> Gen Z don't use devices with knobs and buttons anymore, therefore we should all design our interface elements to look like nothing in particular?
Knobs work as a tactile interface that require two fingers minimum to rotate predictably. With digital screens we lost the tactile element, and mandated a new one finger (thumb) minimum. Interfaces had to adapt, which is why knobs were replaced with sliders. Changes like this happened all over the place; not because of "gen-Z", but because they were the most effective solution for the platform.
Consent for non-essential cookies, like analytics, is required. You must also provide a clear link to your cookie usage policy, and a simple way to opt-out. This notification is not necessary if you only use functional cookies; for example, using a cookie to only show an on-boarding tutorial once is acceptable.
Organizations, and typically lawyers, skew conservative and lazy. A little cookie-consent cottage industry popped up to handle GDPR, so instead of worrying about the regulations most companies pay the small monthly service charge for a third party to handle consent. The consent companies built the most compatible solution, a banner, with the most conservative options as default to prevent any legal quandary.
Most public facing sites do have analytics (usually LOTS of analytics) and ads, so the banner is mandatory for them. If you understand the regulations, and don't violate them, then consent is not necessary.
If you're looking for more nuanced conversation here in the comments, don't bother. The title is correct, a basic brother laser printer is all you need.
It's not font-color 3e3, it's font-red-300. That's an important distinction, because the second one respects the design system your art team spent a lot of time establishing. By using their language you normalize the set of styles utilized in an application, instead of individually and repeatedly hard coding the hex values.
Second off, tailwinds true power becomes way more obvious if you consider pseudo selectors like lg: and hover:.
> I recently told the CEO of a recruiting agency about this compensation model. She told me that if you even mention crypto, more than half your engineering candidates will immediately say “no” to your company.
For good reason. Also, their 'sister article' about the details of the token are a private google doc. Quite promising.
- About 36% of candidates who didn't, that we end up reaching out to about a crypto role, decline it explicitly because it's crypto.
So: 23%, plus 36% of the remaining 77%, equals just north of 50%. Add in a few who don't turn it down outright but who end up withdrawing later, and you get a bit north of half.
I've been invited to be a founding engineer a few times now, and crypto backed things are an instant no.
How would this hold up in court? Let's say things go south and the founders drop everything and take what funds there are with them. Can I go to court and say "Hey, I have a crypto token for...". Before I even finish the sentence, I'd get laughed out of the room.
There's more ways it can go wrong than it can go right, and that's saying something when it comes to startups to begin with.
Either its a fixed percentage, on paper, with clear, legally defined terms, or it's effectively worthless.
The rates are believable, but this seems somewhat different from what the thread is about - compensation in tokens rather than equity. I suspect many an engineer who's OK with crypto work in general will balk at this arrangement.
EDIT: I reread the original comment. It technically makes sense, but still I think answers a different question than the one posed about the compensation model.
> This is a utility token that will be deployed under the ERC-20 standard, and live on the Ethereum blockchain. It will be set up so that if the product does well, the price of the token goes up, and if the product does badly, the price of the token goes down. You can read more about the details of the token in a sister article. [0]
Funny enough, that "sister article" appears to be a private google docs link... I was curious how this would even work.
Plenty wrong with tokens but I would remember that VC funding also comes with a lot of drawbacks and, in my opinion, is what is holding technical progress back. I am in a startup and VCs are preventing us from focusing on longer term goals like interoperable protocols. The VC game is simple - fund a "disrupting" company aka an extractive monopoly and cash out. In that light, even though we took VC funding some sort of cautious yet fair token raise would have made sense, it'd allow us to work out the product without compromising on longer term goals.
I understand the distrust for blockchain but there is also ideology in blockchain world that has not yet occurred in the greater world, that funding is broken and new alternatives are needed. Has somebody figured a perfect one - no. Is experimentation good? Yes.
A token is just a token, who uses it how and why is not intrinsic in the token itself. Stocks and bonds have been tokenized, why are those not scam? There are lots of tokens representing different things, economic models and with very different histories following their creation.
Ah that's very easy question. Stocks and bonds have very heavy legal framework you can lean on in many situations. It doesn't mean you can't lose - stock investors lose they money all the time - but at least some scenarios are covered. With token nothing is covered, it's basically a naked bet on issuers and their ability to deliver. I don't say never bet - adults can decide for themselves - but if you bet, do it with open eyes.
Hey guys, CEO of FetchFox here. Happy to answer any questions about the crypto token. I'm also making the draft doc public, please be aware the details are still being worked out, but we will publish the full plans on our site within weeks.
1. What happens if an employee loses access to the wallet their company-ownership-tokens are on? Is it just a matter of re-emitting new tokens and distributing it to them? How are the old tokens handled (e.g. if the wallet is found at a later point in time)?
2. Could you ELI5 how you correlate the company value with token value?
3. Presumably, if everything works out, this allows your team (as well as anyone else) to sell their ownership tokens at any point, but also buy others' tokens that are available on the market as well right? I can see a few issues with this including insider dealing (some people having earlier access to great/awful news before others and making token transactions based on that).
I think it's an interesting idea but I think there are a lot more details that I'd like to see ironed out based on the little that's in the doc (that also has public-write access on it for some reason)
I owned a couple, with peak Pebble being the Pebble Round. It was the only smartwatch I owned that understood it was a watch meant to be worn on the wrist, and not a portal into a series of invasive micro notifications. It was helpful, without being obnoxious. It was slim and stylish, the kind of thing you'd wear even without the built in intelligence. It was there, but only when you wanted it.
Also the battery life was measured in days, when Apple couldn't go more than 12 hours.
I had a Pebble Time Round, too, and it was great. For me the Pebble hit a sweet spot for a smart-enough watch that allowed me to keep my phone in my pocket. I could get notifications and reply to them right from the watch. I have a Withings SteelHR now, and it's great as a watch + activity tracker, but not being able to dictate replies to the notifications I get means I reach for my phone more now than I did with my Pebble
Shockingly easy to get to though. LIRR to Jamaica, then AirTrain. Usually faster than a car, and more predictable than taking the A (which you have to be careful to choose the right one).
