For me, the 3 key downsides to a single freelancer is:
* You’re totally dependent on a single point of failure. If they get ill, go on holiday or simply disappear, take on another project or go full time somewhere else, then you’re left in the lurch - particularly post-live when you may need additional support/amends/bug fixes.
* I’m yet to find a single freelancer that can project manage, UX, design, write copy and build to a high standard in all areas. You’ll probably need several freelancers.
* Lack of code review. Usually an agency will have several devs on their team, so there should be some form of code review whereas this is less likely with a single freelancer.
The only thing keeping me from cancelling my Netflix account is the fact that my parents use it. If they crack down on that, then of course I’m cancelling.
Same. I usually watch Netflix on my computer anyway so I can watch any big exclusives via ‘alternative’ means if I wish.
It’s my parents that get value out of the TV apps.
Only other useful feature is being able to save shows on my phone to watch when travelling when there’s limited WiFi/Data but even that isn’t much of a problem anymore.
If you never watch it yourself, then there's no problem -- they're the primary and only household. If you do watch it sometimes but not enough to justify the cost then the question becomes what is the dollar threshold? The options they describe involve paying slightly more, not a complete ban.
same, it's way too expensive for just our household and the content available, but I'm ok paying that amount for a kind of "family plan", particularly for family in low-income countries. But removing that would actually take away the value proposition that currently makes it worth it.
My son is 10, he started with scratch when he was about 6, moved to Lua/Roblox a couple of years ago and has since picked up C#/Unity. He definitely got the fundamentals of programming down by working with Lua. Key to his intrinsic drive was being able to code things he loved (games).
Friend and I have recently launched a side project where we give away high quality, royalty-free music. Early days but we’re making ~$800 per month from YouTube’s content ID payments alone.
You appear to be content Id claiming the add revenue of the people that use your music for "free". Calling that "royalty-free" and saying that the music is "free in exchange for a credit/attribution" feels a little misleading.
It is royalty free if they stump up the up front cost, but the idea that using this music will cause you to lose ad revenue on your YouTube videos should be front and centre.
Nah, we're pretty clear about it right there on the homepage of the site. If we don’t register our tracks with YouTube’s Content ID, then malicious actors will register our music as their own and monetise our user’s videos.
Many of the people using our tracks are small YouTubers that aren't even eligible for monetisation. The bigger YouTubers who want to monetise are happy to buy a $39 license.
The author is actually female and, surprisingly, ends the article indicating that she is not out of the situation. The depression is still lurking but she has a better understanding of what’s going on.
My son started learning to code at 6 years old. We started by playing fun games at bedtime where he would give me instructions for various things such as how to leave his bedroom and I would follow them literally - resulting in my bashing into walls, falling over etc. He soon got the hang of being accurate with his instructions. He then moved on to building simple games using Scratch but got bored with that pretty quickly. He started to spend a lot of time playing Minecraft and would watch YouTube videos showing him how to make redstone circuits etc. He wanted to make his own games and so he gave Unity a try but the learning material wasn’t quite accessible to a (then) 8 year old. About a year ago he started playing Roblox and within weeks had downloaded Roblox Studio (Roblox’s development environment) and had begun making his own games. I think Minecraft helped him a lot with his ability to create 3D environments within Roblox but they also have a library of free, pre-rigged and pre-scripted models which removes any barrier to entry. He started making his first games entirely out of free models. He learned to script in Lua by watching other kids Roblox scripting videos on YouTube. He’s just turned 10 now and has a firm grasp of fundamental programming concepts, released several games and has begun releasing his own coding tutorials on YouTube. He still has a lot to learn but he’s intrinsically motivated.
"We started by playing fun games at bedtime where he would give me instructions for various things such as how to leave his bedroom and I would follow them literally - resulting in my bashing into walls, falling over etc. He soon got the hang of being accurate with his instructions."
Great job, it's obvious you're happy to see him succeed and sounds like he's enjoying the process.
A reminder to think about spending time playing basketball or soccer with him and enrolling him in a league for a couple years, in case you aren't and if he isn't already playing. Two or three youth seasons participating in a team sport that involves constant decision making will benefit him in the future, even if he decides he doesn't like the sport.
Thanks. Are you aiming for any specific type of employers? SME? Big companies? Start-ups? Every company I've come across say (paraphrasing):
* "It's boilerplate; we can't change it!"
* "We never enforce it, do what you want."
* "Do what you want, who's gonna know?!"
* or some blanket legal statement: "Either your projects fall outside the scope of the clause, in which case you don't need to worry about said clauses, or they fall within the scope of the clause, in which case we are not wavering anything. And finally, its up to you, not us, to judge whether the project falls inside or out of said clause."
I've yet to come across a UK tech company (or R&D company) that has ever taken my concerns seriously. It's starting to bum me out. I don't want to work on releasable products knowing deep down that I might not actually own them.
If you're in the UK and you're really making something in your spare time that might be worth anywhere near as much as your paid income you should really be contracting/self employed. The company will be wondering why you aren't completely focused on their work as generally managers won't understand why people are doing their work as a hobby as well as having a free time job. I do know a couple of employees who added exemptions to their contracts, but if your aspiration is really to be earning from your own projects you need to be considering contracting.
There are plenty of free UI kits that you can download and print off for paper prototyping purposes which is essentially what this is. These are nice from an aesthetic point of view but I’m irrationally irked by these being called “flow cards”. In UX we typically think of user flows as journeys across pages and channels. What these cards are useful for is a collaborative exercise called paper prototyping to define page structure and content hierarchy.
Upfront: I'm pretty much a total noob regarding UX.
However, I got a similar reaction to this being called "flow cards". This to me looks just like yet another "standardized" set of (typical) web interface/page designs. Sounds like a big misnomer.
Regardless of that, I guess there will be plenty of (UX) front end engineers, who will see value in designing things in a uniform way and from what is essentially a limited set of "this is how it's done".
That said, with between 2 and 3 decades of at least observing (web) design, I am still convinced that any good design begins with an empty piece of paper and a pencil, and a good understanding of everything relevant to the design (e.g. problem domain, technical platform, target audience, etc, etc).
Whenever I see (yet) another company promoting their tools for "streamlining" web/interface design, the first thing that always strikes me is how much their tools appear to just push their particular ideas about what "good" (uniform) design is.
With the huge number of (varied) factor that may (or should) go into good interface design, I sincerely doubt that any of these tools can ever really help all that much in making better designs. They can help with collaboration and all being "on the same page", no doubt. But it still feels to me that they just train people in making designs in a particular (and often not the best) way, with maybe more negative side effects than the positive ones they provide. That is not to even mention how contemporary fashion also always is a factor, in any design.
Anyways, just my two cents. I'm open to criticism and disagreement on this.
