More on Personal Growth

James White
3 years ago
Three Books That Can Change Your Life in a Day
I've summarized each.
Anne Lamott said books are important. Books help us understand ourselves and our behavior. They teach us about community, friendship, and death.
I read. One of my few life-changing habits. 100+ books a year improve my life. I'll list life-changing books you can read in a day. I hope you like them too.
Let's get started!
1) Seneca's Letters from a Stoic
One of my favorite philosophy books. Ryan Holiday, Naval Ravikant, and other prolific readers recommend it.
Seneca wrote 124 letters at the end of his life after working for Nero. Death, friendship, and virtue are discussed.
It's worth rereading. When I'm in trouble, I consult Seneca.
It's brief. The book could be read in one day. However, use it for guidance during difficult times.
My favorite book quotes:
Many men find that becoming wealthy only alters their problems rather than solving them.
You will never be poor if you live in harmony with nature; you will never be wealthy if you live according to what other people think.
We suffer more frequently in our imagination than in reality; there are more things that are likely to frighten us than to crush us.
2) Steven Pressfield's book The War of Art
I’ve read this book twice. I'll likely reread it before 2022 is over.
The War Of Art is the best productivity book. Steven offers procrastination-fighting tips.
Writers, musicians, and creative types will love The War of Art. Workplace procrastinators should also read this book.
My favorite book quotes:
The act of creation is what matters most in art. Other than sitting down and making an effort every day, nothing else matters.
Working creatively is not a selfish endeavor or an attempt by the actor to gain attention. It serves as a gift for all living things in the world. Don't steal your contribution from us. Give us everything you have.
Fear is healthy. Fear is a signal, just like self-doubt. Fear instructs us on what to do. The more terrified we are of a task or calling, the more certain we can be that we must complete it.
3) Darren Hardy's The Compound Effect
The Compound Effect offers practical tips to boost productivity by 10x.
The author believes each choice shapes your future. Pizza may seem harmless. However, daily use increases heart disease risk.
Positive outcomes too. Daily gym visits improve fitness. Reading an hour each night can help you learn. Writing 1,000 words per day would allow you to write a novel in under a year.
Your daily choices affect compound interest and your future. Thus, better habits can improve your life.
My favorite book quotes:
Until you alter a daily habit, you cannot change your life. The key to your success can be found in the actions you take each day.
The hundreds, thousands, or millions of little things are what distinguish the ordinary from the extraordinary; it is not the big things that add up in the end.
Don't worry about willpower. Time to use why-power. Only when you relate your decisions to your aspirations and dreams will they have any real meaning. The decisions that are in line with what you define as your purpose, your core self, and your highest values are the wisest and most inspiring ones. To avoid giving up too easily, you must want something and understand why you want it.

Samer Buna
2 years ago
The Errors I Committed As a Novice Programmer
Learn to identify them, make habits to avoid them
First, a clarification. This article is aimed to make new programmers aware of their mistakes, train them to detect them, and remind them to prevent them.
I learned from all these blunders. I'm glad I have coding habits to avoid them. Do too.
These mistakes are not ordered.
1) Writing code haphazardly
Writing good content is hard. It takes planning and investigation. Quality programs don't differ.
Think. Research. Plan. Write. Validate. Modify. Unfortunately, no good acronym exists. Create a habit of doing the proper quantity of these activities.
As a newbie programmer, my biggest error was writing code without thinking or researching. This works for small stand-alone apps but hurts larger ones.
Like saying anything you might regret, you should think before coding something you could regret. Coding expresses your thoughts.
When angry, count to 10 before you speak. If very angry, a hundred. — Thomas Jefferson.
My quote:
When reviewing code, count to 10 before you refactor a line. If the code does not have tests, a hundred. — Samer Buna
Programming is primarily about reviewing prior code, investigating what is needed and how it fits into the current system, and developing small, testable features. Only 10% of the process involves writing code.
Programming is not writing code. Programming need nurturing.
2) Making excessive plans prior to writing code
Yes. Planning before writing code is good, but too much of it is bad. Water poisons.
Avoid perfect plans. Programming does not have that. Find a good starting plan. Your plan will change, but it helped you structure your code for clarity. Overplanning wastes time.
Only planning small features. All-feature planning should be illegal! The Waterfall Approach is a step-by-step system. That strategy requires extensive planning. This is not planning. Most software projects fail with waterfall. Implementing anything sophisticated requires agile changes to reality.
Programming requires responsiveness. You'll add waterfall plan-unthinkable features. You will eliminate functionality for reasons you never considered in a waterfall plan. Fix bugs and adjust. Be agile.
Plan your future features, though. Do it cautiously since too little or too much planning can affect code quality, which you must risk.
3) Underestimating the Value of Good Code
Readability should be your code's exclusive goal. Unintelligible code stinks. Non-recyclable.
