This post makes me legitimately angry for so many reasons.

1. "Full stack" developer is a bullshit term which really just brings to light the fact that 95% of people in the software industry are fucking morons. Development is development. The only difference between C++, JavaScript, and Lua is syntax. If you aren't "full stack" then you aren't a developer, you're a monkey who memorized a couple of commands
2. SO MANY FUCKING COMPANIES want to hire someone who's motivated to take ownership of a project, but then they don't compensate them as an owner. "We want you to work from 7am to 11pm and really LOVE what you do.... and we'll pay you $30,000 annual salary (no overtime) and you won't get stock options". If you want people to feel invested, then give them a fucking stake. I won't care about your profits if I don't get a share of them
3. SO MANY FUCKING COMPANIES want to hire someone who comes pre-built with all of their ridiculous goddamned demands. "We want someone with 20+ years of experience writing apps on every conceivable platform". It's called on-the-fucking-job training. Every 5 years the number of software developers doubles. Written another way that means OVER HALF of all software developers have less than 5 years of experience. SO FUCKING TEACH THEM
4. The reason there are so many fucking job openings is because a bunch of fucking morons think they can make a "software company" and magically produce cash. Every blow joe and his mother wants to make a "million dollar app", but if it doesn't generate a million dollars of economic value then it's not a fucking million dollar app. There are millions of "me too" companies trying to re-invent the wheel for the 8000th time
5. The OTHER reason there are so many fucking job openings is because there are so many fucking bad developers. One good developer can do the job of 10 bad ones. Therefore if there are 5 openings per 1 developer that means you need HALF as many developers, but they need to not suck - which would happen if you actually fucking trained people instead of expecting them to front the cost of their own training for 10+ years before getting paid absolute shit
6. After talking about "unicorns" and "full stack developers" and how companies want to hire a fucking 30+ year experience PhD for pennies on the dollar, they then "solve" the problem by saying you should split your stack and have two dev work entirely independently with no communication on the same product. What the ever-loving fuck?

This is just a small part of why development is fucking terrible now. I fucking hate what companies have done to programming.

Humor me, then. How do they work?

I think you've severely misunderstood the definition of "logical fallacy". If something makes sense mathematically, it's not logically fallacious

Now it could be socially harmful. It could be detrimental to a community. It could be negative in general. That doesn't mean it's a fallacy, it just means it's a bad idea. Giving 3 year old children access to soldering irons is also a bad idea -- but that doesn't mean it's a "logical fallacy". It's just plain dumb.

You also said that the down vote is "physically" harmful. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a single instance of a person getting bruised, bleeding, breaking bones, or even getting scratched as the result of a down vote. There's no physical harm involved. There's the potential for:

• Psychological harm if the person is weak-minded and overly-concerned with how others perceive them ("Oh my god, someone hates me! I should just die!")
• Social harm if a person finds themselves unable to participate in a community ("I asked someone why they hate women, got a down vote, now I have -1 CCP and I'm not allowed to talk to anyone for 24 hours -- the isolation is killing me")
• Informational harm if people start down voting based on their own biased beliefs ("Someone posted irrefutable proof that the earth is round, but I think it's flat, so I'm going to down vote them so no one else sees this proof and I can pretend it didn't happen")

But physical harm? Nah. Can't happen.

That's not to say that down voting is a good thing. As I said before, it creates echo chambers. You develop subverse-culture where a small group of people have a shared set of beliefs and anything that adheres to their beliefs is up voted and anything that runs counter to their beliefs in down voted. Eventually they're swimming in a pool of posts that validate their beliefs and they've closed off all external opinions. But just because down votes are a bad idea, they lead to the division of society, they reduce our ability to empathize with others, and they aide in dehumanizing our opponents -- there's still no logical fallacy.

As there's no logical fallacy, the fallacy hasn't become obvious.

While I agree that down-voting systems are inherently terrible, your post was incomprehensible, you changed subject on a dime, you made massive leaps without any connectives, and you seem to have implied a dormant conspiracy theory.

It's difficult to provide any meaningful commentary or response since your entire post made no fucking sense. But I'll see if I can try, because I'm bored and I like a challenge.

it become obvious to me that the downvoting algorithm is a logic fallacy for a forum

You should elaborate on how it's a "logic" fallacy. I don't see any logical fallacy, at all. The logic holds up perfectly. If you disagree with a post (the first predicate) THEN you may down-vote it (a secondary predicate, forming an inferential relation). In fact, the contra-positive is also true: If you don't down-vote a post, then you may like it.

