The title “Cocktails for programmers” gives me the same feeling as would the phrase “Leaf blowers for stamp collectors”.
Yes, a stamp collector might use a leaf blower, but it would not be relevant to collecting stamps. On the contrary, using a leaf blower while collecting stamps would be… inadvisable.
I can appreciate not liking the brogrammer phenomenon, and not being interested in conferences that are so party-focused, but this guy really has a huge bug up his ass about other people enjoying themselves. "I'm not interested in 'partying hard', I want to talk with like-minded people about subjects I don't necessarily get to talk about at the office." Well, guess what, you can't force people to sit down and talk nodejs with you if they want to drink instead. Sorry the world isn't the way you really really want it to be.
The guy seems to be interpreting a lot of his examples in the worst possible light, too. Example:
Q: Is there space set up for hacking?
A: We have done this for previous conferences, but to be honest people were having too much social fun to really take advantage of the space.
Translation: Y U NO DRINKING!?
That's a stupid translation. They set up hacking space before and very few people used it, so they didn't bother this time. You have your cause and effect backwards if you think this means they're trying to force you to drink.
Or: "Perks for working for them include dental coverage, and 'weekly happy hour'. Those who don't want to participate in getting sloshed regularly... need not apply?"
Jesus, dude, settle down. You've taken a perk of employment and turned it into a statement that if you don't drink you're not welcome? Please let go of your persecution complex. I know it's really fun to be indignant that others encouraging you to have a good time is so totally unfair, but it's really no different than people saying "No seriously, The Wire is fucking fantastic! You have to watch it!"
Interacting with humans isn't that hard if you allow yourself and others to actually act like humans.
> you can't force people to sit down and talk nodejs with you if they want to drink instead.
Apparently, if you give most technical conference attendees the option (and venue, drinks, transport, etc), they will opt for going drinking in environments not suited for conversation. If this happens, I interpret it as a failure of the conference organizers. Why? Because their job is to organize a conference, not a party. If they want to leave some time for people to party (or pray, or go skinny-dipping, or windsurfing, etc.), then they can do so. However, to actively encourage people to be non-networking and to not talk (usefully) about the actual conference topic is, in my view, an anti-pattern of conferences.
Perhaps your idea of what a conference is, and what is well-suited for it, does not mesh with observed reality. Maybe that sort of conference just is not for you (I know your idea of a conference is not for me).
I've got to say though, even heavy drinking has never stopped me from having technical conversations with people, even in crowded bars...
(I think you are reading into my comment something I did not write. I do not know what you think my "idea of a conference" would be.)
I have tried to have technical conversations at parties and in bars with people I know to be interested in and knowledgeable in the topic. It's basically impossible.
Firstly, the loud music and other conversation makes it very hard to hear what they're saying, and the things said therefore tend to be simplified into what can be said simply in short words.
Secondly, they are often drunk and/or more interested in talking about beer or something than the topic they presumably are at the conference to advance. This is, of course, understandable; they're not expecting to have anything whatsoever to do with the conference topic at the party, since nobody else is, either.
Thirdly, there are no whiteboards to use as discussion aids. It's also quite dark, and it's often cramped so you can't easily show somebody something by moving around. Basically, bars and party rooms are not exactly conducive to productive discussions. (In the past there would also be no internet and, further back, no computers, but that has thankfully become a non-issue these days.)
My issue is this line: "Because their job is to organize a conference, not a party."
You are saying that conferences should not be like parties, because conferences are not like parties. You are just using your restricted definition of conference (not like a party) to support what you think a conference should be (not like a party). My take on it is that some conferences empirically do have many similarities to parties. This doesn't make them 'not conferences', so saying "their job is to organize a conference, not a party" is setting up a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist.
If that isn't your sort of conference, then no problem, not everything is for everybody. Personally I prefer more intimate technical conversations over a beer, a bar napkin, and a cellphone than sterile professional presentations in front of a whiteboard. Obviously you do not, and that is perfectly fine as well. There is room in this world for both; there is no reason to discourage one or the other from existing.
> You are saying that conferences should not be like parties, because conferences are not like parties
Not quite.
What I am saying is that conferences and parties have different goals. The goal of a conference is to advance the field. The goal of a party is to have fun. The goal of a conference is not advanced by organizing a party, nor is the goal of a party advanced by organizing a conference.