Never undervalue code quality. Coding communicates implementations. Coders must explicitly communicate solution implementations.
Programming quote I like:
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live. — John Woods
John, great advice!
Small things matter. If your indentation and capitalization are inconsistent, you should lose your coding license.
Long queues are also simple. Readability decreases after 80 characters. To highlight an if-statement block, you might put a long condition on the same line. No. Just never exceed 80 characters.
Linting and formatting tools fix many basic issues like this. ESLint and Prettier work great together in JavaScript. Use them.
Code quality errors:
Multiple lines in a function or file. Break long code into manageable bits. My rule of thumb is that any function with more than 10 lines is excessively long.
Double-negatives. Don't.
Using double negatives is just very not not wrong
Short, generic, or type-based variable names. Name variables clearly.
There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. — Phil Karlton
Hard-coding primitive strings and numbers without descriptions. If your logic relies on a constant primitive string or numeric value, identify it.
Avoiding simple difficulties with sloppy shortcuts and workarounds. Avoid evasion. Take stock.
Considering lengthier code better. Shorter code is usually preferable. Only write lengthier versions if they improve code readability. For instance, don't utilize clever one-liners and nested ternary statements just to make the code shorter. In any application, removing unneeded code is better.
Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight. — Bill Gates
Excessive conditional logic. Conditional logic is unnecessary for most tasks. Choose based on readability. Measure performance before optimizing. Avoid Yoda conditions and conditional assignments.
4) Selecting the First Approach
When I started programming, I would solve an issue and move on. I would apply my initial solution without considering its intricacies and probable shortcomings.
After questioning all the solutions, the best ones usually emerge. If you can't think of several answers, you don't grasp the problem.
Programmers do not solve problems. Find the easiest solution. The solution must work well and be easy to read, comprehend, and maintain.
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. — C.A.R. Hoare
5) Not Giving Up
I generally stick with the original solution even though it may not be the best. The not-quitting mentality may explain this. This mindset is helpful for most things, but not programming. Program writers should fail early and often.
If you doubt a solution, toss it and rethink the situation. No matter how much you put in that solution. GIT lets you branch off and try various solutions. Use it.
Do not be attached to code because of how much effort you put into it. Bad code needs to be discarded.
6) Avoiding Google
I've wasted time solving problems when I should have researched them first.
Unless you're employing cutting-edge technology, someone else has probably solved your problem. Google It First.
Googling may discover that what you think is an issue isn't and that you should embrace it. Do not presume you know everything needed to choose a solution. Google surprises.
But Google carefully. Newbies also copy code without knowing it. Use only code you understand, even if it solves your problem.
Never assume you know how to code creatively.
The most dangerous thought that you can have as a creative person is to think that you know what you’re doing. — Bret Victor
7) Failing to Use Encapsulation
Not about object-oriented paradigm. Encapsulation is always useful. Unencapsulated systems are difficult to maintain.
An application should only handle a feature once. One object handles that. The application's other objects should only see what's essential. Reducing application dependencies is not about secrecy. Following these guidelines lets you safely update class, object, and function internals without breaking things.
Classify logic and state concepts. Class means blueprint template. Class or Function objects are possible. It could be a Module or Package.
Self-contained tasks need methods in a logic class. Methods should accomplish one thing well. Similar classes should share method names.
As a rookie programmer, I didn't always establish a new class for a conceptual unit or recognize self-contained units. Newbie code has a Util class full of unrelated code. Another symptom of novice code is when a small change cascades and requires numerous other adjustments.
Think before adding a method or new responsibilities to a method. Time's needed. Avoid skipping or refactoring. Start right.
High Cohesion and Low Coupling involves grouping relevant code in a class and reducing class dependencies.
8) Arranging for Uncertainty
Thinking beyond your solution is appealing. Every line of code will bring up what-ifs. This is excellent for edge cases but not for foreseeable needs.
Your what-ifs must fall into one of these two categories. Write only code you need today. Avoid future planning.
Writing a feature for future use is improper. No.
Write only the code you need today for your solution. Handle edge-cases, but don't introduce edge-features.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. — Edward Abbey
9) Making the incorrect data structure choices
Beginner programmers often overemphasize algorithms when preparing for interviews. Good algorithms should be identified and used when needed, but memorizing them won't make you a programming genius.
However, learning your language's data structures' strengths and shortcomings will make you a better developer.
The improper data structure shouts "newbie coding" here.
Let me give you a few instances of data structures without teaching you:
Managing records with arrays instead of maps (objects).
Most data structure mistakes include using lists instead of maps to manage records. Use a map to organize a list of records.
This list of records has an identifier to look up each entry. Lists for scalar values are OK and frequently superior, especially if the focus is pushing values to the list.
Arrays and objects are the most common JavaScript list and map structures, respectively (there is also a map structure in modern JavaScript).
