the schema design process. When offered educational materials on the subject of relational calculus that would have addressed this lack of knowledge, using them was quickly given up as too difficult. This person was thus sharply limited, and extremely frustrated, by their lack of Undergraduate Computer Science fundamentals.
Your find-and-replace is only meaningful if you treat "Undergraduate Computer Science" as a string literal with no semantic meaning.
Elitist is not the same as wrong. Medical education is pretty elitist too. That doesn't mean I want to designate everyone who owns a knife as a surgeon. Should I find-and-replace your comment to the tune of s/elitist/populist/, on the assumption that elitism == bad and populism == good?
And before you say that we're just programmers and thus not dealing with life-critical things like doctors are, I refer you to the case of Therac-25.
Feedback from my diabetic neighbor: this is useless to him without gram values for all the macronutrients, because he needs to calculate his insulin dosages. Percentages aren't enough.
You think people with cs degrees deal with stack swaps better than boot campers? I went to a top 10 cs program and I don't think so. Both populations push out equally ineffectual grads, only passionate programmers can really be fluid, something that no program can instill
As someone who failed to reach the top of the e-sports scene a little less than 10 years ago, I can tell you that I developed valuable skills and tenacity that serve me well today.
Anyone who struggles for the top will be transformed.
The orthodontist I worked for put in serious hours well beyond many of the "crunch time" horror stories we hear in tech, typically arriving at her practice at 5:30am and leaving at 8pm (prepping the office, working on orthodontic appliances, case studies, paperwork), and working Saturdays as a part time Dean at the local dental school.
There were also state mandated continuing education requirements, the occasional emergency call, lawsuit, delinquent payments, marketing and sales for her practice, the occasional sales call from a vendor rolling out "Smart Brackets", and the need to manage 10+ employees and maintain professional relationships with other dental medicine practitioners for referrals and covering sick days.
She was incredibly driven and competitive, probably an outlier, but was also certainly a multimillionaire and an accomplished dentist.