Exactly. There is no scenario where we should expect some random anon to be speaking for Google. When that is the case a disclaimer is warranted, not the common case of speaking for oneself. He can write it once in his profile if he's so worried about it, not every other comment like he does. It's just inflated self importance
Why would they be speaking on behalf of their employer? That is what would need a disclaimer not the common case. Besides, he can put it one time in his profile, not over and over again in every comment like he does. There is no expectation that some random employee is a spokesperson for Google on tech message board comment threads. It's just a way to brag.
Because it's been a massively expensive failure. They can't just will their own platform into existence just because it would be good to have, consumers have a say and they've rejected it completely.
I'm building an immediate mode GUI Win32 app on top of Windows.UI.Composition visuals, maybe building up a library with it along the way. Just a hobby project / experiment. I hate this problem [0] so I went down a rabbit hole trying to solve it.
Why would you be a useful target market for a business running these services then? Seriously, if you can't pay anything at all, of what value is catering product offerings to you? It is thus irrelevant that you aren't happy with not being offered a free service.
First words out of your mouth are to accuse OP of not seriously asking the question. Then you write paragraphs saying nothing much at all. You could have simply answered the question in a simple straightforward manner.
SpaceX coverage is much better! lol This is such nonsense. How much does a professional videographer cost? It's a rounding error given what they spend. It's just bad planning and decision-making. This is a damn mission to the moon, not little league baseball, why would you ever compare the two?
This is nonsense excuse making. Regardless of how much money you want NASA to have, are you not yourself upset that the billions they do get were not sufficient to use cameras correctly? How much money do you think it costs to do this right?
Sort of a tautology to just assert that someone saying good things about AI is an AI enthusiast and therefore their opinion should be dismissed. He also happens to have been a kernel maintainer, his experience as he's describing it should count for something.
How is this not just common sense? Why would we care more about foreigners' interests than our own? You're trying to apply a moral frame to a discussion of self interest and geopolitics. "The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must".
Yes, but that's also why the claim isn't true and has been criticized for years. It is so much more instinctive to simply pull the trigger even in a panic than sit there and do nothing.
I don't understand how decreasing the contrast between content and chrome helps you "focus" on content. The older design screenshot has better content clarity than the current design.
Obviously. But they don't care about that answer, they care about the design of a new system so I'm saying the interviewer is dumb for not just asking directly for the solution he wants to see (while also giving credit for the original right answer).
The interviewee is dumb (if he wants the job) to not know this is what they want to hear, so he can just say "I really do think Postgres would satisfy the requirements here, but as an alternative a custom solution would look like.."
What is the point of not demonstrating your own well rounded knowledge when given the opportunity? Is it not obvious what they want to hear? Then why not tell them, again given that he did want the job
Eh, it's a good answer and shows good instincts, but they still want to know how he would design a system if one was necessary. There's no need to be ridiculous about any of this from either perspective, which is why it should never have been a "fail" without the original interviewer simply saying "That's a solid answer now tell me what you would do if you had to build something new". I mean look how much time he wasted for everyone including his own CEO by being stubborn about it.
It's crazy the original interviewer allowed it to come to this which sounds like a waste of time for everyone involved, instead of simply saying; "Very good that is a legitimate solution to the problem. Now let's pretend you have to build something new, what would you do?"
Why on Earth did the company have to be so willingly obtuse and stupid about it including what sounds like the CEO (well at least he gave him another shot, but there doesn't need to be implicit assumptions about the "point of the interview", just come out and address it head on explicitly.)
No it is not the same with LLMs because LLMs are a multiplier that makes the overall work less compared to without them, and that includes support burden. "Support" is a hand wavy word to dismiss the fact that it consists of writing code and fixing bugs, all of which LLMs can help massively with now. They meaningfully change software engineering which you are ignoring when you assume the same cost of pre-LLM development on multiple platforms.
Yea what? This is exactly why they should switch to native apps. Native apps are not harder to maintain than JavaScript especially with LLM guidance on APIs and such. I don't understand why your confidence in LLM code ability means you don't think it can succeed with native apps
I would argue the word loyalty can encompass external pressures like that or internal affinity, ethnic tribalism and everything in between but yes, agreed.