A conference can (and perhaps should) have many elements of a party in it — evening social activities, perhaps even in a bar where alcolhol (gasp!) is consumed. All of this may be perfectly fine. But, these activities should be organized with the goal of the conference in mind.
However, what many conference organizers seem to do is fill the days with talks, (while minimizing the time between talks to fit as many as possible), and then on the evenings they try to organize the best party they can think of. The best party, mind you, not the best socializing activity, which might have advanced the networking in the field, but the best party, whatever the tastes of the organizers and/or the prospective attendees.
This makes the conference a series of undiscussed talks in the daytime, followed by a series of usually pounding party keggers at night. The talks can be watched at home if they are filmed, and the parties can be had locally, too. There is no reason to attend these kinds of conferences. Unless, of course, you are already connected and go to any number of conferences a year and meet all the same people — your party buddies.
> The goal of a conference is to advance the field. The goal of a party is to have fun. The goal of a conference is not advanced by organizing a party, nor is the goal of a party advanced by organizing a conference.
That is nothing more than your personal take on what a conference should be. The reality is that many conferences aren't like that. It is no skin off your back if other people have a different idea if what a conference should be, and implement their vision of a conference.
Nobody is saying you have to go enjoy a party-like conference, and all I am saying is that you in turn should not tell other people that they shouldn't.
I still think you see me through some kind of tinted shades which makes you think I am saying things I am not saying.
However, I have run out of ideas on how to explain myself in yet other ways.
EDIT: I think now that we are having a word definition debate here. When you say that “many conferences aren't like that“, then I would call those themed parties, not conferences.
You're saying that conferences should not place too much emphasis the party aspects, because that is not the purpose of a conference. Right?
Well I'm saying that I think that is too imposing.
It would be like me saying that bowling alleys should be careful not to place too much emphasis on drinking, because the purpose of a bowling alley is to compete with others at rolling a ball at things. Who am I to say that others shouldn't think that the purpose of bowling is to drink with friends while occasionally rolling a ball around? I shouldn't impose my idea of the purpose of bowling on other people.
I think you are doing the same faulty comparison you made with board games in another comment. The purpose of all those activities (party, board games, bowling) is to have fun. I'm saying that the very definition of a conference is that it has a different goal. Conferences can (and should, by all means possible) be as fun as possible, but with the goal of the conference taking slight precedence.
Since having a party-like atmosphere will make people come to the conference, by all means conferences should have them. But one should keep in mind that the party-like atmosphere does not obscure or negate the purpose of the conference in the first place.
" I'm saying that the very definition of a conference is that it has a different goal. ... the goal of the conference taking slight precedence."
So long as you realize that this sentence is just a statement your own personal opinion, not some sort of universal truth about conferences, then I don't think we have any issue. The goal, or purpose, of a conference is something for organizers and participants to decide for themselves.
(The answer to "You think maybe I should write a long-winded self-aggrandizing blog post about this culture of exclusion?" is "No you should not jlgreco, because that would make you (even more of) an insufferable cock.")
Just as long as there isn't house music blaring. I don't even like that for non-technical socializing. One reason bar owners like the loud music is that it induces people to drink more. If people could hear each other they may get caught up in conversation and not take as many sips of their drinks.
Trust me, I don't like loud noise as much as anybody. I pick my bars accordingly (Yelp is typically pretty good at reporting noise levels, but at an event you can just walk around until you find an appropriate location).
> Apparently, if you give most technical conference attendees the option (and venue, drinks, transport, etc), they will opt for going drinking in environments not suited for conversation.
And your conclusion from this is that conference organizers should give people less of what they want?
Perhaps you are as serious and focused as you are advocating here, but I think you might find that a lot of people want a bit more than just sitting in an auditorium "talking usefully about the actual conference topic" to make the trip fun. If a conference devolves into pure binge drinking and partying, then yes, I can understand your concern. But some amount of partying is a legitimate draw for people and it fills seats. That's just the way it goes.
An analogy might help: If people like more sugar in their food, and adding sugar to it increases sales, then what we ultimately will get is not food, but candy, labeled "Food".
Therefore, even giving paying customers what they not only ask for, but actually do want, might still not be a good idea.
Grocery stores are absolutely chock full of terribly unhealthy products misnamed "food".
Presumably, their competitors either adapted or died. Even if the winds of change are blowing in bad way for society, trying to stand against them may be bad for business.
Perhaps take the tactic of the yuppie organic good section?
Wait a few years, then start a conference dedicated to real work and actually getting things done.
