I'm not the original commenter, but according to glassdoor, the average salary for a senior in London is ~£61k, for front end devs ~£40k, and for generic devs ~£42k.
I think SandB0x was suggesting that if you want above average employees you may need to offer above average pay, although I'm aware that's not a literal interpretation of the comment.
Personally, I find the ideas behind Opendesk inspiring and I'd love to move to London... but the significant pay cut I'd have to take to work for you is more than I'm willing to pay. Sadly, ideas do not pay for rent or groceries.
All salaries data from my current company + [Counter] offers from other companies for people who are either joining us,leaving us or being poached. Nothing I can publish I'm afraid ^^
It ranges from junior out of college to senior with many years of experience. That only includes people who can FizzBuzz though.
IMO: I'm a firm believer that anyone with a clue who's offered 35k£ for that kind of role should just stand up, thanks the interviewer and leave.
> Gripping the bike’s front wheel was the only way for riders to brake
This is not actually true - track bicycles, then and now, do not have a freewheel/freehub mechanism and the rider cannot coast. As a consequence you can use the drivetrain as a braking mechanism by applying back pressure on the pedals.
I think what you complaining about is really that Tolkein wasn't a moral relativist and that shows clearly in his writing.
This is different to the original complaint about a dichotomy - belief that some things are ultimately good and some other things are ultimately evil is not the same as dividing everything into rigid categories of only good or only evil.
Calling it a pilgrim's progress tale is a bit unwarranted, or at least overly reductionist - it's not that simplistic and that's only one aspect of LotR anyway.
A few grey areas off the top of my head: various elven decisions, Denethor, Frodo, Smeagol/Gollum, Saruman's initial study of ringlore. In Tolkien's writing, individuals do clearly good things, clearly bad things, difficult to judge things, and and things that are some combination of the previous three. All this happens within the framework of the very traditional overarching light v. dark theme (which is also the source of the association between evil and 'dark' and 'twisted' characterisations that some like to complain about).
I agree he didn't invent the genre, although he certainly helped popularise and develop it.
"plenty" perhaps oversells the genre pre-Tolkien, and also afaik Jack Vance didn't start writing until well after The Hobbit was published, so I'm not sure he belongs on your list - William Morris would have been a much better example as a direct precursor to both Tolkien and Lewis.
Saruman did what he thought best, initially for noble reasons... and that turned out poorly.
This is part of the seductive power theme in LotR, which in general I consider something of a counterpoint to GGP's complaints about "simplistic morals" and "obvious dichotomy".
As it was with Boromir (who wanted it for good) or Gandalf when he denies taking the ring.
They could've ended doing evil with initial noble intentions, that's how the ring would've exploited them.
Exactly. Galadriel, Elrond, and Faramir also have the opportunity to take the One Ring, and choose not to. Sadly Faramir's rejection of it was not portrayed in the movies.
What is not addressed is that the article that inspired this post says in its second paragraph:
> they were all dismissed by condescending “gurus” who simply said that we had mislocated our files (I had the free drive space to prove that wasn’t the case) or that we must have accidentally deleted the files ourselves (we hadn’t).
Further, even if it was operator error, "Is this Apple's fault? Sort of." is a pretty bizarre way to lead into "it's 100% Apple's fault that the UX is confusing"(last quote paraphrased).
You agree that when viewing a public site whose main revenue model is ads, you enter an implicit contract to view those ads? If so, why? If not, why do you agree that being selective about what HTTP reqs you make is morally equivalent to theft just because the site owner expects you not to be and hopes to gain money off that?
Because they--content providers in general--continue to violate all sorts of implicit conditions of the "implicit contract".
The "implicit contract" says they shouldn't be attacking my computer with malware or attacking me with scams.
The "implicit contract" says the ads for a single page should not "take over" the rest of my computing-experience with stuff like auto-playing sound.
The "implicit contract" says one site's ads should not be part of a global panopticon secretly spying on my internet-wide activity through a thousand sources.
The "implicit contract" says the ads should not drastically change the page-loading time or cause the experience to stutter.
I believe at least 90% of all ad-blocking is attributable to these systematic violations of the users' trust.
Ah, I wanted to know why viggity agreed with Lea, not for a list of reasons to use ad-block, but you make some good points... although I disagree about the presence of an implicit contract in the first place.