Lists over maps for record management often fail. I recommend always using this point, even though it only applies to huge collections. This is crucial because maps are faster than lists in looking up records by identifier.
Stackless
Simple recursive functions are often tempting when writing recursive programming. In single-threaded settings, optimizing recursive code is difficult.
Recursive function returns determine code optimization. Optimizing a recursive function that returns two or more calls to itself is harder than optimizing a single call.
Beginners overlook the alternative to recursive functions. Use Stack. Push function calls to a stack and start popping them out to traverse them back.
10) Worsening the current code
Imagine this:
Add an item to that room. You might want to store that object anywhere as it's a mess. You can finish in seconds.
Not with messy code. Do not worsen! Keep the code cleaner than when you started.
Clean the room above to place the new object. If the item is clothing, clear a route to the closet. That's proper execution.
The following bad habits frequently make code worse:
code duplication You are merely duplicating code and creating more chaos if you copy/paste a code block and then alter just the line after that. This would be equivalent to adding another chair with a lower base rather than purchasing a new chair with a height-adjustable seat in the context of the aforementioned dirty room example. Always keep abstraction in mind, and use it when appropriate.
utilizing configuration files not at all. A configuration file should contain the value you need to utilize if it may differ in certain circumstances or at different times. A configuration file should contain a value if you need to use it across numerous lines of code. Every time you add a new value to the code, simply ask yourself: "Does this value belong in a configuration file?" The most likely response is "yes."
using temporary variables and pointless conditional statements. Every if-statement represents a logic branch that should at the very least be tested twice. When avoiding conditionals doesn't compromise readability, it should be done. The main issue with this is that branch logic is being used to extend an existing function rather than creating a new function. Are you altering the code at the appropriate level, or should you go think about the issue at a higher level every time you feel you need an if-statement or a new function variable?
This code illustrates superfluous if-statements:
function isOdd(number) {
if (number % 2 === 1) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}Can you spot the biggest issue with the isOdd function above?
Unnecessary if-statement. Similar code:
function isOdd(number) {
return (number % 2 === 1);
};11) Making remarks on things that are obvious
I've learnt to avoid comments. Most code comments can be renamed.
instead of:
// This function sums only odd numbers in an array
const sum = (val) => {
return val.reduce((a, b) => {
if (b % 2 === 1) { // If the current number is odd
a+=b; // Add current number to accumulator
}
return a; // The accumulator
}, 0);
};Commentless code looks like this:
const sumOddValues = (array) => {
return array.reduce((accumulator, currentNumber) => {
if (isOdd(currentNumber)) {
return accumulator + currentNumber;
}
return accumulator;
}, 0);
};Better function and argument names eliminate most comments. Remember that before commenting.
Sometimes you have to use comments to clarify the code. This is when your comments should answer WHY this code rather than WHAT it does.
Do not write a WHAT remark to clarify the code. Here are some unnecessary comments that clutter code:
// create a variable and initialize it to 0
let sum = 0;
// Loop over array
array.forEach(
// For each number in the array
(number) => {
// Add the current number to the sum variable
sum += number;
}
);Avoid that programmer. Reject that code. Remove such comments if necessary. Most importantly, teach programmers how awful these remarks are. Tell programmers who publish remarks like this that they may lose their jobs. That terrible.
12) Skipping tests
I'll simplify. If you develop code without tests because you think you're an excellent programmer, you're a rookie.
If you're not writing tests in code, you're probably testing manually. Every few lines of code in a web application will be refreshed and interacted with. Also. Manual code testing is fine. To learn how to automatically test your code, manually test it. After testing your application, return to your code editor and write code to automatically perform the same interaction the next time you add code.
Human. After each code update, you will forget to test all successful validations. Automate it!
Before writing code to fulfill validations, guess or design them. TDD is real. It improves your feature design thinking.
If you can use TDD, even partially, do so.
13) Making the assumption that if something is working, it must be right.
See this sumOddValues function. Is it flawed?
const sumOddValues = (array) => {
return array.reduce((accumulator, currentNumber) => {
if (currentNumber % 2 === 1) {
return accumulator + currentNumber;
}
return accumulator;
});
};
console.assert(
sumOddValues([1, 2, 3, 4, 5]) === 9
);Verified. Good life. Correct?
Code above is incomplete. It handles some scenarios correctly, including the assumption used, but it has many other issues. I'll list some:
#1: No empty input handling. What happens when the function is called without arguments? That results in an error revealing the function's implementation:
TypeError: Cannot read property 'reduce' of undefined.Two main factors indicate faulty code.
Your function's users shouldn't come across implementation-related information.
The user cannot benefit from the error. Simply said, they were unable to use your function. They would be aware that they misused the function if the error was more obvious about the usage issue. You might decide to make the function throw a custom exception, for instance:
TypeError: Cannot execute function for empty list.Instead of returning an error, your method should disregard empty input and return a sum of 0. This case requires action.
