The author lost me at complaining that you need to know Ruby to know Rails. In case this was not self-evident, the Rails guide itself says plainly and early:
I love getting paid to program. The trick is in carefully selecting projects, teams, and clients plus actively setting expectations (e.g. staying in the driver's seat) such that you are not working on other people's schedules. Otherwise, yes, freelancing turns out to be just like having a boss. And that's no fun.
I've tried fix-rate project delivery. It's a nightmare. Either you spend so much energy up-front to document in detail the finish line, or you spend so much energy on the backend fighting scope creep. Maybe I did it wrong the times I've tried.
This is a great point that people rarely make in these discussions.
If you want to do value based pricing, you need to have a sales pitch that differentiates you from the market, or risk pricing yourself out of said market.
Making a lot of money per <hour|day|week|...> doesn't come down to just asking for it. You have to market yourself.
Yes, because the value consultant charges more but also provides more. In addition to understanding the technical aspects, he also understands the business aspects and can speak the client's language (business goals) freeing the client from having to micro manage or go deep into the weeds of the tech nitty-gritty. Best of all, the value driven consultant knows what's truly important and can intelligently focus his technical efforts on those areas which provide the biggest payoff.
As others have stated elsewhere in this thread: there are people who are willing to pay you a lot of money so you can free up their time and let them focus on activities that generate a boatload more money than $10K. These are the people who will happily choose the $20K offer, and these are the people you want to work with.
"Ignore advanced web developers complaining about ‘not another Bootstrap website’" I agree. It's your customers that matter. And unless you're building a product for advanced web developers, pleasing them should be no matter to you.
I've shown Bootstrap sites to non-developers and the response is usually that the sites look nice. Never has it been "ug. boostrap?".
We run the resource page listed in the article [1] and as a result of that it is quite possible I've looked at more sites built with Bootstrap than even the creators.
From this I've really found two things:
One, I think there is some massive confirmation bias at work. If a site customizes Bootstrap and it looks nice nobody credits it as a 'Bootstrap Looking' site, so as a result it is only when the defaults are used that people really pick up on it.
Second, the alternative to a site built with Bootstrap is typically not a beautiful custom designed front end, but a pretty rough looking unstyled, inconsistent mess.
Bootstrap is the new baseline for what a website should look like, it should be customized, it can be improved but there is now zero excuse for it looking worse.
Ugh. Really. Hate the fonts (Mainly the bold condensed ones). Hate the color scheme(Yellow text on a grey-green background? Seriously? It actually looks reasonable with the colors inverted[cmd-option-control-8 on OSX]). Slow to load, at least the first time. And socialist realism posters have very bad connotations, no matter how hiply ironic you find them.
The image shown in this article does a good job of highlighting the usefulness of Glass. It's not just a heads up display. It's the smarts of knowing where you are, what you are doing, what you plan to do in order to provide relevant information in an automatic and unobtrusive way.
"Oh, I see you're at the airport and you have tickets on flight 644. Here's some useful departure info." Instead of finding a departure screen or tap-tap-tapping on your phone - it's just there.
I can see the contextual bit, but I'm not really sold—at least, not yet—on the HUD form-factor. Why can't I view the smartly-pulled-up, contextual information on a smartphone screen? There are a handful of situations where no-hands usage would be nice, but for the most part a screen works fine for me. There are lots of things I'd like improved about quick, non-frustrating access to information, but they're mostly the software/indexing/querying/"smarts", not the display technology.
You forgot one type of person. "People who wait for the walk sign because they've got other things on their mind and make the conscious choice to leave deciding when to cross the street up to the street light." Waiting for the light lets you cross the street with hardly any thought at all, freeing that thought up to do other things.
These people realize you can only do so many tasks so why not delegate the least value-added (what are you going to gain by earning 15 seconds) of the tasks to someone - or something - else? It's a no-stress, win-win to give yourself one less thing to worry about.
People who evaluate the situation for themselves and cross on their own terms
What if you are someone who has evaluated the situation and decided that you will wait for the sign, or you will just cross as other people are doing so? How can you tell when someone has evaluated the situation and exhibited on of the above behaviours?
He also forgot "people who have been fined or otherwise hassled for jaywalking, and therefore think twice about crossing when the light is against them."
