How To Not Suck With PowerPoint
Everyone hates on PowerPoint. There’s much to hate about PowerPoint. At the end of the day though, it’s just a tool.
I want to show you how to wield PowerPoint for good. However in order to do that, first we need to understand why PowerPoint is bad.
Perhaps it’ll be easier to show you what I mean:
You probably recognize this slide. This is what every PowerPoint slide ever presented looks like.
CSS Specificity Explained In 300 Words
If you’ve done much CSS, you’ve probably run into this issue:
/* a rule defined in some common/library code */
.some-component .some-element {
color: red;
}
/* ...somewhere else in a file you're working on... */
.some-element {
color: blue; /* doesn't work. why? */
}
You added some CSS to make the element blue, but for some reason a CSS rule defined earlier in some library is overriding your style. What gives?
Debugging 3rd Party Nuget Packages
The following is a braindump of what options there are for debugging Nuget packages not maintained by you. It’s not particulary polished, but maybe it’ll help someone.
Angular 1 Adoption Has Peaked: Are People Moving To Angular 2 Or React?
A Process Minimalist’s Guide To Retrospectives
Have you heard about Google’s Project Aristotle? It was a research project that aimed to find out what combination of personality types, skill sets, and backgrounds made up the most effective teams at Google. Are teams who hang out outside of work more effective? Do you group introverts with other introverts? Should teams share a preference for managerial style? Stuff like that.
(Bear with me—I promise this will tie back to retrospectives.)
So what did the researchers find out?
“We looked at 180 teams from all over the company,” Dubey said. “We had lots of data, but there was nothing showing that a mix of specific personality types or skills or backgrounds made any difference. The ‘who’ part of the equation didn’t seem to matter.”
—Charles Duhigg, What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team
And later in the article:
Most confounding of all, two teams might have nearly identical makeups, with overlapping memberships, but radically different levels of effectiveness. “At Google, we’re good at finding patterns,” Dubey said. “There weren’t strong patterns here.”
Did you catch that? Let that sink in for a minute.
Researchers at Google, who have access to more teams and more data than perhaps at any other company in history, and who are experts at finding patterns could not find any strong patterns in what combination of individuals make up an effective team. “The ‘who’ part of the equation didn’t seem to matter.”