Problem #2: No input validation. What happens if the function is invoked with a text, integer, or object instead of an array?
The function now throws:
sumOddValues(42);
TypeError: array.reduce is not a functionUnfortunately, array. cut's a function!
The function labels anything you call it with (42 in the example above) as array because we named the argument array. The error says 42.reduce is not a function.
See how that error confuses? An mistake like:
TypeError: 42 is not an array, dude.Edge-cases are #1 and #2. These edge-cases are typical, but you should also consider less obvious ones. Negative numbers—what happens?
sumOddValues([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, -13]) // => still 9-13's unusual. Is this the desired function behavior? Error? Should it sum negative numbers? Should it keep ignoring negative numbers? You may notice the function should have been titled sumPositiveOddNumbers.
This decision is simple. The more essential point is that if you don't write a test case to document your decision, future function maintainers won't know if you ignored negative values intentionally or accidentally.
It’s not a bug. It’s a feature. — Someone who forgot a test case
#3: Valid cases are not tested. Forget edge-cases, this function mishandles a straightforward case:
sumOddValues([2, 1, 3, 4, 5]) // => 11The 2 above was wrongly included in sum.
The solution is simple: reduce accepts a second input to initialize the accumulator. Reduce will use the first value in the collection as the accumulator if that argument is not provided, like in the code above. The sum included the test case's first even value.
This test case should have been included in the tests along with many others, such as all-even numbers, a list with 0 in it, and an empty list.
Newbie code also has rudimentary tests that disregard edge-cases.
14) Adhering to Current Law
Unless you're a lone supercoder, you'll encounter stupid code. Beginners don't identify it and assume it's decent code because it works and has been in the codebase for a while.
Worse, if the terrible code uses bad practices, the newbie may be enticed to use them elsewhere in the codebase since they learnt them from good code.
A unique condition may have pushed the developer to write faulty code. This is a nice spot for a thorough note that informs newbies about that condition and why the code is written that way.
Beginners should presume that undocumented code they don't understand is bad. Ask. Enquire. Blame it!
If the code's author is dead or can't remember it, research and understand it. Only after understanding the code can you judge its quality. Before that, presume nothing.
15) Being fixated on best practices
Best practices damage. It suggests no further research. Best practice ever. No doubts!
No best practices. Today's programming language may have good practices.
Programming best practices are now considered bad practices.
Time will reveal better methods. Focus on your strengths, not best practices.
Do not do anything because you read a quote, saw someone else do it, or heard it is a recommended practice. This contains all my article advice! Ask questions, challenge theories, know your options, and make informed decisions.
16) Being preoccupied with performance
Premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming — Donald Knuth (1974)
I think Donald Knuth's advice is still relevant today, even though programming has changed.
Do not optimize code if you cannot measure the suspected performance problem.
Optimizing before code execution is likely premature. You may possibly be wasting time optimizing.
There are obvious optimizations to consider when writing new code. You must not flood the event loop or block the call stack in Node.js. Remember this early optimization. Will this code block the call stack?
Avoid non-obvious code optimization without measurements. If done, your performance boost may cause new issues.
Stop optimizing unmeasured performance issues.
17) Missing the End-User Experience as a Goal
How can an app add a feature easily? Look at it from your perspective or in the existing User Interface. Right? Add it to the form if the feature captures user input. Add it to your nested menu of links if it adds a link to a page.
Avoid that developer. Be a professional who empathizes with customers. They imagine this feature's consumers' needs and behavior. They focus on making the feature easy to find and use, not just adding it to the software.
18) Choosing the incorrect tool for the task
Every programmer has their preferred tools. Most tools are good for one thing and bad for others.
The worst tool for screwing in a screw is a hammer. Do not use your favorite hammer on a screw. Don't use Amazon's most popular hammer on a screw.
A true beginner relies on tool popularity rather than problem fit.
You may not know the best tools for a project. You may know the best tool. However, it wouldn't rank high. You must learn your tools and be open to new ones.
Some coders shun new tools. They like their tools and don't want to learn new ones. I can relate, but it's wrong.
You can build a house slowly with basic tools or rapidly with superior tools. You must learn and use new tools.
19) Failing to recognize that data issues are caused by code issues
Programs commonly manage data. The software will add, delete, and change records.
Even the simplest programming errors can make data unpredictable. Especially if the same defective application validates all data.
Code-data relationships may be confusing for beginners. They may employ broken code in production since feature X is not critical. Buggy coding may cause hidden data integrity issues.
Worse, deploying code that corrected flaws without fixing minor data problems caused by these defects will only collect more data problems that take the situation into the unrecoverable-level category.
How do you avoid these issues? Simply employ numerous data integrity validation levels. Use several interfaces. Front-end, back-end, network, and database validations. If not, apply database constraints.
