First to market is not necessarily the best, case in point: many video sites existed before Youtube, including ones based on Apple Quicktime. But in the end Flash won.
To me it looks like there is a better way to do things and the better one eventually wins.
Implementing a mobile landing platform for commercial or high-speed aircraft is a theoretically sound concept for emergency recovery or weight reduction but faces massive technical hurdles in precision, synchronization, and infrastructure.
Just make a huge baseball glove to catch the plane as it's approaching.
it just means the mold should be tilted with respect to the travel direction: if you have the technology to match the speed, surely you have the technology to rotate the receptacle in the horizontal plane to match the horizontal plane rotation angle induced by crosswind.
The problem with such a silly, unrealistic Rube Goldberg style scheme is not only the aircraft attitude but the lateral velocity relative to the runway centerline.
Compare this with how customer requests end up in products in startups:
Step 1: Customer <-> Sales/Product (i.e., CEO).
Step 2: Product <-> Direct to Engineering (i.e., CTO)
The latency between Step1 and Step2 is 10 minutes. CEO leaves the meeting takes a piss and calls the CTO.
- Simple features take a day:
CTO to actual implementation latency depends on how hands on the CTO is. In good startups CTO is the coder. Most features will make its way into the product in days.
- Complex Features take a few days:
This is a tug of war between CTO - CEO and indirectly the customer. CTO will push back and try to hit a balance with CEO while the CEO works with the customer to find out what is acceptable. Again latency is measured by days.
Big companies cannot do this and will stifle your growth as an engineer. Get out there and challenge yourselves.
Spot on. There are disproportionately few people who care for the product. Most people care for making that fat promotion package so they can move up. Both eng and non eng.
Hard no buddy. Junior dev means junior code and junior judgement. Countless times we had prod issues because some dev thought the change was harmless and they didn't need review.
OP here.
In this one the closest is probably:
"I love the process at Pylon: engineers merge their own code and only request reviews if they need input, think they have a risky change, or are still onboarding. "
But I fully agree that for juniors it makes sense to have it mandatory.
To me it looks like there is a better way to do things and the better one eventually wins.
reply