Subjective in the sense that people are free to opine on those matters, but there will always be one approach that, based on empirical data, works, and one that doesn’t.
> If you want to know what's really going on come to the Philippines. Don't judge based on what the news says.
You say this like we're such a beautiful country whose drinking water doesn't make people in rich countries sick. And no, they aren't likely to come here with all the violence and the supportiveness of people like you. We'll probably get a travel ban by other countries and have a crashing tourism industry.
Last I checked, oligarchs are still in control. PLDT has a monopoly on telephone lines. Meralco has a monopoly on electricity. The Lopezes are dominating TV entertainment. The Ayalas own the business districts and have the top real estate projects and banks in the country. And you, you're still where you were before Duterte became president. Arroyo got away with corruption. Peter Lim fled the country despite accusations on pushing drugs. People are still poor, hungry, unschooled.
Nothing's changed. You just worship Duterte too much.
Nothing changed, really?! How about crime rate down to 45%? Freedom of Information is signed. A free 911 implemented. 8888 to call for corrupt politicians. Laglag bala scam gone. etc etc...
If you can't see changes today then you have problem. And really, you expect everything to change upside down in just 2 months? Are you on drugs?
600K+ that surrendered did so out of fear for their lives. However, mattquiros doesn't seem like he's one of those who surrendered. So should he be fearing for his life right now? If "being on drugs" is enough of a risk that over half a million people surrendered, then what is accusing someone of being on drugs?
I feel for OP because I've gone through something similar. I was motivated by money because I was born poor and went through the stresses of work and starting up because I wanted to be richer than I needed to be. People struggle in their own ways and there really is no need to compare them.
The study is very misleading. I was excited to read about some scientific breakthrough because I saw the link from Hacker News, but this one crucial fact gave it away:
> the McMaster researchers rounded up 40 overweight young men
Of course they both lost weight and gained muscle. They were overweight to begin with. Anyone overweight who starts exercising loses a lot of weight and gains muscle simply because their bodies began to have higher caloric expenditures, and their muscles had to adapt to more mechanical stresses.
If we're talking about someone whose body fat percentage is already normal, however, we'll go back to choosing between losing weight or gaining muscle, because you can't do both. When you exercise, you burn the carbs first, then the fat, then to a small extent, the protein, though these three are being used simultaneously to produce energy. You hit the fat-burning zone when your carbs can't produce as much energy (fat produces way more energy but requires way more intensity to burn), but since fat also takes some time to burn and you already need to produce energy to continue with the exercise, you use the protein too, which comes from your muscles.
This is the reason why bodybuilders have a cutting phase and a gaining phase. They gain muscle or strength for 2-5 months, cut for 1-2 months, then go back to gaining muscle again. How do you gain muscle? You put on weight--meaning, you eat more. The weight that you put on will be about 5 parts fat and 1 part muscle, and that is why the cutting phase is necessary. Muscle is only gained with the fat and continued weight training, so burn the fat once you put on the weight. Whenever you attempt to lose fat, you will always inevitably lose muscle, so if you want to get buff, you can only do so much fat-burning exercises. That means keeping your runs at 10-15km, for example.
In summary, you can't do both. You can only gain muscle and lose weight together if you're really fat to begin with. If you're within the average body fat % range, though, you still need to switch between cutting and gaining phases.
Hm. So since companies do hire from dev bootcamps, are the candidates quizzed about CS theory during the application process? It seems pretty standard to be asked about data structures and algorithms for engineering positions and I can't imagine someone attending these bootcamps to also be well-versed at those over the course of their quick training.
Whiteboard coding questions aren't as difficult as people often believe. IMO the hardest part is just getting used to programming without any outside resources on a whiteboard.
The problem is that people don't practice them because they believe that these questions test some sort of intrinsic, unchangeable quality of how smart you are, which is totally false.
But if people practiced them more, they would realized that there is only 10-20 questions that you can be asked, and everything else is just some minor variation of the most common questions, and you don't specialized training to do project Euler or glassdoor.com questions.
> But if people practiced them more, they would realized that there is only 10-20 questions that you can be asked, and everything else is just some minor variation of the most common questions, and you don't specialized training to do project Euler or glassdoor.com questions.
My gut reaction to this is that you're not asking very good questions if it's such simple variations. Unless you're being excessively reductive in that all of programming can be done in just a handful of compiler operations, and thus only a handful of programming questions could be asked.
> Working on a AAA game does not make you "the best."
And neither does having more people talk about you.
> If you want to be the best you have to work hard, and you have to fight, and you have to put aside some other things in life. And if you're doing it, you will expect it of the others around you.
I think this is what it is truly about: being the best in what you are passionate about doing.
To me it is really concerning your using the verb "to do" when dealing with "being." Because in the end, it is not what you do what makes you happy or free...
From my experience, you have better chances of getting a better pay AND work-life balance at a full-time job than in freelance sites (Elance, oDesk, Freelancer.com). There's barely any decent clients there who are willing to pay us $30/hr. However, you have the experience, and I'm very well aware that RoR developers here can easily command a salary of PHP150k-200k every month... perhaps even more. All you have to do is find the right company, and ask.
If you check out Jobstreet and JobsDB and set the salary filter to a minimum of 100k, you'll still find plenty of openings for Ruby devs.