Since those who made Reddit must be pretty intelligent people

You've made a really large assumption here and provided no evidence to back it up. Those who made Reddit were businessmen trying to find a way to maximize advertising dollars. Those who made Voat just copied Reddit's form factor without applying their own design intuition.

also those who made Voat can't be less intelligent

Why can't they?

is it possible that both teams of skilled programmers didn't notice this logic fallacy

Without pointing out where the logical fallacy lies (which you seem to imply is "obvious", but it's not so) it's impossible to answer this question. However it is possible to point out that since Voat merely copied Reddit and was not developed independently, it's not necessary for two individual teams to fail to notice a fallacy. Only the first team needs to fail, and the second team inherits their failures.

Or by putting the question in inquisitor mode

What the FUCK is "inquisitor mode"? Is that your way of saying "conspiracy theory mode"?

do you think it is possible that both Reddit and Voat owners are using deliberately the downvoting algorithm for eventual manipulation

Manipulation of WHAT? I don't believe that the down-vote system poses a threat of manipulating anything. All it does is give users the ability to ruin their own experience by creating echo chambers.

TL / DR - Can a programmer be any good without being proficient in logic?

This is entirely unrelated to the two other entirely unrelated points you've already made. First you started talking about an "obvious" logical fallacy, but never explained what the fallacy was. Then you suggested Reddit and Voat are using down-votes as part of some conspiracy to manipulate the masses but failed to explain how. Now you're asking a general question about programming and formal logic. A leap like this would frighten Evel Knievel.

That said, I would say it's a bit more complicated that than. On the one hand, logic and programming go hand-in-hand. Boolean algebra derives from formal logic and drives all conditional statements. Without the ability to follow steps sequentially to their logical conclusion you can't understand the execution of a process and therefore can't hope to debug it. On the other hand, "logic" is often used to refer to a specific branch of formal logic involving proofs. Just as you don't need to be good at geometry to do algebra, and you don't need to be good at discrete math to do calculus, you also don't need to be good at this particular subset of logic in order to program. It's a very diverse field.

I like what they're trying to do, but 23 is way to many guidelines and they didn't even make it an interesting read. It's just a list of demands. At least provide examples of good versus bad code for each so people can clearly see the advantage.

Features

• Upper- and Lowercase Characters

I stopped reading there. This is such a load of crock. I mean, it's obvious this is a joke because it's just one static password, but seriously - people need to stop pushing this meme that more character sets gives more security.

Using VERY crude math you could say "Well there are 26 letters, so a 10-digit pure letter password has 26^10 possibilities but a 10-digit alphanumeric password has 36^10 possibilities, which is more!" but this assume that ALL 10 digits are random. This means that the odds of your password being "x8dh3kz7ln" are the same as the odds of your password being "aaaaaaaaaa". Because most people would say "aaaaaaaaaa" is insecure, they'd strip this from the list of "possible passwords", meaning there's now only 36^10-1 possibilities. You can see how this can be continued ad nauseum.

Here's the real kicker, though. People don't use RANDOM passwords. If you needed a 10-digit alphanumeric password you'd probably pick something like "jessica345". In this case your password template is "7 letters followed by 3 numbers", which gives (26^7)(10^3) possibilities (WAAAAAY less than 36^10). Worse yet, your password template might be "1 name followed by N numbers, where N is 10 minus the length of the name". Now the number of possible passwords AT MOST: X * (10^9), where X is the number of possible names (which is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than 26^7 and probably even lower than 26^4)

WORSE YET, when people DO use a random password, they can't remember it. So they write it down. On a post-it note. On their wall. Near their computer. All your security is now worth NOTHING.

This problem is only compounded when you add in symbols and crap that NO ONE can remember, because you can't pronounce them!

But you know what makes for a REALLY secure password? Length. Because 26^100 is way way way way way way WAY bigger than 100^26

In fact, if the length is sufficient, you don't even need a "random" password. A secure password could be something like "I like to walk my dog in circles on Wednesdays". No one will ever guess this, and a computer will never brute force it. But you know what the FREAKING problem is with this password?

• "Your password is too long. Please enter a password less than 16 characters"
• "Your password doesn't contain a number, a symbol, and a unicode character"
• "Your password contains illegal characters, because we don't know how to cleanse database inputs and we store your password in plain text so please don't use any of the following: !@#$%^&*()-=_+[]{}|'";:/?.>,<"

I'm absolutely SICK of sites FORCING me to make crappy passwords.

You're not wrong. Python is very lucrative, but getting a good Python job is more about who you know than what you know.

Python is a favored language among scientists and mathematicians. Meet with professors and get to know their in groups and what they're working on. You can make $100,000+ working in Python, but the job postings won't show up on Indeed

Angular hasn't been the next big thing for years. React stole their thunder, and now Vue has moved in to steal it from them.

For the time being, Vue is the new hot shit on the block.

First and foremost, I think it's awesome that you started with SQL. I'm not even trolling here, this is very serious. I've seen COUNTLESS applications brought to their knees by poor data schemas. When the schema is wrong, the app will never work and you will spend months chasing bugs only to find that when you solve one, three more pop up. I think that all developers need to go on a 6-month paid vacation where they spend the entire time in a database boot camp and practice normal form until it's second nature to them.

