I agree with most of whats written here. I think there is a major point you're overlooking here. There is simply just too much information we're expected to know nowadays. You could argue that the amount of information we have to cram into our brains in such a short amount of time makes it very difficult to build good long term memories. High School and university curriculum's are forever expanding jamming more and more in the same period of time. Even in professional settings such as being a web developer or data scientist for example where new things are being invented by the second that then become the standard. At some point you'll need to offload long term memories to external sources. So while you may forget the actual content of what you need to know, you could for example remember what to google and the summary of the content you expect. Essentially our long term memories is transformed into pointers for external information banks. We only keep whats absolutely essential to perform our functions.

The problem is that if you don't commit information to long-term memory you can't use it reason effectively in other contexts, and you have to add it back to your short-term memory every time you look it up -- so outsourcing your memory to a knowledge bank is limiting the complexity of the tasks you can handle.

So there might be more information you're expected to know in modern jobs -- but if you spend a bit more time consolidating rather than acquiring new information, you can build the foundations on which more advanced skills can rest.

For transparency: I work with the OP

A key point here is that our brains don't work like computer hard drives. Our brains are a lot closer to how, in biology, a single cell stores the entire DNA "data" that's needed to replicate but just using a few base pairs.

We likely store information more in some type of loose graph structure, where we recall / "remember" something by re-creating links to that piece of information. There seems to be very very little "storage cost" for the billions of pieces of information we keep in our brains.

> There is simply just too much information we're expected to know nowadays. You could argue that the amount of information we have to cram into our brains in such a short amount of time makes it very difficult to build good long term memories.

I would also argue that the time we spend memorizing "facts", of questionable utility, takes away from the time that could be spent on learning better methodologies for thinking.

This seems like a pretty bad idea and one thats going to choke Heroku's growth. The only realistic reason one would actually build on Heroku is that they started with the free tier and decided it would take too much time to switch to anything else. I get the reasoning behind wanting to reduce the amount of time the engineering team spends trying to prevent abuse of the free tier but there are much better strategies to go about it then remove it all together. Sounds like Salesforce basically wants to milk Heroku and squeeze as much profit out of it before its completely dead

This is why writing software is as much an art as it is a science. It is never perfect

It just shows a strong correlation regardless of other factors such as demographics. The causation of such correlation is not yet determined. Although its probably a good idea to make sure you're not deficient whether or not vitamin D has an effect

This sounds really interesting !

The whole "PHP bad" shit is really stupid and I bet you 99% of people who make those witty snarks would not be able to build something like this

Personally I vote to let people write code in the format they are most comfortable with and run the formatter as part of CI

Not sure I agree. Most coding is maintenance. Far better to adapt to whatever the coding style convention is.

I also believe that formatters should be "light-touch" and not have an opinion about every last thing. At that point I start thinking, "if you so smart, why don't you write the bloody code!"

The reason Netflix is allowed to do it is because they are classified as a reader app

> if an app is a way to exclusively consume content purchased elsewhere, like songs or movies or podcasts, they don't have to have in-app purchases.

According to apple an exclusive email client is not classified as a reader app and so they are forced to offer in app purchases. The guidelines are super confusing and in my opinion pretty crap but it's not a case of favouritism or giving special exemptions to Netflix for example

I thought that was what they hey app was doing

> Users cannot use the app to access email or perform any useful function until after they go to the Basecamp website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the HEY Email app. This violates the following App Store Review Guidelines

The problem is it's not classified as a reader app according to Apple's guidelines. If you are not a reader app and there is something to be purchased, you must also offer in app purchases.

> if an app is a way to exclusively consume content purchased elsewhere, like songs or movies or podcasts, they don't have to have in-app purchases.

This sounds very rough, wishing you all the best. I would say the main goal for you here is survival and having a roof over your head. Maybe consider getting a minimum wage job somewhere to at least give you enough money for food and rent while you keep looking for another job in the field you love. The other thing is to look at remote jobs. There are plenty out there especially nowadays. Wishing you all the best