You say this as if Hillary would have been so much better.. No, this ones on all the people who continue to stick their head in the sand and try to blame the other team.
> The FCC is required to be split with the Executive Office filling in the gap for the Commissioner. 2 R, 2 D, and 1 whichever party wins the Presidency. (from pythonboi)
2 democrats voted against repealing NN. If we had 3 D's in the FCC, if we had Hillary, you would have seen the opposite result.
Please stop peddling this "there's no difference" narrative. It's clearly untrue in this case. Otherwise, why would the split be on party lines? Republicans voted to repeal NN, not democrats.
Every FCC vote on net neutrality since the 2010 rules has been straight party-line. The Republican majority is a direct result of having a Republican President. It's pretty clear that a Democratic administration would have been different on this issue, whatever other areas there might be where that question would be murkier.
I think his very-well-known inconsistencies on policy matters makes it hard to argue that he won on the merits of his policies. His personality, attitude, and his not being Hillary Clinton seemed to be more important.
Let me tell you, don't worry about it.. You'll use your skills to smoothly transition to something else..
I've been in this industry since copper and telco was hot shit.. I went from doing Telco programming > IT > Web Development > scalable enterprise applications.
Why bother stressing over something you have no control over? Do what you love and the money follows.
so far not worrying about it has worked well for me; i've been in tech a bit over 15 years and enjoyed all of it. but at a certain point all the stories about people aging out of the industry start to add up, and you have to wonder if the time has come to be at least a little more ant and less grasshopper :) at 42 "do what you love and money follows" is still working for me; another decade down the line i'm guessing i'll have to put a bit more active work into staying relevant.
i do have some hope that i've gotten into my current niche (static type inference for dynamic languages) reasonably early in its life cycle, but if i'm wrong i don't want to have not kept up with the larger world at least to some extent.
(to be precise, i'm not so much worried about being able to transition my skills to something else, as about not being given a chance to do so unless i can already demonstrate the new skillset people are looking for.)
There is a difference in engineering and programming. An engineer uses programming to solve an engineering problem. If all you can do is program, you're just not as valuable. Programming is one of many tools I use in my every day job as an engineer.
I think this goes back to being an expert in a "domain". Being able to apply programming to that domain is far more valuable.
Quite possible but since everyone uses the term "engineer" without any context or specific qualifications, we should expect any distinctions to dissolve as people realize total morons are using it too.
* I have a bachelors in electrical engineering from a top ranked school.
We used to call ourselves programmers. Then it became sexy to say developer. Now it is engineer. (Since you pointed out, it means something different to everyone, so its meaningless).
The future will be a new snazzy term. Same job, different title.
My point wasn't really the distinction between engineering and programming, but between everything IT-related (red-hot job market) and all-other-STEM related (not so hot job market): sciences (chem, bio, physics, math) and traditional engineering (civil, mechanical, chemical, electrical)
React has made me a happier developer and affords me a lifestyle to take care of my family very well. So I'm very thankful for everything that's taken place to bring React to where it is.
I got the same feeling many many years ago when I made the switch from PHP > Rails.
Edit: Why is this being down voted? shrug Must be 2 sad Ember devs... Badum PSSH
Look at the Reason team, with their Reason-React implementation. Cheng Lou seems to actively dislike a single store that Redux is, and, if anything, co-locates stores to stateful components.
Same here, This all seems like a "My JS Lib is better than your JS Lib" fight. So let me say this, React is by far and away the best JS view library out there. I don't need MVC in my fucking view(Hey Ember), and I don't need a entire framework for my view(Hey Angular)..
Just my opinion from working with them everyday. Angular is more of a monolithic beast attempting do everything, and mostly it can. React is more of a microorganism with one goal, which it excels at. For me, Angular feels heavy, especially since the introduction of NgModules. I guess the million breaking changes that occurred from AngularJs to Angular2 might have left a bit of a sour taste in mouth, regarding the framework. How can they introduce NgModules in like beta 10? Angular isn't a bad framework, but the question goes down to would you rather have one framework that try to do everything, or many frameworks that each try do their one thing. There are pros and cons to both. On an even more opinionated note, I really enjoy the syntax, and feel of React(jsx)... which something I don't get with Angular components. I'm not even gonna start on redux, but it's pretty fun when you get the hang of it. As with a lot of things in programming but each to their own.
When most people talk about React, they aren't talking the single library, but rather, the ecosystem of libraries that enable you to build applications. Most "frameworks" are just a collection of libraries too - the difference is in branding, and most frameworks are really just a pre-built package.json/Gemfile/etc.
so you can see i'm not making shit up https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/8b420f5e6548865535381fdb...
That's a 2sat/byte transaction... come on man! this is amazing for shop owners.
wait until lightning network and its INSTANT.