Here’s a thread of all the tech fields I know you can go into, what to expect, what to learn, and what working in that field would look like?

This thread includes the ones that requires you to write codes and the ones you don’t need to write codes.

They all pay well💰💰

1. Frontend: On the basics, you’ll be building designs provided by a designer (or yourself). You’ll be coding with HTML, CSS and JavaScript. There’s always a lot of job openings too.

You see all those fine fine website/apps you see. Frontend developers built them.

Big 💰💰
2. UI designer: Most times, before people who write codes start their work, a designer needs to first design what the website would look like.
UI designers don’t write codes, but they make sure the designs they provide are great. You’ll use @figmadesign and other tools. Big 💰
3. Backend: A little bit of HTML, CSS & JS. Just the basics. Your day to day work would be around API (writing codes that connects something to something). You’ll be doing a lot of the coding that keeps the system running.

Working with either PHP/ NodeJS/ Python/ Java etc. 💰💰
4. Product Manager: Developers and designers are great at building, but not necessarily managing the life cycle. You would not be writing codes here but you’ll be managing the software/webApp that has been built or current being built. You’ll work with people a lot here.
Big 💰
5. Quality Assurance/Tester : So QA kinda falls in between writing codes and not. Your major work is to test what the developers are building/built to avoid errors + document it.
You’ll be working with tools like Selenium and Cypress.

There’s manual and automation testing
6. Motion Design: Generally, you’ll be handling the creation and animation of designs. Like all those fine fine ads, you can also do animation movies and comics too.
You’ll learn to use softwares like Cinema 4D, Maya, after effects etc.

DSTv cartoon installation video.
Big 💰💰
7. Digital marketer : You might have the best product, but if no one knows about it, it’s useful to no one. Digital marketers are the connections between the company and their audience. Identifying key platforms and areas that’ll bring in more users.

Very important field.💰
8. Mobile developer : We know platforms have websites, but some also have mobile apps. And people who build these are called mobile devs. You can focus on building for Android or focus on building for iPhones.
Some do both tho. This field pays really well and always in need.💰💰
9. Technical recruiter : Some companies have in house people who are good with interviewing the right candidates for the job, when they have an open role. If you’re great with accessing people fast enough, and you have empathy and you’re considerate. No need to write code.💰
10. Technical writer : So tech companies have built a tool and they want to teach people how to use it, because most people don’t read documents(they’re always too broad too). Some companies have writers who write about various feature of the company/app in an engaging way.💰
12. Community manager: More companies are now creating a community around their products, if you’re good with attracting and managing thousands of people in a coordinated way. Omooo e fit reach 10k community members ooo. You go press your phone tire. But it pays well also.💰
13. UX researcher: If you’ve built an app that increases life span but people don’t know how to use it, you might end up shortening users life spans out of frustration.
UX researchers don’t write codes, but they make great research and use the data to make better apps.💰
14. DevOps : You see, as Twitter is, hardly offline, it's cloud engineers that keep it running. You’ll ship & maintain what devs build.
The basics are mostly Shell scripting, CI/CD using Travis CI/Jenkins.
You’ll be using @awscloud , @googlecloud , @Azure etc.
💰💰💰💰💰
Game: Game development is the art of converting concepts and ideas from a storyboard, to a playable and interactive game

You need to understand logic, math and 3d graphics.
Tools like: Unity 3d, Unreal Engine, CryEngine

(No Code - Game Engine) - Godot, Unity 3d game Kit etc💰💰
See. I don’t remember some right now. So please you’re free to add more to this.

Thanks to @arinzebuchee , @odirionyeo , @the_sonoflaw

More from All

1. Mini Thread on Conflicts of Interest involving the authors of the Nature Toilet Paper:
https://t.co/VUYbsKGncx
Kristian G. Andersen
Andrew Rambaut
Ian Lipkin
Edward C. Holmes
Robert F. Garry

2. Thanks to @newboxer007 for forwarding the link to the research by an Australian in Taiwan (not on

3. K.Andersen didn't mention "competing interests"
Only Garry listed Zalgen Labs, which we will look at later.
In acknowledgements, Michael Farzan, Wellcome Trust, NIH, ERC & ARC are mentioned.
Author affiliations listed as usual.
Note the 328 Citations!
https://t.co/nmOeohM89Q


4. Kristian Andersen (1)
Andersen worked with USAMRIID & Fort Detrick scientists on research, with Robert Garry, Jens Kuhn & Sina Bavari among


5. Kristian Andersen (2)
Works at Scripps Research Institute, which WAS in serious financial trouble, haemorrhaging 20 million $ a year.
But just when the first virus cases were emerging, they received great news.
They issued a press release dated November 27, 2019:

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x