I really hate board games. Seriously, I hate them, and I don't understand why so many people in my social circles enjoy them. I can't count the number of times I've been at a party and everything has been going nicely, and then all of a sudden, game time.
You think maybe I should write a long-winded self-aggrandizing blog post about this culture of exclusion?
If you give conference attendees the option to have that much fun, they will take it and go party instead of, you know, networking and discussing the conference topic with their professional peers.
This, to me, is not a successful outcome of a conference.
These conferences are not supposed to be maximizing the "fun" factor for the attendees. The conferences are, first and foremost supposed to be useful for collaboration and networking in their stated field.
Yes. But if the socialising and drinking activities are not organized to be conducive to networking, then it's a party with no benefit to the goals of the conference.
It's simpler to get in bars (though they tend to run out of diet coke fast), and... well, I never bothered to check the carbohydrate contents of rum; just decided to go with the simplest option ;).
ethanol has a high caloric content but almost none of those calories can be absorbed by the body. It is a fundamental flaw in the way food calories are measured. To measure the calories of food you put the food in a sealed container under a vial of water and burn it, the food has 1 calorie for ever degree centigrade it made a liter of water rise. ethanol obviously burns extremely well so by this test it has high caloric content but that does not mean your body can convert ethanol to fat, sugar, ATP or anything else useful to the body. The vast majority of it is processed by the liver and expelled by the kidneys
Calories is not the metric important for me here (every alcoholic beverage has plenty of it, so standard caution applies), it's carbohydrate count - too much and you're out of ketosis for good.
I need to get back on... I'm a big boy (6'2 300lbs) and I was doing great on it but eventually stopped because of an impromptu "Want to be in my wedding in a month?" invitation that required me to stop losing the weight because otherwise I'd be swimming in my tuxedo at the wedding.. Never got back on. I miss it.
(a) your wife is awesome, (b) I too am a whiskey snob, (c) there's really nothing wrong with Jack Daniels or for that matter with jack & coke, (d) there is something wrong with mixing vodka and cola and calling it a cocktail.
But the good thing about it, unlike its superior rival George Dickel, is that JD is not owned by Diageo. It's a pity that I have to boycott Dickel because of that, but I'm not giving my money to those assholes.
I'm pretty sure I had tired of such things before I was out of my teens. I can also remember turning up at (Secondary) school with a green tongue as I had consumed rather a lot of Crème de Menthe at a party the evening before - ghastly stuff.
A good cocktail showcases and highlights the component spirit(s) to make a more interesting and (hopefully) tasty drink.
Unfortunately when cocktails are based on nasty components, they often end up trying to disguise the spirit with sugary mixers like fruit juice or coke.
If you're interested in cocktails and don't mind diving in the deep end, try an authentic Sazerac:
Gotta chime in here because I do this professionally.
This is why people don't like cocktails. These are seriously terrible. I wouldn't serve any of these, ever.
I don't want to be overly negative here, but no number of pull requests will fix this. Rather than try to salvage these, I will offer take out anyone who's interested and introduce you to a bunch of the top folks in the food and drink biz. There's really not a friendlier group of people, and learning about wine and spirits is a lot of fun.
I disagree that "this" is why people don't like cocktails. That's a very broad statement, encompassing thousands of (existing) drinks that are great. I think it's more of a taste preference and has little to do with bad prior experiences. If said people are basing the totality of drinking cocktails based on their first go at it, there may be a bigger problem there.
Why not? I'm afraid you haven't had anything good. There's no reason you shouldn't like "more refined" (good) products if you like the bad ones. Also, it's not just the quality of the product. For instance, Jaegermeister is a quality product, but the drink he makes with it is arbitrary. Would you like a tomato, peanut butter, and mustard sandwich?
The offer stands. Take me up. I'll buy you a drink.
I have a very insensitive palette, which is probably to blame for apathy when it comes to variation. Most coffees, liquors, other drinks, tobacco products, and even foods taste almost exactly the same to me, despite consuming different brands/combinations/recipes of all of them for years, whereas my peers have developed discernible tastes when it comes to such things.
Or it could be as you say and I've never really indulged in what could be considered truly superior products. Sometimes I'm not really sure.
Honest question....are you a tobacco user? If so, that explains it. I am, and also have an insensitive pallette. Never notice it except in those "quitting" passes.