Use all database constraints when adding columns and tables:
If a column has a NOT NULL constraint, null values will be rejected for that column. If your application expects that field has a value, your database should designate its source as not null.
If a column has a UNIQUE constraint, the entire table cannot include duplicate values for that column. This is ideal for a username or email field on a Users table, for instance.
For the data to be accepted, a CHECK constraint, or custom expression, must evaluate to true. For instance, you can apply a check constraint to ensure that the values of a normal % column must fall within the range of 0 and 100.
With a PRIMARY KEY constraint, the values of the columns must be both distinct and not null. This one is presumably what you're utilizing. To distinguish the records in each table, the database needs have a primary key.
A FOREIGN KEY constraint requires that the values in one database column, typically a primary key, match those in another table column.
Transaction apathy is another data integrity issue for newbies. If numerous actions affect the same data source and depend on each other, they must be wrapped in a transaction that can be rolled back if one fails.
20) Reinventing the Wheel
Tricky. Some programming wheels need reinvention. Programming is undefined. New requirements and changes happen faster than any team can handle.
Instead of modifying the wheel we all adore, maybe we should rethink it if you need a wheel that spins at varied speeds depending on the time of day. If you don't require a non-standard wheel, don't reinvent it. Use the darn wheel.
Wheel brands can be hard to choose from. Research and test before buying! Most software wheels are free and transparent. Internal design quality lets you evaluate coding wheels. Try open-source wheels. Debug and fix open-source software simply. They're easily replaceable. In-house support is also easy.
If you need a wheel, don't buy a new automobile and put your maintained car on top. Do not include a library to use a few functions. Lodash in JavaScript is the finest example. Import shuffle to shuffle an array. Don't import lodash.
21) Adopting the incorrect perspective on code reviews
Beginners often see code reviews as criticism. Dislike them. Not appreciated. Even fear them.
Incorrect. If so, modify your mindset immediately. Learn from every code review. Salute them. Observe. Most crucial, thank reviewers who teach you.
Always learning code. Accept it. Most code reviews teach something new. Use these for learning.
You may need to correct the reviewer. If your code didn't make that evident, it may need to be changed. If you must teach your reviewer, remember that teaching is one of the most enjoyable things a programmer can do.
22) Not Using Source Control
Newbies often underestimate Git's capabilities.
Source control is more than sharing your modifications. It's much bigger. Clear history is source control. The history of coding will assist address complex problems. Commit messages matter. They are another way to communicate your implementations, and utilizing them with modest commits helps future maintainers understand how the code got where it is.
Commit early and often with present-tense verbs. Summarize your messages but be detailed. If you need more than a few lines, your commit is too long. Rebase!
Avoid needless commit messages. Commit summaries should not list new, changed, or deleted files. Git commands can display that list from the commit object. The summary message would be noise. I think a big commit has many summaries per file altered.
Source control involves discoverability. You can discover the commit that introduced a function and see its context if you doubt its need or design. Commits can even pinpoint which code caused a bug. Git has a binary search within commits (bisect) to find the bug-causing commit.
Source control can be used before commits to great effect. Staging changes, patching selectively, resetting, stashing, editing, applying, diffing, reversing, and others enrich your coding flow. Know, use, and enjoy them.
I consider a Git rookie someone who knows less functionalities.
23) Excessive Use of Shared State
Again, this is not about functional programming vs. other paradigms. That's another article.
Shared state is problematic and should be avoided if feasible. If not, use shared state as little as possible.
As a new programmer, I didn't know that all variables represent shared states. All variables in the same scope can change its data. Global scope reduces shared state span. Keep new states in limited scopes and avoid upward leakage.
When numerous resources modify common state in the same event loop tick, the situation becomes severe (in event-loop-based environments). Races happen.
This shared state race condition problem may encourage a rookie to utilize a timer, especially if they have a data lock issue. Red flag. No. Never accept it.
24) Adopting the Wrong Mentality Toward Errors
Errors are good. Progress. They indicate a simple way to improve.
Expert programmers enjoy errors. Newbies detest them.
If these lovely red error warnings irritate you, modify your mindset. Consider them helpers. Handle them. Use them to advance.
Some errors need exceptions. Plan for user-defined exceptions. Ignore some mistakes. Crash and exit the app.
25) Ignoring rest periods
Humans require mental breaks. Take breaks. In the zone, you'll forget breaks. Another symptom of beginners. No compromises. Make breaks mandatory in your process. Take frequent pauses. Take a little walk to plan your next move. Reread the code.
This has been a long post. You deserve a break.

Hudson Rennie
3 years ago
My Work at a $1.2 Billion Startup That Failed
Sometimes doing everything correctly isn't enough.
In 2020, I could fix my life.
After failing to start a business, I owed $40,000 and had no work.
A $1.2 billion startup on the cusp of going public pulled me up.
Ironically, it was getting ready for an epic fall — with the world watching.
