aswerty

Pretty much every company I have ever worked at has done the take home assignment (EU based). There is almost never any issue, at least on the surface, from the candidates side as to doing them. But online, these discussions immediately turn into the majority deriding the process.

I have probably done about 6 take home assignments in my 14 year career and 5 resulted in a job offer. In a recent company I worked for I was the hiring manager and we had about a 40% assignment completed to offer ratio. Which seems like a fairly decent conversion ratio, from the average candidates side that would be close to 1 offer for every 2 assignments.

Is there a correlation with people hating on them because the ratio is skewed much less favorably? Do I have too subjective a view? I know there are companies that give an assignment as practically the first step in the process; but I would never engage with that since the risk/reward is weighted entirely in the company's favor (which under the surface, is an even bigger red flag).

My favorite take homes, and almost always what I have come across, are the "build a mini api" ones. I will typically just draw from the structure I have in place in other applications, implement the custom functionality, and do a readme that delves into the philosophy (in a light touch way) of the choices I make. Then the conversation of going through the implementation in a technical interview is generally a relatively relaxed process.

Just from a foreigner in Amsterdam.

Car owners are considered selfish, it is not considered a sustainable or equitable form of transport.

Air Conditioning, not a traditional things but getting more popular, not considered sustainable.

Travel, airplanes produce a lot of emissions and aren't considered sustainable. Not uncommon for people say why aren't your traveling somewhere closer and/or taking the train across Europe.

Meat, bad for the environment, bad for the animals. Non meat options are extremely popular here.

Dairy, if you ask for milk in a cafe they might play dumb and then ask you "do you mean cow milk". Most of the above I agree with, but I love my milk. Damn passive aggressive baristas! But yeah, the dairy industry is pretty abhorrent so they have that going for them.

All in all though, I'm probably the type of person the OP is probably trying to get away from. But honestly, Europe has plenty of problems but this stuff is literally why I love Europe

I was always a bit put off by electric tooth brushes since the idea of having another "noisy" device was something I DID NOT WANT.

But after seeing so many recommendations from friends, family, dentists and online over the years. I felt buying one was worth a go.

And I am never going back. The quality of the clean and the massaging of the gums brought me from brushing my teeth as a chore to having a desire to brush my teeth (which I had never understood before).

This mirrors my own experience in the SaaS world. Anytime things move towards multiple artifacts/pipelines in one repo; trying to understand what change existed where and when seems to always become very difficult.

Of course the multirepo approach means you do this dance a lot more: - Create a change with backwards compatibility and tombstones (e.g. logs for when backward compatibility is used) - Update upstream systems to the new change - Remove backwards compatibility and pray you don't have a low frequency upstream service interaction you didn't know about

While the dance can be a pain - it does follow a more iterative approach with reduced blast radiuses (albeit many more of them). But, all in all, an acceptable tradeoff.

Maybe if I had more familiarity in mature tooling around monorepos I might be more interested in them. But alas not a bridge I have crossed, or am pushed to do so just at the moment.

Qualitative and quantitative approaches together inform us best. Probably not the most eye opening of statements.

But I think as you indicate, qualitative generally paints the picture, and quantitative validates it.

At least these days - it means asking for less trouble. It really is improving leaps and bounds. But I still dual boot on my gaming PC, but I run a lot of games on Linux in compatibility mode and it works well a reasonable amount of the time.

Is there a well regarded book or study on the origins of Halloween? Any thread online seems to involve a rather baseless argument between people who think it is the natural development of European traditions brought to the US and further iterated upon; or people who think it is an American tradition which also has some influences from immigrant groups.

Essentially allowing religious and nationalistic sentiment drive the entire discussion in terms of it's paganism or who owns it.

I don't think you are crazy at all. The concept of professionalism is about doing things a certain way to indicate to others that you are, of course, a professional. Writing technical documents in the 3rd person is a basic part of what I would consider professionalism in the broader engineering field.

In the software field you get a large portion of people that don't buy into the concept of professionalism. For various reasons - chiefly the hacker culture and the easy of contributing to the "field" means the gauntlet one runs to become a "professional" isn't inherently a given.

As a whole this is a good thing but it does mean if you operate as a "professional" maybe sometimes you have to realize that something doesn't exactly gel with your ethos (case in point). It doesn't mean it is bad; just maybe not for you and yours.

Effect reminds me more of something like NestJS - essentially an end to end application framework that takes over your whole application.

Rather disappoint to see something like this being plugged as an alternative to something like zod which is a nice library that stays in its corner and has a nice fixed scope to it's functionality.

