I use a Happy Hacking Pro 2. I think the tactile feel of switches are a mater of taste, and I'm not inclined to hard sell you on my preference.
Aside from a pleasant feel and sound, the keyboard's compact size makes it an ideal travel companion. It also has a control key where a caps lock key is found traditionally.
Also a HHKB Pro 2 user here. Absolutely one of the best things I've ever bought. Apart from the excellent Topre switches, the small format factor is perfect as you don't need to move your hands from the home row to hit any key (Fn key with your right pinky opens up F# keys and numerous handy shortcut keys like /, *, + and -, and of course arrow keys).
They are expensive keyboards, but when you spend your entire working day and then some on a keyboard, there's no reason not to splash out a little. It has lasted me a couple years already and it's still perfect. Considering buying a Type-S for home to see how that is in comparison to the standard model.
"If we are hiring you because you are awesome, then you have 30 days to do something awesome"
I'm curious about how much autonomy and latitude people need to do something that breaks the awesome threshold. It seems to me that the more guided or directed someone is, the less likely the work they do will be considered awesome.
I tend to prefer more quantifiable terms. For example, having a clear million dollar improvement to the top or bottom line in one year. However, I very much agree that everyone should add something to the team.
To abstract and paraphrase (wildly): there are 10x work environments, and 1/10x work environments.
It seems to me that the least productive environments let "now" trump "great" – so attracting (and retaining) the top 0.1% of talent becomes necessary for a company to survive. I wonder which costs more in the long run.
When I make technical decisions, I think hard about how to keep things simple so that a reasonably smart and attentive person can use or extend whatever system down the road.
I think it is a hard requirement; nobody keeps tight track of $1 coins because it's hard to trade a few million dollars using just that. A cryptographic currency wouldn't have this issue.
Maybe, maybe not. This essay was published almost ten years ago...
"Wealth is what you want, not money. But if wealth is the important thing, why does everyone talk about making money? It is a kind of shorthand: money is a way of moving wealth, and in practice they are usually interchangeable. But they are not the same thing, and unless you plan to get rich by counterfeiting, talking about making money can make it harder to understand how to make money."http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