Life sometimes helps. Without a base, even the strongest fall. A corporation that did everything right failed 3 months after going public.
First-row view.
Apple is the creator of Adore.
Out of respect, I've altered the company and employees' names in this account, despite their failure.
Although being a publicly traded company, it may become obvious.
We’ll call it “Adore” — a revolutionary concept in retail shopping.
Two Apple execs established Adore in 2014 with a focus on people-first purchasing.
Jon and Tim:
The concept for the stylish Apple retail locations you see today was developed by retail expert Jon Swanson, who collaborated closely with Steve Jobs.
Tim Cruiter is a graphic designer who produced the recognizable bouncing lamp video that appears at the start of every Pixar film.
The dynamic duo realized their vision.
“What if you could combine the convenience of online shopping with the confidence of the conventional brick-and-mortar store experience.”
Adore's mobile store concept combined traditional retail with online shopping.
Adore brought joy to 70+ cities and 4 countries over 7 years, including the US, Canada, and the UK.
Being employed on the ground floor, with world dominance and IPO on the horizon, was exciting.
I started as an Adore Expert.
I delivered cell phones, helped consumers set them up, and sold add-ons.
As the company grew, I became a Virtual Learning Facilitator and trained new employees across North America using Zoom.
In this capacity, I gained corporate insider knowledge. I worked with the creative team and Jon and Tim.
It's where I saw company foundation fissures. Despite appearances, investors were concerned.
The business strategy was ground-breaking.
Even after seeing my employee stocks fall from a home down payment to $0 (when Adore filed for bankruptcy), it's hard to pinpoint what went wrong.
Solid business model, well-executed.
Jon and Tim's chase for public funding ended in glory.
Here’s the business model in a nutshell:
Buying cell phones is cumbersome. You have two choices:
Online purchase: not knowing what plan you require or how to operate your device.
Enter a store, which can be troublesome and stressful.
Apple, AT&T, and Rogers offered Adore as a free delivery add-on. Customers could:
Have their phone delivered by UPS or Canada Post in 1-2 weeks.
Alternately, arrange for a person to visit them the same day (or sometimes even the same hour) to assist them set up their phone and demonstrate how to use it (transferring contacts, switching the SIM card, etc.).
Each Adore Expert brought a van with extra devices and accessories to customers.
Happy customers.
Here’s how Adore and its partners made money:
Adores partners appreciated sending Experts to consumers' homes since they improved customer satisfaction, average sale, and gadget returns.
**Telecom enterprises have low customer satisfaction. The average NPS is 30/100. Adore's global NPS was 80.
Adore made money by:
a set cost for each delivery
commission on sold warranties and extras
Consumer product applications seemed infinite.
A proprietary scheduling system (“The Adore App”), allowed for same-day, even same-hour deliveries.
It differentiates Adore.
They treated staff generously by:
Options on stock
health advantages
sales enticements
high rates per hour
Four-day workweeks were set by experts.
Being hired early felt like joining Uber, Netflix, or Tesla. We hoped the company's stocks would rise.
Exciting times.
I smiled as I greeted more than 1,000 new staff.
I spent a decade in retail before joining Adore. I needed a change.
After a leap of faith, I needed a lifeline. So, I applied for retail sales jobs in the spring of 2019.
The universe typically offers you what you want after you accept what you need. I needed a job to settle my debt and reach $0 again.
And the universe listened.
After being hired as an Adore Expert, I became a Virtual Learning Facilitator. Enough said.
After weeks of economic damage from the pandemic.
This employment let me work from home during the pandemic. It taught me excellent business skills.
I was active in brainstorming, onboarding new personnel, and expanding communication as we grew.
This job gave me vital skills and a regular paycheck during the pandemic.
It wasn’t until January of 2022 that I left on my own accord to try to work for myself again — this time, it’s going much better.
Adore was perfect. We valued:
Connection
Discovery
Empathy
Everything we did centered on compassion, and we held frequent Justice Calls to discuss diversity and work culture.
The last day of onboarding typically ended in tears as employees felt like they'd found a home, as I had.
Like all nice things, the wonderful vibes ended.
First indication of distress
My first day at the workplace was great.
Fun, intuitive, and they wanted creative individuals, not salesman.
While sales were important, the company's vision was more important.
“To deliver joy through life-changing mobile retail experiences.”
Thorough, forward-thinking training. We had a module on intuition. It gave us role ownership.
We were flown cross-country for training, gave feedback, and felt like we made a difference. Multiple contacts responded immediately and enthusiastically.
The atmosphere was genuine.
Making money was secondary, though. Incredible service was a priority.
Jon and Tim answered new hires' questions during Zoom calls during onboarding. CEOs seldom meet new hires this way, but they seemed to enjoy it.
All appeared well.
But in late 2021, things started changing.
Adore's leadership changed after its IPO. From basic values to sales maximization. We lost communication and were forced to fend for ourselves.