I came in here to say this. People are multi-faceted. They can be risk-averse in one area, but risk-taking in another. I suspect there are better indicators on someone's nature than how they cross the street. IMO, just how they carry themselves is probably a better indicator than whether or not they wait for the light to cross.
A colorie is a calorie (in the sense that a unit of energy is a unit of energy); however, there are some (I don't have science to cite, so I won't say it is factual) people that say fructose is worse for you than glucose (the two monosaccharides). Here's an interesting article you can read: http://www.eatingrules.com/2011/05/introduction-to-sugar/
In this sense, a calorie is not a calorie - but to be precise it's more that different sources of calories have different side-effects on the body when converted INTO energy/calorie.
Now to grains (specifically wheat-based products): gluten. The single reason why people in my athletic sphere (CrossFit) avoid wheat products as a source of calories when training is because of gluten (and sometimes yeast - as it does stimulate candida growth).
Gluten can cause all sorts of problems that aren't related to the calorie intake - diseases, obesity, inflammation, etc...
(I won't cite anything here for that because the information is widely available and in many books - although there are still "studies" that would say this information is bunk)
I consume around 4-5k calories per-day as part of my training. As long as you use it, the calories aren't bad for you but the source of the calories must be clean.
Oh god. What the hell does "clean" mean. That's orthorexic nonsense. Unprocessed foods can be very helpful, but they aren't magically different kcal, If you eat too much potatoes and nuts (instead of cake) you'll still gain the same amount of fat (controlling for fiber and protein energy loss).
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-cle...
>> If you eat too much potatoes and nuts (instead of cake) you'll still gain the same amount of fat
I think the point of the article is that it is easier to overeat processed foods (such as cake) than unprocessed ones (such as potatoes and nuts) because the former are engineered to not trigger your brain's sense of satiety.
Aside from that, I'm a bodybuilder and I hold CrossFitters in very low regard - but the comment you are responding to is correct in the sense that "clean" foods make it easier to manage one's weight, even though "a calorie is just a calorie."
Why the need to jab at people who do CrossFit? Sure, there are people in the mix that coach in ways that damage the body but there are plenty of people/coaches/gyms who focus on building sustainable athleticism (read: not breaking people's bodies).
You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, I can't change that; but what you wrote is just as silly as someone saying that they hold "black/white/asian" people in very low regard.
There is needless damaging going on. No screening and a retarded or no progression at all. With bad technique.
If it would be just useless training, that would be ok. Most Fads are like this.
But this actively harms people : see high rep box jumps and Achilles tendon ruptures, kipping pull-ups and SLAP lesions and high rep Olympic lifts and broken bodies.
Short term results by pushing hard and resistance training for the first time in their lives. Then long term failure.
Because the term "unprocessed" carries its own ambiguities. Is cooking a steak a form of processing? I would say so. What about the mashing of potatoes? Ultimately, processed and clean are largely subjective.
Because "unprocessed" means - nothing that's been processed by humans. That means no salt. No ground pepper. Which is obviously silly BUT there are purists in the primal/paleo community that do follow the guidelines of eating unprocessed food.
Is the word "clean" slightly ambiguous? Sure. Is English as a natural language ambiguous? Definitely. I'm not going to go write an entire article about what "clean" means to me then reference said article every time I try to talk about "eating clean".
Your agreement with the above poster about "holding CrossFitters in very low regard" is just as childish as the statement you're agreeing with. How would you feel if I decided to belt out saying (or agreeing) that something you do which can't possibly be represented by any one generalization is something I hold in very low regard?
I'm not about to get my feelings hurt across the internet - but I promise if you do go about your life acting like that you will hurt someone's feelings.
People just call clean, whatever they like/think is beneficial. Everything they deem harmful is unclean.
So it's useless.
Regarding Crossfit: There are some very valid reasons I think very badly about CF. It has amazing marketing and can offer a great community (though cult-like). But harms a lot of people long term > see comment above.
"If you have no prior experience with Ruby, you will find a very steep learning curve diving straight into Rails." http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html#guide-ass...
Where did anyone hear and/or read otherwise? Similarly with all the other complaints. To me, they sound like straw men.