Now as far as this job is concerned, I would recommend passing on it. Here's my reasoning:

1. Angular is a UI framework, and it sounds like you've never messed with UI. There's a LOT to learn when you start dealing with UI. Everything from button placement to text size can affect how users interact with your app, and a misplaced checkbox that made perfect sense in your head could cause thousands of users to complain about lost data. You need to understand human psychology. It's definitely a skill worth learning, but since this job is strictly Angular, as you said, you won't be dipping your big toe in and acclimating to UI development at a safe pace. You'll be diving in head first, and it's very rocky at the bottom of the UI pool.
2. Angular is a web framework, and it sounds like you've never messed with browsers. There's a LOT to learn when you start dealing with web. CORS headers, AJAX, browser consistency issues, IE hacks, the horrors of data persistence (cookies vs LocalStorage vs AJAX calls to a back-end server), asset bundling, the hellscape that is modern build tools (WebPack is a sin), etc. Just like with UI, you want to wade those waters carefully or else you'll lose interest in web development for life
3. Angular, as a framework, is becoming niche. For a while it was the go-to framework for front-end dev. Then React came and blew them out of the water. It was easier to use, easier to debug, had better performance, and didn't have any weird magic under the hood. Later yet came Vue who took everything React did and, in my opinion, improved upon it. Eventually Angular completely rebuilt itself in React's image, but ever since they did they've been trying to target enterprise clients. Microsoft uses Angular. Startups use Vue.

I'd look for a Full Stack job. Something where you can bounce between front-end and back-end as you get warmed up to the idea. Don't dive head first into a pure-Angular job. You'll hate yourself for it.

I feel like I saw this video a couple of years ago. Maybe it was just earlier this year, but that doesn't sound right to me... Either way, my opinion was the same then as it is now: People severely misunderstand what programming is.

Consider 0:38 - 0:44 when he says: "As long as there are jobs, people will specialize. And there's no reason to think programming is any different"

Now look at the four jobs he put up as examples

• A toolbox (carpentry? construction?)
• A helicopter (pilot? army?)
• A briefcase (accountant? sales?)
• A pizza (food prep?)

Each of these job provides value to the economy IN ITS OWN RIGHT. A carpenter create tables and chairs. A construction worker creates houses. A pilot transports goods and people. An army officer protects people. An accountant tracks assets. A sales rep informs potential clients of the value of products they might not otherwise know exist, and generates revenue for their business. Food is literally what we need to survive.

Now consider the computer, IN ITS OWN RIGHT. Imagine a computer sitting in a void. What can this computer do for you? It can do your taxes, but that's really just automating an accountant's job. It can handle the autopilot on a plane, but that's really just automating a pilot's job. It can manage the timer on an oven, but that's really just automating the job of a food preparation specialist.

Computers are automation machines. They take any job that already exists, and they make it more efficient.

When you think of computers this way, computers make no sense without the context of some other job.

When we "specialize in computers", we're effectively trying to automate jobs that we aren't doing. When developing EHR software, who do you trust to understand the medical profession better -- a doctor, or a college grad who spend his whole educational career looking at circuit boards and not humans?

This belief that "programming should be left to the programmers" means we're trusting people with NO experience in a job field to try and automate that field.

It's my believe that we should take the best and brightest of each field and let them do the programming. You want good EHR software? Find the best doctors and let them write it. You want good manufacturing robots? Find the best and brightest manufacturers and let them design them. You want good tax software? Find the best and brightest accountants and let them write it.

I think everyone should know how to code. Because computers aren't some stand-alone industry that offers value in its own right. They're automation machines that are invaluable to everyone but require context to be useful.

I started using Unity not too long ago. I have a LONG history of programming but I'd never done game development, and it was overwhelming at first because there's a lot to learn, and not only on the programming side. Game development involves level design, asset design, 3D modeling, animations,... and the deeper you dive into each of those the more you find your brain spider webbing. You can't discuss animations without discussing IK rigging, and that means you need to discuss what "rigging" in general means, which gets into bones and joints but then there's also the mesh and meshes are kind of like models, but kind of not? And models have normals and if the normals are wrong then nothing will show up....

Eventually my head started spinning. I'll tell you one thing with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY: The worst way to learn Unity is with a depth-first approach. If you want to start making games then you need to accept that 90% of the time you won't know what you're doing. You need to get ready to accept that you'll spend a lot of time copying and pasting code, or importing some library, or frantically trying random things, and you won't understand it all. Understanding will come with time.

I personally found Udemy courses were very useful for my Unity journey. I learned a lot from Ben Tristem's "Complete C# Unity Developer 3D - Learn to Code Making Games"