^
Also, With Vue you can very easily build a component library (buttons / forms / pages / etc) that can be re-used throughout your various platform versions of your application.
I normally do this by making a node module in a parent directory of the application projects like so:
No worries, I get it :) Nice to see it could be used to create a standalone desktop app as well !! For this specific problem, it could be a liked feature.
Personally I include the education section since I have an education despite that it is in a completely different field (technical construction). The reason being that it is showing commitment in those early years. I also include my mandatory military service as the first item under work experience even if I at this time leave out things between as an aggregate, as that implies a willingness to show deference to authority (something that is rarely talked about publicly but incredibly appreciated by management and by extension the readers of CVs).
Well, it makes perfect sense for the most biased kind of person to talk about bias. Of course someone that holds a completely biased point of view will see anything other than their own viewpoints as biased against them. This article and the talk it is an excerpt from is best described as laughable.
I can understand you feel like this, because the article has a lot of political charge. But there is the real accusation that (social) media is unfairly balanced. The article makes a rightful statement that this is very hard, if not impossible to do (it is similar to a nation state proving it has no nuclear weapons.. you can never be 100% sure).
Yet this problem requires some kind of solution. The issue is dividing public opinion in ways that are detrimental to society. Leaving politics behind IMHO there is much value in thinking how tech platforms (and to a lesser extent journalists) can cope with this.
This varies widely on regional norms of how a CV should look, but here we always include work experience first and all fluff at the bottom.
If I were to look at your CV as a potential employer, my largest concern would be your short tenures at your jobs. If those jobs were short contracts you should take care to mention that.
I recommend using Django Rest Framework. Django gives you great admin forms for any and all data models and Django Rest Framework gives you a browseable API with in browser forms for your convenience. In addition it has a super effective structure for creating easy to maintain and reusable code.
Well this article is in of itself based on a logical fallacy, completely misrepresenting what Demure said about women in tech.
"Liberals are enraged because he argued that, somehow, women have biological differences that may on average make them less suited to careers in tech"
He said nothing about women being less suited, he said women hold different interests, in general. I may not be interested in everything I do, even though I am very good at some of it and just as suited to do it as somebody else.
That's a good start nevertheless, a level above the usual "what a sexist pig" pseudo-arguments.
Reading each of these articles I learn something more, I expand my knowledge of things that weren't even in my area of interest, I get more understanding as to what is offending other people these days... I think a discussion based on merits is extremely useful, and I'm sad seeing all these articles quickly flagged.
> We don't live in an ideal world. People have their own agendas, obsessions, feelings etc. that obscure their judgement. It will definitely take a long while.
Well, when you put it like that, firing the guy was clearly the best decision.....
I'm not sure if it's the best for the guy, but definitely for the advancement of the general discussion about the limits of political correctness and freedom to express one's opinions, or even scientific research not in line with mainline views.
We don't live in an ideal world. People have their own agendas, obsessions, feelings etc. that obscure their judgement. It will definitely take a long while.
It's inevitable that even good faith counterarguments will occasionally mistake exactly what the original argument was. Especially when the participants start with such different viewpoints and on topics that they obviously feel strongly about. The way to continue the argument (if that's what you want to do) is to point out what the stronger (and perhaps more correct/original) version of the point being countered is and how it differs from the version that was countered.
Simply dismissing counterpoints without engaging to make sure you understand them runs the risk of falling for the exact thing you're criticising.
And good luck!