This page is intended to be a humorous parody of Hacker News. It is not in any way affiliated with Hacker News. The page's theme and layout are based on the original site. The usernames (with two exceptions) are intended to be fictitious.
I disagree with the author. I know he's incredibly successful and right about pretty much everything he's ever said, but I've had some experience in this area and just finished reading through some of the archives and I think his focus is wrong. I'm going to ignore the technical issue and talk about the bigger picture and higher level things than what was said in the blog post. If the OP thinks that the process is most important, it's really about end results. But if he thinks it should be about the end results then he's an idiot for not thinking about the process. I'll weasel in a reference the startup I co-founded even though it's not directly relevant.
Continuing the discussion of point Z, here's an interesting way[1] it relates back to the OP. And here are some unknown facts[2] the OP didn't include.
Here's a long detailed, objective explanation of everything related to this issue. It's probably more useful than the actual link and it may serve as one of the best efforts to consolidate information on this subject on the entire Internet. If it contains original research only a couple of readers will be qualified to tell. Half the people who upvote this won't understand more than the first two paragraphs.
Edit: I anticipated the potential questions and added more information. Add some graphs and this could be a master's thesis.
> high-level statement about a relevant side point
Here's how it really works. I'll write a couple paragraphs on all the exceptions I can think of, explaining how you should have said "often" instead of "almost always".
I don't understand why Google asks such weird interview questions. They miss out on a lot of talent. I would never hire anyone based on their ability to estimate the number of edges on a grain of sand has after it's been run through a blender.
I was once interviewed by Google and I didn't like the questions they asked. I didn't get the job, but I probably wouldn't have taken it if they offered it to me.
I'm a 30-year veteran of C and Lisp, I've actually written code using butterfly wings, and I have a few things to say about the value of knowing your technology stack.
It's based off Someguy's CSS project. (https://github.com/Someguy/css-project) It uses CSS3 features not fully supported in all browsers yet. I don't think Firefox or IE properly support it yet.
A big block of text with no paragraph breaks. t seems like the author is trying his hardest to provide something insightful and well-written, and while it seems on-topic it is hard to relate to the original article. None of it looks wrong, but it doesn't seem very informative either. Most people will just skip right over it. There will be a semi-obscure Wikipedia link somewhere in here.[1]
Hasn't the technology the OP is discussing, which is a cornerstone of 21st century technology, been rendered obsolete by this other marginally-used project started last year?
He started a company related to this a while ago and helped pioneer this field. He's a highly respected contributor to this field and designed X and Y.
