The data gets off it via bluetooth to a more powerful device. So yes, no UI at all.
The trick to wearables is not to have a UI. Everyone has a powerful computer with a great UI in their pocket. Wearables should leverage that by providing absolute minimal controls (no more than 1 or 2 buttons/knobs, no more than a small digital watch like display) and should transmit their data to the users phone via BLE. Then an app on the phone should provide more advanced control and display of results. The value of wearables is in providing additional sensors for apps, not in UI.
Because Civ is a single player game. It isn't meant for multiplayer, and multiplayer has always been a terrible experience. I'd prefer if they dropped it entirely and spent more time on polishing the AI or released it earlier. Because they shove in a half baked multiplayer we get a worse game.
Also, give this a try.
Cosmologists say that when we look in the sky and all the stars and planets, we can see them escaping us. This explains that the universe is expanding. But if we can observe the same thing from every side of Earth, wouldn't it mean that we are in the center?
It's a good question. Try this video
Yeah, your post is pretty much bullshit. A CS degree from Harvard isn't worth anything more than any other college. They aren't known for their science or engineering program. One from MIT is worth more due to their reputation in the field, but no more so than a couple of other top schools like UC-Berkley or UIUC which are public (or Stanford which isn't)..
Basically there's 3 tiers of degrees. The elite CS schools (about the top 5-6) earn bonus points, but more is expected from you. Then there's a middle tier of about a dozen schools with a good reputation but not up to the elite. It may help you get to an interview, but gives you no bonus points once there. Everything else just lumps together in the yes he has a degree box.
Please note that online degrees, MOOC certs, University of Phoenix type schools, fall under no degree at all.
Maybe a better analogy than jail would be foster system. We need to take the company away from mommy and daddy for a little while (or forever) because they weren't responsible parents, and give it to someone who will follow the law.
This april fools is believable.
The problem is that there's no way to do that with the current short term management techniques and high CxO salaries. If they get away with it for 1 year and make 10-20 million, which the lawsuits can't touch, they don't care. We need to change the corporate veil so it protects small investors but not those who run the company day to day.
Depends on if you care. Most likely these employees are talented programmers, and the hiring environment is good right now. For those who have a bit of money set aside losing their job is an inconvenience at worst, a nice vacation at best. Especially if they were smart enough to start shipping resumes as they took their stand.
Designers who don't code are worthless. They make horrible solutions because they're too separated from the actual problems with their designs. Senior devs should be designing, but they should still be coding most of their own designs.
Like I said- there's exceptions. Maybe you're one of them, I can't tell as I don't know you. But you'd need to prove you were an exception in the interview, because most of the people who stay that long have stagnated.
I stick by 3 months though. That's plenty of time to learn the system, if it takes longer than that you aren't really trying. If it takes you a year (as a senior, not as an intermediate or junior), you've been let go by that time. Of course your experience could be biased in some ways- the best engineers I know would avoid the kind of place where you work on 1 system for 5 years, so you may be looking at a lower overall talent pool.
May I pass up on some good talent because of this? Maybe. But I'm not particularly worried about it- passing up on a good hire is a less harmful mistake than making a bad hire. Besides which, the few exceptions that I'd miss aren't looking for new jobs anyway. And they probably wouldn't be happy at the type of company I prefer.
One other comment, I forgot in my original reply. Each year of experience doing the same thing brings diminishing returns. By branching out and doing other things, you learn additional skills and tricks that are used in other fields. I've done firmware, web services, mobile software, porting, etc in my career. I can bring knowledge from one field to bear on another. Someone who's moved has seen a variety of business practices, protocols, and development practices while someone who's stayed in place likely hasn't. So 10 years of mixed experience will very likely just be a better programmer than 10 years of staying in place.
I use that method of subtraction today, and have since grade school. I just typically do it in reverse- figure out what numbers I need to add to the smaller number to make the bigger number, and typically with larger numbers. Its a solid way of doing the math, there's no reason it shouldn't be taught to them.
I agree that the term shouldn't be taught to them. Its something educators should know so they can discuss techniques. Although you will find that term in a lot of math textbooks these days.