Open-face peanut butter and tomato happens to be an excellent sand which, BTW :) requires a good tomato. Sprinkle with a tiny bit of garlic salt or chili powder.
There's no such thing. Tequila is nasty poor man's liquor, only made palatable to yuppy palates by insisting you can only enjoy it by inbibing in a taste bud numbing cocktail of salt and lime juice before you drink it.
That said, I enjoy a good (=nasty) tequila every now and then. Just like I enjoy a good glass of paint thinner aka Moutai on occasion: give the ol' taste buds a little workout.
next time you feel like tequila get a shot of don julio 1942; it might just change your mind about what tequila can be. And hey, if it doesn't it's still a damn good tequila.
The PHP lists its ingredients with completely inconsistent units, some of which haven't existed for hundreds of years. Most ingredients are listed at least twice, some times indicating name brands, sometimes with generic names, and occasionally referring to specific off-brand varieties. The instructions themselves are easy to follow, include appropriate metric conversions, and tell you to throw away about half of the initial ingredients.
I will more say the PHP version will be nothing fancy, have a beer kick back and relax while others try to impress with new ways of solving an old problem :)
The C#, it turns out, is the same as a Java but with a finer stock of liqueurs. The recipe for C#.NET however, is proprietary and no one can quite explain why one in a thousand makes you ill, or why the bottom of the glass seems to fall out sometimes.
I am proficient in all three of those technologies.
I was about to object... but yeah, you're pretty much spot-on. I still say that, except for the omgwtfbbq databinding stuff, Winforms was a fine technology for its time. It's just that its time is past and MS doesn't ever update anything, they just abandon-and-replace with something horribly baroque.
EF is my definition for "so close, and yet so far".
I have no idea what the heck happened with WCF though. Seriously, I can't even find the kernel of good ideas that got corrupted in the process of implementation like I can with those other two.
Another cocktail is the "Tschunk", which is hugely popular with hackers here in Germany. See the recipe here: https://entropia.de/Tschunk (the main ingredient, a carbonated, caffeinated soda called "Club-Mate" is difficult to source outside of Germany, though).
In ours tastes are divided - half of the people love it, another half hates it. And yet I bought a full crate last Thursday and there were only two bottles left by Friday.
Awesome idea. My friends at ActiveState had a release party and went to the bar to celebrate over drinks. One of the guys ordered a round of shots for the group "12 shots please, half Tequila and half Jager" The waitress took him literally and brought 12 shots, all with half Tequila and half Jager.
The release included a GUI version of an existing command line tool because a certain customer wrote in saying "F&*k this DOS prompt BS, I want a GUI".
Campari and soda is a fantastic drink. Refreshing and not super high in alcohol, yet bitter instead of cloying and sweet. For future reference, since it looks like you are not a native English speaker, the phrase for non-Champagne champagne is "sparkling wine."
git history serves as a Tabu list, and different people's tastes will serve as a stochastic breakout. If lots of people have a go it will de-facto be a particle swarm tabu. Even with a single starting point there's a good chance of global optimisation.
Scotland has 100 distilleries in 5 major whiskey-producing regions with their own traditions. There is really no such thing as "scotch", they are all different, so this generalization is wrong.
Absinthe + pear juice is great. Also absinthe + energy drink of some sorts. Though somewhat good absinthe is necessary for it as fake/cheap brands are really horrible.
Java's drink is surely the Bloody Mary, the world's most complex cocktail. A blunt and simple central ingredient (cheap vodka/Java the language) surrounded by an ornate spice rack's worth of ingredients and preparation.
OK.
Here is your java cocktail:
1. 50 mg of sand. Yes, you will never drink it, but it will gloriously creak on your teeth
2. Water. Put it as much as you can. If you're really into "hard staff" - use sea water.
3. Alcohol. In fact - you don't need this. But if you want - mix something. Anyway you don't have a lot of space to put a good portion of booze.
While not themed after languages and such, I keep a gist of my favorite cocktails I either want to try or the recipes me and my friends have come to enjoy: https://gist.github.com/dylan/6093669
My engineering pals think me using a gist to store recipes is funny... :P
Hmmm... so I the recipe for Befunge would be: 1. Pour a pint of beer 2. Pour a shot glass of vodka 3. Drop the glass into the beer 4. Drink quickly 5. Start flowing in all directions
Yes, a stamp collector might use a leaf blower, but it would not be relevant to collecting stamps. On the contrary, using a leaf blower while collecting stamps would be… inadvisable.