One doesn't become a leader by just being called the lead. Some people have personal traits that make them assume a leader role more often then others.
In my experience, a team that is constantly looking for one person to call all the shots isn't very much empowered. If everyone can take responsibility to own up for the calls to make, you end up with a far more engaged team.
It requires a certain maturity but a motivated team should be able to grow into such a mode over a couple of weeks or month.
Experts will emerge on certain topics and the team will often look to them to weight in on certain topics. That will all come pretty naturally once a team has passed its initial formation phase.
"In the cases of a disagreement deadlock you need someone to break the deadlock." != "a team that is constantly looking for one person to call all the shots".
A good tech lead actively works to minimize occasions to exercise his role as deadlock breaker. But you can't eliminate that need. If you do then the first time you have a deadlock will be a disaster and you may find that a well functioning team has now turned in a massively dysfunctional one.
> 97% of the time consensus driven decision making means no deadlock and the other 3% of the time you can put decisions to a vote.
That's now how deadlocks work. You can't just vote your way out of them, if you could, you wouldn't be in a deadlock to begin with. You'd just be at the point where a decision needs to be made.
> If anything I've found that there's often too much consensus (people who just go with the flow rather than voicing an opinion).
That's a separate problem. A healthy and functional team needs to be able to trust one another's opinions and provide an environment where everyone feels comfortable speaking their minds. If you don't have those the value of intrateam communication is comically low.
>That's now how deadlocks work. You can't just vote your way out of them, if you could, you wouldn't be in a deadlock to begin with. You'd just be at the point where a decision needs to be made.
I've seen a number of different scenarios:
1) Consensus after a short discussion (vast majority of cases).
2) Consensus after a drawn out discussion (occasional, usually the discussion is valuable even if it takes a while).
3) Consensus after a drawn out discussion with one or two holdouts who agree to go with the majority opinion under protest (not common).
4) A drawn out discussion where it becomes clear that further discussion is fruitless and a (close) vote makes the decision (very, very rare but it has happened).
I'd say that that most of the time the decisions made in one of these 4 scenarios are better than the decisions made unilaterally by a team lead.
Whatever you're referring to as 'deadlock' I'm not sure I've ever seen it - as a team lead or otherwise. What is it?
"Working at one of the Big 4" is not a good way to state your goal. Whatever yor definition of the big 4 is, they are very different companies with different cultures and different products. Find the company (from those four if you want) and product that really excites you and go for that.
Is that really true? I am not a US citizen but I have an account with a US broker. I just need to file a single form once in a while declaring my foreign tax status and that's it. This can hardly be the reason why it is absolutely necessary to have offshore holdings.
(Of course, I have to pay taxes at home for any profits and there are supposed to be mechanisms that ensure I do...)
If you deal in volatile markets with questionable rule of the law and weak property rights (e.g. Russia or much of the Middle East), then the ownership and its transfer is often structured with offshore companies.
The leak however suggests the legit offshore cases are drop in the bucket in this overall money laundering business. Kind of like with file sharing, many would argue we need it primarily to get our latest Ubuntu ISOs and other legit uses, but we all know it's a lie.
I believe it depends on the nature of the investment and your relationship with the US. For example I believe in your situation you'd have to pay US taxes on dividends from US companies.
There are options that would fit your budget on the german amazon site. I really recommend investing a little more (€30-40) and get something nicer. I've had my go board and stones for 20+ years now (not that I get to play much but it's still great to play a round from time to time). This is something that you'll hold on to for quite a while.
> This is just huge hypocrisy and full of lies. First of all, Apple CAN attempt to brute force the password. Compiling whatever new firmware is needed and signing it with their keys will not introduce any new backdoor like they claimed and lied to the public - the backdoor is already there, and it is their private keys. Just like that "backdoor" somehow end up at some bad guy's hand, so could their private keys.
Thank you! This is the most important technical point about this whole thing. All the talking about the SE (fascinating as it may be) is irrelevant. All strong crypto that is based on a private key being kept in a secure vault at some corporation does have a backdoor. The keeper of the key can be compelled to use it to sign something.
This is exactly why this would be such a dangerous precedent. Government giving software specifications that are signed with a vendors public key. In this case, it's a one off but it's a step into the direction of "upload a screen-shot of the phone's display every minute to ftp.nsa.gov with your next iOS update". And no SecureEnclave will protect against that. It will just be a OS update signed by Apple.