Removed the training wheels.
It got tougher to gain instructions from those above me, and new employees told me their roles weren't as advertised.
External money-focused managers were hired.
Instead of creative types, we hired salespeople.
With a new focus on numbers, Adore's uniqueness began to crumble.
Via Zoom, hundreds of workers were let go.
So.
Early in 2022, mass Zoom firings were trending. A CEO firing 900 workers over Zoom went viral.
Adore was special to me, but it became a headline.
30 June 2022, Vice Motherboard published Watch as Adore's CEO Fires Hundreds.
It described a leaked video of Jon Swanson laying off all staff in Canada and the UK.
They called it a “notice of redundancy”.
The corporation couldn't pay its employees.
I loved Adore's underlying ideals, among other things. We called clients Adorers and sold solutions, not add-ons.
But, like anything, a company is only as strong as its weakest link. And obviously, the people-first focus wasn’t making enough money.
There were signs. The expansion was presumably a race against time and money.
Adore finally declared bankruptcy.
Adore declared bankruptcy 3 months after going public. It happened in waves, like any large-scale fall.
Initial key players to leave were
Then, communication deteriorated.
Lastly, the corporate culture disintegrated.
6 months after leaving Adore, I received a letter in the mail from a Law firm — it was about my stocks.
Adore filed Chapter 11. I had to sue to collect my worthless investments.
I hoped those stocks will be valuable someday. Nope. Nope.
Sad, I sighed.
$1.2 billion firm gone.
I left the workplace 3 months before starting a writing business. Despite being mediocre, I'm doing fine.
I got up as Adore fell.
Finally, can we scale kindness?
I trust my gut. Changes at Adore made me leave before it sank.
Adores' unceremonious slide from a top startup to bankruptcy is astonishing to me.
The company did everything perfectly, in my opinion.
first to market,
provided excellent service
paid their staff handsomely.
was responsible and attentive to criticism
The company wasn't led by an egotistical eccentric. The crew had centuries of cumulative space experience.
I'm optimistic about the future of work culture, but is compassion scalable?
You might also like

The woman
3 years ago
Because he worked on his side projects during working hours, my junior was fired and sued.
Many developers do it, but I don't approve.
Aren't many programmers part-time? Many work full-time but also freelance. If the job agreement allows it, I see no problem.
Tech businesses' policies vary. I have a friend in Google, Germany. According to his contract, he couldn't do an outside job. Google owns any code he writes while employed.
I was shocked. Later, I found that different Google regions have different policies.
A corporation can normally establish any agreement before hiring you. They're negotiable. When there's no agreement, state law may apply. In court, law isn't so simple.
I won't delve into legal details. Instead, let’s talk about the incident.
How he was discovered
In one month, he missed two deadlines. His boss was frustrated because the assignment wasn't difficult to miss twice. When a team can't finish work on time, they all earn bad grades.
He annoyed the whole team. One team member (anonymous) told the project manager he worked on side projects during office hours. He may have missed deadlines because of this.
The project manager was furious. He needed evidence. The manager caught him within a week. The manager told higher-ups immediately.
The company wanted to set an example
Management could terminate him and settle the problem. But the company wanted to set an example for those developers who breached the regulation.
Because dismissal isn't enough. Every organization invests heavily in developer hiring. If developers depart or are fired after a few months, the company suffers.
The developer spent 10 months there. The employer sacked him and demanded ten months' pay. Or they'd sue him.
It was illegal and unethical. The youngster paid the fine and left the company quietly to protect his career.
Right or wrong?
Is the developer's behavior acceptable? Let's discuss developer malpractice.
During office hours, may developers work on other projects? If they're bored during office hours, they might not. Check the employment contract or state law.
If there's no employment clause, check country/state law. Because you can't justify breaking the law. Always. Most employers own their employees' work hours unless it's a contractual position.
If the company agrees, it's fine.
I also oppose companies that force developers to work overtime without pay.
Most states and countries have laws that help companies and workers. Law supports employers in this case. If any of the following are true, the company/employer owns the IP under California law.
using the business's resources
any equipment, including a laptop used for business.
company's mobile device.
offices of the company.
business time as well. This is crucial. Because this occurred in the instance of my junior.
Company resources are dangerous. Because your company may own the product's IP. If you have seen the TV show Silicon Valley, you have seen a similar situation there, right?
Conclusion
Simple rule. I avoid big side projects. I work on my laptop on weekends for side projects. I'm safe. But I also know that my company might not be happy with that.
As an employee, I suppose I can. I can make side money. I won't promote it, but I'll respect their time, resources, and task. I also sometimes work extra time to finish my company’s deadlines.

Katharine Valentino
3 years ago
A Gun-toting Teacher Is Like a Cook With Rat Poison
Pink or blue AR-15s?
