rather, the ideas lead a series of men. - paraphrasing Joseph de Maistre on the French Revolution
In the eyes of the modern company, the customer's struggle is viewed as fertile land, and the customer's finished services (and goods): their fruits. The company product is that which can sustainably improve the land. Competitors' tools must then be stopped from reaching said land. This is achieved by employing mercenaries. We will mention their origins in war, then view their use in the marketplace. In war, those for hire are seeking to employ combative skills in the name of a highest bidder. It is known they risk an instant death and will leave a struggle for their families. This raises the question: are they historically lower-class citizens who became combat specialists to leave (what is in their eyes) a terrible state? Right now, "yes" seems to be the answer. This question can be expounded upon and will in a later post. So two reasons of many come to mind concerning their decision: those that the mercenary leaves behind will be in the care of a governing body, and the mercenary has the opportunity to reach great influence given they win the majority of their battles. Modern company recruiting involves placing information in key sections of a geography. The latter is not merely two dimensional and covers the digital realm as well. The founders of said company generated that genuine, novel piece of information. Yet they alone do not have the resources to span all dimensions. Hence, this novel idea - it's potential now manifest with investors' money along with few customer sales - enables recruitment. Product, Support, Marketing, and all other departments of a company are both attack and defense outposts of information. An example of attack is Sales personnel cold-calling and is Product team delivering new features. An example of defense is Support teams aiding where positive information about the product is giving way to negative information. Life is not at intense risk when in the employ of a modern company (compared to the likes of being in actual war). In fact, the perks and benefits enhance life by degrees of magnitude. The bloody battlefield is now translated to ideas being erased on whiteboards. This modern mercenary must still be loyal as ever to the company's vision and growth, but he must be mindful of the shifting battleground. After all, the winners of information battles (e.g. a product implementation) receive the gold. Positive and negative information about the company and its competitors zoom around quickly in this 21st century.
She describes in high tongue that which permeates all levels. It is a sign towards the beautiful, but complex. Complexities restart the efforts to light fires. Searing flashes are simple in feel and look, all in one sound: Love.
and the supported product. The relationships are as such because the end user's applications share little language with our product or the end user's languages are entirely exclusive from the product. In my research of App A, it is my job to redefine its components in the vocabulary of my company. This definition can then be used in communication with the end users and my company's engineers. After it's establishment I describe the solution with the uncovered knowledge and record it for further App A support. So this notion of "techspeak" and becoming fluent in it should be every one's prerogative in a company providing integrations with dozens of applications.
Do what thou wilt. Said the sign High above My intellect sublime. Who put his here? Those trackers at bay: Never near me, Behind the words they say. It's a colossus seen by the seafarers lost, thinking that this will save them at all costs. Land upon it shores and soon find the terror of absolute freedom with no bind. I pass the sign, it as one star among the constellation, to double down on work handed to me in this station.
Knowing this is crucial to picking the battles. And pick we must, for each day brings bouts in which we fight; and we win or lose. A hater will quickly resort to ad hominems and straw-manning, but a critic will apply his point to the strongest argument from the opponent. The hater will devour and engage with hearsay and secondary sources. The critic will contemplate the subject as a whole that is derived from the primary sources he must be familiar with. This introduces a big problem for both observers. Primary sources can be difficult to understand - these are written many generations before us and make references that require further reading which involves vocabulary that involves further reading, etc, etc. This is where the guide (e.g. professor) comes to aid in the teaching environment. They are the bridge between that of the world ago and today's open minds. With this said, the hater refuses to find the guide and the critic is usually within the bounds of a guide. However, critics must not let the guide's experience absolutely crush the spirit of the times.