There is no way you get Wilmette to change zoning. They've fought with Small Cheval about the size of their sign for like 9 months. I doubt you'd get any village in the NT district to rezone - the Optima project was pulling teeth, everyone is worried about overcrowding NT, which as a single HS is pretty packed now
The whole project is going to take many years. Even if we fix Oak Park zoning in the coming year, it'll still be years before anything significant gets built, and years past that for us to serve as a test case.
It has lost contact before and come back online. Sometimes the communications signals can get blocked, expect the rover to more closer to get a visual and attempt to establish contact. If the helicopter lost signal it goes into an auto land mode similar to what drones do when they lose signal.
Agreed. If they are, as claimed, in the business of educating students, why not use some of that endowment money to open more campuses and educate more students?
Columbia offers admittance to fewer than 3% of the people who apply. More people than those admitted have the requisite grades etc to think they'd perform well at an elite school; why not offer more of the admittance and use the endowment to make it happen? Or, use the endowment to further lower the list price of the education (approaching $500k for 4 years)?
Because endowments aren't piggy banks. They're regulated by UPMIFA [1], which states that universiteis can't draw down more than 7% of the total funds in the endowment unless they can prove that it would be prudent to do so, and the burden of proof is extremely high.
Even without UPMIFA, endowments are a mix of unrestricted and restricted funds, and donor restrictions can and do prevent universities from using money when they might otherwise want to. Even if a university desired to draw down the full 7% allowed without triggering red tape, it's unlikely that they would be able to draw it all without running afoul of donor intent.[2]
If anything, the system is to blame here, not the universities themselves necessarily (not to excuse bad apples in academic administration).
It is a plus to have them integrated, I believe the issue is m$ was basically giving it away for free for anyone who has the office suite. As a CTO faced with reducing spend on SaaS, do you cut slack for essentially a free clone of it? Not a hard call, but that becomes anticompetitive behavior. Similar to the shipping of IE with windows back in the day.
Thinking Teams is a clone of Slack suggests neither Office nor Teams is being fully used.
Teams is a re-imagining of UI atop SharePoint and SfB/Lync APIs or functionality we all loathed, and does a not terrible job of it.
When you realize that "screen sharing" is now "app sharing" instead, and every user can collaborate, a light bulb goes off.
When you realize you can offer Teams with web-based office suite collab at $3/seat to remote collaborators, fireworks go off.
When you realize all of this is fully compliant for regulated industries, there are no other choices, because the incumbents didn't bother becoming compliant for actually collaborating.
Most tools in this space are siloed chat, or presentation viewer, and god bless for permissioned file spaces.
As far as we've been able to find, both at the 2nd largest bank in free world and a startup of just dozens, the M365 E5 suite with Teams backed by SharePoint makes this all work together for role based group access to real time collaboration at scale while remaining seamlessly compliant.
> I believe the issue is m$ was basically giving it away for free for anyone who has the office suite.
That's the OP's point: what you call "giving away for free for anyone who has the office suite", I call "adding another feature to the office suite". Particularly for features which everyone understands are now just necessary in the space, it's a little weird to say "you can't add new features to your software, that would be anticompetitive".
Sad that your town keeps electing the same leadership with no long term vision on how to improved the community. Sad to see towns stuck in their ways to move forward
Writing code is the basic 101 of our industry. Anyone can write a loop or an if statement. With todays computing power, for most applications even poorly written code will run and will execute quite fast. What makes someone a 10x (and i hate that term) is the ability to take requirements, or better yet, a vague idea given to them by the business and turn that into software that benefits the end user and makes the company money. The 10x engineer gets to the 'why' that you are building something, not the 'how'.
RE>> Anyone can write a loop or an if statement. <-- Respectfully disagree.
I had an intern a few years ago -- recent college grad in CompSci. I tried my best to lightly mentor him. One day I was talking about the diff between a compiled language and scripting, mentioned REPL. To demonstrate REPL, I opened up both the windows CMD prompt and the Chrome Developer tools. I mentioned that with a REPL like the Chrome Tools, it's trivial to do FizzBuzz in JavaScript. I explained the problem to him and asked him to take a stab at writing it. This wasn't an interview question, just a discussion and a mentoring opportunity.
He couldn't. What he said next blew me away, coming from a CompSci graduate "Oh, loops, yeah, I never quite understood those. Like, for loops and while loops - I never really got that". I asked if he meant recursion, cause that can be tricky. No - he really could not write a for loop in any language. I wasn't going to shame him and I walked him through it, but I was disappoint. ಠ_ಠ
[Edit: Spelling]
Edit 2...Before I start claiming that CompSci programs are letting students down, I have to consider that the claim that he had a BS in CompSci may have not been accurate. I did not check or verify his transcript. The more I reflect on it, I think he may have had a degree is Web Design and we got pressured to add him to our Software Eng. team because the hiring manager (and his actual mentor outside of work) passed him off as a "Web Developer". Now that I think about it... that seems more likely....Edit 3: It was driving me crazy so I dug up the resume in my inbox ... it was def CompSci, listing C++, C#, Java, and SQL as technologies and data structures and algorithms as courses taken... I'm not sure what to think...
They didn't. I was one of two technical interviewers. We both recommended on passing [not hiring]. It was only a seasonal internship, so we weren't super grilling, but we still recommended a pass. We were overruled by the hiring manager who mentored this person outside of of the office.
I mean, you do need to know the "how" too. It isn't unimportant, it's just a more common skill. You need to be a 1x engineer before you can be a 10x engineer (if you believe in them).
