Grinding out your goals in a 48-hour vision quest-esque process like this, especially for someone early career or facing larger questions about trajectory, seems odd. Five years is an infinite amount of
time for some people and especially so with pace of change and uncertainty these days.
I suppose this might work for some, but it comes
off as excessively performative and not actually practical.
I did something like this a while back, although it didn't take 48 hours. The point is to move you from that infinite five year timeline where decision paralysis is stopping you from doing anything, and taking you back to three years, then one year, then next month, then tomorrow.
I agree with you that five years might as well be a lifetime. The point of this exercise is to define how you want that lifetime to end, then step backwards through it until you know what you're doing tomorrow. The plan for five years ("be a CTO") only matters insofar as it tells you your plan in three years ("be in a position where you report to the board"), one year ("be a lead engineer"), one month ("be confident in passing a job interview and be sending my CV out"), and tomorrow ("message Todd and ask if he'll run a mock interview for me, do some leetcode, message the Acme group chat").
You honestly might as well throw out any plans beyond the one year mark. Either they're important and you can recreate them, or they've changed and you should recreate them. The process of planning is more important than its output.
because you are overindexing on the act of writing instead of how it feels to read. now whether you should pay the same amount for it or not is a different question.
Hurricane Electric (HE) provides, among other things, DNS services. When a domain is placed in `clientHold`, as has happened to HE due to a spurious phishing report, it causes the domain to no longer resolve. So the DNS records for HE and all of HE's customers are gradually becoming unresolvable as caches expire.
They offer a nice (free) secondary DNS service, which I use for all my domains. From my limited interaction with them, they seem like a great company. They also provide some nice IPv6 tutorials as well, and offer free IPv6 tunnels for those who can't get native IPv6. All in all they seem like a model company that believes in giving back to the internet community in meaningful ways.
Unfortunately, I use them to host secondary DNS for all my domains, so this Network Solutions stupidity is hitting home for me right now. Then again, I had enough issues with NS back in the 1990s that as soon as that monopoly was broken I switched and never looked back. TBH I'm a little surprised that HE would use NS, but perhaps they did thinking that NS would provide proper enterprise-level support for a major backbone provider and not cut them off on a holiday with no recourse - behavior you might expect or fear from a cut-rate provider.
Edit: since the domain is fixed, this isn't reproducable anymore.
An interesting thing is that if you have a .net domain with he.net nameservers, the .net authoritative servers will give you full glue records with the A/AAAA for nsX.he.net. But if you ask for he.net, you get back NXDOMAIN.
Example domain removed; no longer relevant.
NetworkSolutions is a truly terrible registrar, and anyone who still has a domain there should use this occasion to switch to somewhere better, which is almost anywhere. IMHO, it may be worthwhile for a real business where their domain is important to move to an expensive corporate registrar like MarkMonitor or CSC, and looking into registry lock, etc.
For anyone not well versed in DNS who needs an ELI5 level:
This impacts anyone using HE.net for their domain name service because a domain name specifies its nameservers (in an NS record) using fully qualified domain names. I believe it's ns1.he.net and ns2.he.net.
User at WildISP tries to go to a site. Resolving nameserver at WildISP.net fetches the NS records for samplewhamplesite.com from a root server and gets pointed to ns1.he.net...which no longer exists because the entire domain disappeared from the root servers.
This is pretty wildly inaccurate specifically in Project Farm's case. Most "consumable" parts of tests, like bolts, are swapped out from test to test. From what I've seen he's pretty transparent when that's not the case.
He also explicitly buys all products with his own money (some by way of viewers contributing, of course) and products are sourced from what folks in the comments are asking for.
Scientifically, one should test multiple “identical” components for each test and average the results (or do something like a box and whisker plot) to incorporate manufacturing variability.
But his results are authoritative as the bar is low.
A huge benefit of many (most?) chat apps is that communication can be async. If it requires a live conversation, then respectfully it probably warrants scheduling time.
The author is arguing that the “udp approach” to these conversations is less intrusive, and also alleviates doubt/anxiety about the nature of the conversation.
People have different ways of communicating. I actually like getting to know my coworkers and appreciate a little fluff in my conversations. Heck, if you can make me laugh with a sassy story or a funny pun, you get brownie points and priority.
This author sounds like the type of asshole that says “I’m not here to make friends, I’m not here to be nice to you, I’m here to trade my time for money only, so go to hell.” AKA an entitled asshole.
> The biggest problem was that the company became the arbiter of what was offensive and what was not.
Companies already have to do this and they have done this for a long time. There are undoubtedly offensive words, phrases, and actions which a company actively discourages or will not tolerate.
The problem is that society progresses in disjointed ways, and common vernacular often lags far behind that as well. Instead of waiting for the overwhelming majority of people to understand that some words which once were perceived as neutral actually carry a darker, less-desirable connotation, Twitter (and others) are working to get ahead of that.
Sure, the lines may be blurry now, but that's no reason to claim that companies weren't arbiters of offensive words or actions in the past.
Modern authority have moderated speech. Trying to ban words is insulting, reprehensible and incompetent. At some online forums it may need to be done, but that is lack of better alternatives, like better moderation systems.
Moderate behaviour and speech, not words and people.
> Companies already have to do this and they have done this for a long time.
Setting aside that you've honed in on a peripheral part of the OP:
You're missing something that should be obvious here. What you're attempting to claim here is that engineers second-guessing themselves at every turn as they write code and being dependent on high-level authority to make low-level decisions at the level of word choice is normal and desirable.
It's neither. It simply doesn't happen and it's incredibly boneheaded.
Same as ever: Get woke, go broke.
I suppose this might work for some, but it comes off as excessively performative and not actually practical.