While a tweaked configuration can be a great productivity boost, it has a major drawback. My main reason for using vim is its ubiquitousness. Whenever I need to ssh into a box to check something out, I can trust that it's there. However, I cannot trust that its configuration has been tweaked like I expect. Hence, I stay away from getting used to non-standard key mappings.
Checking something out on some server does not require remapped keys or commands: you generally just browse some file and fix a couple of things. Tweaked configuration for more involved tasks is fine, to me.
I think this follows the 90/10 rule. Most of my work is on my own machine. Occasionally I will be on a server and attempt to use some configuration from my personal .vimrc but instead have to fall back to slightly slower methods.
The time lost in that 10% is totally worth the cost of the time saved in the 90%.
And since everyone uses their text editors differently, it's not practical to move any one individual's personal configuration choice into vim core.
However, by their measure, the results that were prepared in LaTeX were inferior to the results created in in Word. Even for papers that were heavy on equations. So while the LaTeX users would think they create a better end-product, this isn't actually true under the quality metric used in the study.
I have created academic work both in LaTex and in Word and while I have not measured it in an objective way I also had the feeling that LaTeX could create better looking results once you've got over the first hump.
On the other hand, the integrated nature of a system like Word were spellchecking, annotations etc. are all part of the main tool you work with makes it very effective. It takes pretty long however to develop a workflow that avoids all the pitfalls.
In a sense, LaTex makes you believe that once you got over the initial hump, you have typesetting super powers but you will miss out on some of the integrated UI stuff that may boost productivity. Word on the other hand makes you believe that you already know everything while you still need to keep fine-tuning your workflow until you don't mess up constantly.
> However, by their measure, the results that were prepared in LaTeX were inferior to the results created in in Word.
They didn't measure the quality of the typesetting in any fashion, though, which is what the GP's claim was about; they measured the rate of errors typists made under time pressure.
It's also unclear what LaTeX software they used, since the one I use has integrated spellcheck, etc.
> It's also unclear what LaTeX software they used, since the one I use has integrated spellcheck, etc.
That's a hugely important point and in a way it shows that they are comparing apples and oranges. Word is a complete document editing system (well, more or less) while LaTeX is a type setting systems and you need additional tools to use it. Those tools can range from a simple plain-text editor (say, nano) to totally integrated environments that are similar to word in their feature set.
In my experience creating a high-quality end result requires knowing about typography, whether you use LaTeX or Word. Things like improperly typeset ”quotes”, or typesetting functions like sin, cos, etc. as variables in math mode, are mistakes that arise because people don't know what they're doing. And that's true regardless of the tool.
Sounds pretty real to me and the theory behind it is written up very nicely.
I wonder: would this work the other way round? Take a (stereo) recording of thunder and an exact time measurement between the flash and the first sound and plot the flash from that. If that worked, you wouldn't need a huge high speed camera mounted on a truck in order to record how a flash propagates...
Besides issues like temperature, you'd need to to control for interference from geographic features like hills and valleys. It might work in wide open flat spaces like the prairies of the American mid-west.
If you're interested in this, there was a very good program on PBS's science show Nova a month or two back, called 'the edge of space' or something similar, which involved photography of lightning at altitude and later from the space station, resulting in confirmation that lightning interacts with the upper atmosphere as well as the ground.
The biggest gotcha with a time-based measurement of the thunder is the variability of the speed of sound with temperature - about 0.6 m/s per degree Celsius. Given that thunderstorms tend to involve pretty significant temperature shifts, the temperature can vary significantly along the path length.
I am not familiar with hackermonthly but they seem to "reprint" material that was popular on HN. Is all that content actually correctly licensed to be used in that way? Just wondering how those logistics are working... contacting all the individual authors, working out the terms &c.
With Hacker Monthly, I believe all authors are contacted and for permission. I think compensation is even provided, perhaps in the form of a free subscription?
Yes, it was all projected. (also the side walls of the theatre). Some 20+ projectors pushing 300 million pixels/sec. The intro to the keynotes was pretty amazing as well, meshing the projection with light effects and live performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrDPgUjqTQ8&feature=relat...
