Talk to folks that work there currently (LinkedIn helps with this) and ask questions when you interview about work/life and whether or not overtime is compensated. As a developer, you have the luxury (that most workers don't these days) of being highly in demand so you can afford to be particular about this if it's a concern.
Startups and the game dev industry are probably a bad choice if you're looking to avoid 40hr+ weeks. Boring SMB software product companies have been bad on this for me (anecdotal, I know) due to misaligned incentives (mainly sales selling product that didn't exist yet.) Consulting has been great on this for me, assuming the folks running the place care about lasting client relationships & quality more than maximizing billable hours.
You can specify apple-touch-startup-images that load on web app startup. These ideally consist of your app's chrome with any dynamic or textual elements removed.
No, he did not. He mentioned GUIs in another part of his comment --and then went on to comment on the AI interface:
"""Google has shown us time and time again that big data isn't an advantage in creating graphical user interfaces. My sense is that the problems in an AI interface involve just as much design and interface expertise as they do data expertise""".
As far as usability is concerned, basic predictable interfaces are what you should be building unless the data & interaction you're modeling is unique enough to require non-standard UI.
The image is correct, while only small space around the Apple logo highlights upon clicking, the clickable area for the Apple menu runs completely to the left edge of the screen. The Spotlight icon behaves similarly.
I like the title, and I think it's a good idea for a series. DOS for Dummies had a good following and I think it is a much more condescending name. If I came across a book called Options Trading for Dummies, I would be skeptical. Dummies should stay away from options trading. Options Trading for Mere Mortals would suggest that I can learn it without already being some sort of god.
CoffeeScript doesn't generate JavaScript in the same way GWT does, it's more a thin layer of syntax for Javascript that compiles one-to-one to Javascript. It's an abstraction layer, rather than a library that provides functionality like jQuery.
You can do both, or neither and choose something else you are more familiar with. Just because Rail's opinion is to use X does not mean you do not have the ability to use Y.
CoffeeScript is much like HAML or SASS, where the end result is actual Javascript that can be parsed by the browser. It's only designed to make it easier to write the code, not to replace the code. When I write HAML in my Rails app, the app parses it and send the browser actual HTML. CS will do the same.
My concern is that those combinations can significantly reduce Rails apps' maintainability. I wonder if jQuery is that good, can it be rewritten in CoffeeScript? Such that we can settle down at CoffeeScript, which looks like a better language anyway, and get rid of the Javascript fragmentation issue all at once.
You really can't write coffeescript without knowing javascript. Really, the /only/ documentation for the language is showing what the compiled javascript looks like, plus maybe handling inheritance a bit better.