A teacher teaches; a gun kills. Killing isn't teaching. Killing is opposite of teaching.
Without 27 school shootings this year, we wouldn't be talking about arming teachers. Gun makers, distributors, and the NRA cause most school shootings. Gun makers, distributors, and the NRA wouldn't be huge business if weapons weren't profitable.
Guns, ammo, body armor, holsters, concealed carriers, bore sights, cleaner kits, spare magazines and speed loaders, gun safes, and ear protection are sold. And more guns.
And lots more profit.
Guns aren't bread. You eat a loaf of bread in a week or so and then must buy more. Bread makers will make money. Winchester 94.30–30 1899 Lever Action Rifle from 1894 still kills. (For safety, I won't link to the ad.) Gun makers don't object if you collect antique weapons, but they need you to buy the latest, in-style killing machine. The youngster who killed 19 students and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, used an AR-15. Better yet, two.
Salvador Ramos, the Robb Elementary shooter, is a "killing influencer" He pushes consumers to buy items, which benefits manufacturers and distributors. Like every previous AR-15 influencer, he profits Colt, the rifle's manufacturer, and 52,779 gun dealers in the U.S. Ramos and other AR-15 influences make us fear for our safety and our children's. Fearing for our safety, we acquire 20 million firearms a year and live in a gun culture.
So now at school, we want to arm teachers.
Consider. Which of your teachers would you have preferred in body armor with a gun drawn?
Miss Summers? Remember her bringing daisies from her yard to second grade? She handed each student a beautiful flower. Miss Summers loved everyone, even those with AR-15s. She can't shoot.
Frasier? Mr. Frasier turned a youngster over down to explain "invert." Mr. Frasier's hands shook when he wasn't flipping fifth-graders and fractions. He may have shot wrong.
Mrs. Barkley barked in high school English class when anyone started an essay with "But." Mrs. Barkley dubbed Abie a "Jewboy" and gave him terrible grades. Arming Miss Barkley is like poisoning the chef.
Think back. Do you remember a teacher with a gun? No. Arming teachers so the gun industry can make more money is the craziest idea ever.
Or maybe you agree with Ted Cruz, the gun lobby-bought senator, that more guns reduce gun violence. After the next school shooting, you'll undoubtedly talk about arming teachers and pupils. Colt will likely develop a backpack-sized, lighter version of its popular killing machine in pink and blue for kids and boys. The MAR-15? (M for mini).
This post is a summary. Read the full one here.

Laura Sanders
3 years ago
Xenobots, tiny living machines, can duplicate themselves.
Strange and complex behavior of frog cell blobs
A xenobot “parent,” shaped like a hungry Pac-Man (shown in red false color), created an “offspring” xenobot (green sphere) by gathering loose frog cells in its opening.
Tiny “living machines” made of frog cells can make copies of themselves. This newly discovered renewal mechanism may help create self-renewing biological machines.
According to Kirstin Petersen, an electrical and computer engineer at Cornell University who studies groups of robots, “this is an extremely exciting breakthrough.” She says self-replicating robots are a big step toward human-free systems.
Researchers described the behavior of xenobots earlier this year (SN: 3/31/21). Small clumps of skin stem cells from frog embryos knitted themselves into small spheres and started moving. Cilia, or cellular extensions, powered the xenobots around their lab dishes.
The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Dec. 7. The xenobots can gather loose frog cells into spheres, which then form xenobots.
The researchers call this type of movement-induced reproduction kinematic self-replication. The study's coauthor, Douglas Blackiston of Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, and Harvard University, says this is typical. For example, sexual reproduction requires parental sperm and egg cells. Sometimes cells split or budded off from a parent.
“This is unique,” Blackiston says. These xenobots “find loose parts in the environment and cobble them together.” This second generation of xenobots can move like their parents, Blackiston says.
The researchers discovered that spheroid xenobots could only produce one more generation before dying out. The original xenobots' shape was predicted by an artificial intelligence program, allowing for four generations of replication.
A C shape, like an openmouthed Pac-Man, was predicted to be a more efficient progenitor. When improved xenobots were let loose in a dish, they began scooping up loose cells into their gaping “mouths,” forming more sphere-shaped bots (see image below). As many as 50 cells clumped together in the opening of a parent to form a mobile offspring. A xenobot is made up of 4,000–6,000 frog cells.
Petersen likes the Xenobots' small size. “The fact that they were able to do this at such a small scale just makes it even better,” she says. Miniature xenobots could sculpt tissues for implantation or deliver therapeutics inside the body.
Beyond the xenobots' potential jobs, the research advances an important science, says study coauthor and Tufts developmental biologist Michael Levin. The science of anticipating and controlling the outcomes of complex systems, he says.
“No one could have predicted this,” Levin says. “They regularly surprise us.” Researchers can use xenobots to test the unexpected. “This is about advancing the science of being less surprised,” Levin says.