We have two open spots in the founding team for a B2C edtech startup founded by Oxford and IIT Delhi grads going after a $200B market.
Our mission is to enable a billion+ people to learn, teach, and connect better.
We are post-MVP, pre-launch. We are fundraising starting April and expecting to close the round before July. As the founders shift focus towards fundraising, we are opening up two positions for founding engineers to take over the product.
What we are looking for
Essential Skills
- You have experience in building apps based on React.js, Node.js and Postgres.
- You have a bias towards shipping fast and an an eye for design
- You are obsessive about documentation and writing readable code
- You take full ownership of the work
Good To Have Skills
- Experience with cloud deployment with services like AWS
- Prototyping and Design skills
Please send your resume and github profile to cambridgeinnovationlabs@gmail.com and we’d reach out to you. For any further questions, please write to us.
A friend who is a highly acclaimed therapist specializes in exactly this.
She has a new course coming up that helps people find their direction and purpose towards what matters to them. I would higly recommend it. The course information is on the home page of her website https://www.clairespooner.com/
Hey thunkle. Sounds like a tough spot to be in, but as you said, there's always a bright side, and who knows what lies ahead. What would be a good way to contact you?
The comment is mocking part of another culture (eating with one's hands). That's the racism.
Living under fear of being shot over an argument or your children being shot in school shootings or living where paedophiles or sex abuse runs amok in top institutions (Larry Nassar, Sandusky/Sports, Epstein/Hollywood, Clinton/Trump/Politics are just some high profile examples) or being screwed by inflated healthcare costs is also not most people's ideas of a good life, but no one here seems to be mocking American culture.
And hundreds of millions of Indians are perfectly happy with their lives in India, so it can be "most" people's ideas of a good life.
Hey. Same - I have recurring dreams (across years) on the themes you mention + a few more (inventing "flying", cosmic apocalpypse). Shall we connect to see if we can solve this mystery? - see its connected to personality or life experiences?
Hi. As someone new to frontend, could anyone tell me how frontend for lightweight-but-very-functional sites like these (also hackernews) built? Do they use something like Next.js for server-side-rendering? Which frameworks would you recommend to build a social network, if one wanted to avoid Single Page frameworks like React and Vue?
Having built sites of similar levels of interactivity, we would have used some sort of server side framework with a template library (A custom PHP framework+Smarty, Spring Boot+Thymeleaf, Python+Django), without any front end frameworks at all. We would use jQuery a little, and later some Bootstrap. But these days vanilla JS would probably suffice for what we'd generally have used jQuery for. This is probably a bit old school at this point, I'm sure.
jQuery is a relatively small dependency and it's still more expressive than vanilla JS so I wouldn't hesitate to use it if it felt appropriate.
One could also reach for something like Preact if some components are too complicated for manual imperative updates. You can use it without a build step and only for some parts of your pages. For compatibility you can ship a server-rendered component that you then throw away if the client has JS enabled (although that would require you to implement it twice).
You don't need to use react and vue as single page frameworks, you can just use them for reactivity / events. There are lightweight alternatives for that too.
If you do it that way you don't need server side rendering since your JS is only handling events and there are no client side components or anything like that.
I think the backend directly emits HTML. Some JS (without libraries if I'm not mistaken) is used on the client side for things like voting. I don't know how it does persistence or what its infrastructure looks like.
That's probably because the content in this post is more about "soft skills" or what many would consider fluff.
"habits of mind", "tools of thought", "force multiplier", "superpowers" "embrace fear" etc. reads straight out from a Tim Ferris-like self-help book targetting millennials than anything a senior engineer would write.
I read your last year's post - that one was much more useful and insightful. So +1 (upvote) to more of those.
I always felt Math use data structures and algorithms. Properties of whatever you manipulate let you have some sort of known structure with proven theorems, then you use these theorems one after an other until you get to where you maybe "want" to be .
It seems to me that mathematical objects are often more abstract than data structures are required to be. For example, you can reason about a triangle without specifying how you would represent it. You could represent a triangle as a list of three points, or as a list of side lengths and angles or even a list of angles which forces you to reason about the class of similar triangles with those angles. In fact, to represent certain algebraic structures is an entire subfield of algebra (representation theory) distinct from the parts of algebra that reason about those structures without trying to represent them.
Representation theory is about study of functors between category of vector spaces and category of interest, which is quite different from the problem of different representations of a triangle.
Different how? They are both ways of making abstract descriptions of an object more concrete, which is analogous to the job of a programmer designing a data structure to concretely describe an abstractly specified computational object.
My point is just that in math, you can reason about an object even if you can't concretely represent it. For example, you can figure out properties of a number or function that you don't know enough about to write down. But in programming you can't use an object unless you have a concrete representation of it, and often getting that concrete representation (in both math and programming) requires a kind of work which is quite different than the work of abstractly describing or specifying it. So it's maybe not always appropriate to call an abstract description of a mathematical object a "data structure", since often it's more analogous to (say) the interface of an object than it's implementation.
