Hearing the words "compiling to Javascript" here, from Google, and elsewhere drives me nuts. Generating code in a dynamic and uncompiled language is NOT compilation! It is just a type of translation. If you want to make up a word, call it "relanguifying"- I don't care- just don't call it compilation.
Actually Wikipedia on the disambiguation page says that compiliation is: "In computer programming, the translation of source code into object code by a compiler."
On the main wikipedia page, you cut off the full definition: "A compiler is a computer program (or set of programs) that transforms source code written in a programming language (the source language) into another computer language (the target language, often having a binary form known as object code). The most common reason for wanting to transform source code is to create an executable program."
Note how it says "the target language, often having a binary form known as object code." and "The most common reason for wanting to transform source code is to create an executable program."
If you then go down into the description, you'll see: "The front end checks whether the program is correctly written in terms of the programming language syntax and semantics. Here legal and illegal programs are recognized. Errors are reported, if any, in a useful way. Type checking is also performed by collecting type information. The frontend then generates an intermediate representation or IR of the source code for processing by the middle-end.
The middle end is where optimization takes place. Typical transformations for optimization are removal of useless or unreachable code, discovery and propagation of constant values, relocation of computation to a less frequently executed place (e.g., out of a loop), or specialization of computation based on the context. The middle-end generates another IR for the following backend. Most optimization efforts are focused on this part.
The back end is responsible for translating the IR from the middle-end into assembly code. The target instruction(s) are chosen for each IR instruction. Register allocation assigns processor registers for the program variables where possible. The backend utilizes the hardware by figuring out how to keep parallel execution units busy, filling delay slots, and so on. Although most algorithms for optimization are in NP, heuristic techniques are well-developed."
So, just stating that it is "a computer program that transforms source code written in a programming language into another computer language" is inadequate. There is more to it than that, and unfortunately so many just don't get it.
I agree with the article and with, "I look for an applicant that fits the culture, who is bright, and who is excited and wants to learn." Recruiters can't automatically filter on culture, so that is out. Recruiters aren't always that experienced (no offense), as they've probably gotten recruited into the recruiting company as new blood or just started doing it because they thought they'd be good at it. So having them judge things like culture, how bright the employee is, and how much they want to learn (and not just faking it), would be tough.
And without a recruiter, you are going to be missing out on a lot of candidates. I personally have gone through this recently and know small companies that either tried to do this themselves or with a minor (not heavy hitting) recruiter, and finding people that way is SO SLOW.
So basically, this advice is good for interviews once you can get people in, but you won't be able to change the fact that the process to getting people in will stay the same.
I think eventually you will not think this is as good of an idea as you do currently. There is a sweet spot for billing, just like anything else: somewhere between too often and too much. Just my 2p.
(1) The main advantage you get from setting your rate daily is that you will attract employers that see this as a way to eek more hours per day out of you. You can choose not to work with employers like this, but you won't actually know they will do this until they do it. In the end though, that is your time, and your rate goes down if you work more for the same amount.
(2) You will frequently work less than a day and charge for a day. This will of course keep some employers from hiring you, because they'll worry about your higher effective rate that what they would calculate for an 8 or even 6 hour day. But, let's say that they hire you. At some point, you'll send an email stating that you are done with the feature earlier in the day rather than later, because you have somewhere to be that night and don't want to forget, and then this puts the seed in their head that you didn't work a full day, and that for all they know, you may do that everyday with them if they aren't communicating with you all day to determine you are working for them.
(3) Although potential employers may attempt to do the math and convert what they perceive as your hourly rate based on your daily rate to what they get out of other hourly workers, much of the time, they won't want to bother. If anything, if I were trying to estimate your hourly rate, I'd divide your daily rate by 4 and assume that is basically your effective rate. And that is probably not right.
Then there is the whole thing about the perceived amount on your bill. It may seem higher if they see your daily rate vs. an hourly rate, even if it is less.
Like it! But would be better imo to have prettier graphs. I am not a fan of the red and green vertical timeline heroku and others are using. It is not a normal way to look at downtime. Use a horizontal chart and let me drag and scroll myself to see each month. Provide served requests vs. failed requests per hour graphs. Basically, provide me with graph crack that shows more info and proves to me you are not trying to smooth over outages.
Customers of what, exactly? I've not heard of anyone using Yahoo, except those that are holding on to Yahoo email addresses because they don't know it makes them look old and technically illiterate.
I use quite a few of their services, some for legacy reasons. I use Flickr, admin a few mailing lists on Yahoo Groups, and am just in the process of convincing my muscle memory to move over from finance.yahoo.com to finance.google.com.
My guess is that Google Finance and other copycat sites (albeit better sites in some cases) that they have built are not good investments. If it isn't core to them I don't expect them to keep working on them.
He already told you, they are good with the goddamn customers. They have people skills, they are good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you?
