It looks like weeks 8 (Founding: Conception, Composition, Capitalization) and 9 (Business Scaling: Promotion, CAC/LTV/Funnel, Regulation, Accounting) cover the crux of the business stuff.
I've never found UML useful for diagraming an entire application. However, I don't know if this is a fault in UML or a problem with the application architecture. Applications tend to get large and disjointed. They solve multiple problem sets and consist of several different layers. When we try to take a complex system and put it into a UML diagram things get really hairy fast.
UML is more useful when it is used for diagramming the components of systems. This practice also promotes the practice of identifying and decoupling system components. When complex problems or unfamiliar patterns emerge, UML is indispensable.
Still the biggest issues I've observed with UML adoption are: 1) A lack of tools developers want to use. 2) As developers become familiar with the codebase (you know, by writing it...) they begin to think it's self explanatory tedious documentation efforts like UML are unnecessary.
Hypothetically, if Myriad were able to synthesize and market genes, could they patent a synthetic analog to a naturally occurring gene?
e.g. If they isolate a gene that makes a person immune to a specific desease then found a way to package and distribute that gene, could they patent it? It occurred in nature, but something new would be created in packaging it for distribution.
Also, nature can create new genes. If Myriad has a patent on a gene that nature produces later (1 in a bazillion chance), what happens to Myriads patent?
This is a really cool article in that it shows the transition of one developer into an architect. I think the grief the author is taking in some of the comments has more to do with presentation than content.
The weekends of clever hacks that he mentioned were essential to his development as they are for all of us. The weekend is a good time for clever hacks. If they have useful business implications all the better. Exciting, innovated packages often sprout from a developer's desire for a more elegant, stable, focused, or powerful solution for a problem or a problemset. These innovations should be abstracted into reusable packages and reused.
However, in a business environment, developers need to be focused on solving problems for users. They need to do so in the most stable and sane possible manner. That means that code should be a last resort when a solution has not already been written. If you miss your weekend hackathon, contribute back to the packages that you found helpful. This way, you can get your kicks from clever new hacks and improve several of your existing projects in one fell swoop!
Writing code (and lots of it) is essential to growing as a developer. Unfortunately, it's often a detriment to software projects.
If you're looking for a useful critique of the Gnome 3 desktop, look elsewhere. Here's ts;dr: Gnome developers are dumb. Every decision they ever made was stupid. I'm the smartest. They should listen to me but they don't because they're stupid.
Maybe the author should write meaningful pieces that actually contain even a modicum of objectivity. It's basically exactly the same as a handful of other pieces he's written about how he doesn't like GNOME because they were 'mean' to him (even though based on everything he really seems to have deserved the punishments dealt to him).
Sorry, but it peeves me that his articles still get near the top. They're worthless diatribes against a project that doesn't care about his input. And, more importantly, doesn't need or want to care about his input.
I've been meaning to port some classic games over and utilize better input methods for a while. It would be fun to be able to load old GB games on my Android phone and tap the menus instead of navigating them with the DPad. Thanks for this, I was looking for something to do with my Friday night!
That's possibly true. However, having had the experience of someone show up to a disciplinary meeting to argue that he couldn't be sacked for spending hours a week looking at porn on his work computer, because there wasn't a specific line item in the workplace manuals or codes of conduct saying so, you'd be surprised at what people will argue to avoid getting fired when they're doing something anyone without some serious mental or moral impairment would recognise as not OK.
Or, to put it another way, every bizarre rule or sign usually has a story behind it.