I think your identification of that distinction is entirely too generous. Typically the derision of dependency inversion extends to inversion of control since they are cut from the same cloth. One just focuses on what is being inverted and the other the process of inversion.

> This is such bad advice that I honestly couldn’t tell if it was a parody or not until I read the comment section—it’s not.

There is a large body of content on why concepts discussed in the article are championed. And also a large body of content on how they are misused (and I agree that can be - even to a huge degree).

So while, I think it is fine to judge that ascribed benefits are not worth the cost (or are not even realizable in a typical development team). Or argue why the benefits of an architecture like this doesn't work for Rust in particular - which may be the case since many of these patterns are oriented towards design in the enterprise applications space. But ascribing the approach as being a "parody" is not at all constructive.

The patterns of hexagonal architecture isn't in any way coupled to OOP even if some of the terminology is highly aligned with languages in the OOP space. In fact the well regarded (at least by me) Mark Seeman has an article how Ports and Adapters, another name for Hexagonal Architecture, is inherently functional [1]. And this resonates with my experience.

I have seen the pattern implemented well across: Python, Typescript, Javascript, .Net, Scala, and Go. And while the systems languages such as: C, Rust, and beyond are quite distinct from the previously discussed languages. There is certainly space for debate on the viability of the application of these patterns.

[1] https://blog.ploeh.dk/2016/03/18/functional-architecture-is-...

Is Theia related to Eclipse (the traditional Java IDE)? Or is the reference to "eclipse" just an unfortunate naming collision?

I'm always surprised that this style of architecture isn't discussed in terms of functional purity [1].

To me, a hexagonal architecture essentially means creating an abstraction at the point between pure and impure functions.

The realization of this approach essentially means the core of your application should be entirely pure and as large as possible. And your impure adapters, at the application boundary, (e.g. a rest api, db client, file system, system clock, etc.) should be as small as possible and impure.

Doing this well essentially allows you to get the best of both worlds - highly coupled code (i.e.your pure functionality) and highly decoupled code (i.e. your pure-to-impure functionality).

Another good reason for leveraging "functional design" as an argument is that many of those skeptical of architectural patterns are ironically heavily onboard the "functional design" bandwagon. So it is a strong argument in a political sense also.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function

From discussions in the past, I was under the impression there was general sense that if Ireland should have legitimately taxed them to this degree. That ultimately the taxes owed should probably be paid out to the countries where the sale occurs. As one country reaping the rewards of the tax for the entire European operation would be bizarre, when that country just has a medium sized support/sales operation (which was what Ireland was originally collecting tax on).

Does this also have the knock on affect that these companies can now write off this tax so their owed US taxes are much less (assuming they ever repatriate these earning - which they have often avoided to avoid paying US tax)?

Anyways, writing the above shows me how much I don't understand about these cases.

I would be more interested in active users. I have had personal projects with 100s of registered users yet I was the only one who actually used it. So 2M users might translate to somewhere between 1000 and 10000 unique users per month. Considering the niche; many of them young people with very little discretionary spending money.

Thanks for the answer. Ofc for my use case, the web dev is very keen to stay locked into Webflow. Hopefully I will get some time to do a bit more of a deep dive into Onlook.

Onlook sounds interesting as someone who had lined up using https://webflow.com/devlink as a solution for allowing our web dev to continue doing static content development in our new web app.

If I were to ask: why use Onlook over Devlink what would your answer be?

> In general, mature engineers are comfortable with working within some nonzero amount of uncertainty and risk

Just to take that sentence as a snapshot. I find the opposite is more relevant in the software field. Essentially, being solicited for an estimate on something where the certainty and predictability on what is being built is approaching zero.

There is no doubt the "softness" of software engineering as opposed to other forms of engineering is very distinct. To the point where there is an overarching question on whether it is engineering at all. This has resulted in the iterative Agile development process competing with, if not overtaking, the Waterfall development process that exists in other engineering disciplines.

And in software "engineering" the practical steps of construction are as intellectual an activity as the design. Where in other disciplines the design is considered an intellectual activity and the implementation is not.

I'm not going anywhere particular with this train of thought - other than surfacing the risks in comparing software development to traditional engineering.

I pay for Jet Brains IDEs but I still use DBeaver over DataGrip. I haven't played around with DataSpell, but does not bode well. Their strength seems to be in programming environments more so than data management tools.

Happy to be schooled though.

Very interesting, I didn't know anything more than he was more of a suit. Good to be aware he has technical pedigree.

As somebody who welcomes killing off the GIL. I would agree that Python is changing too much. It seems to be in this constant state of flux starting from around the Python 2 to 3 era (though maybe it was always like this and I wasn't familiar enough with it to know how it was before that). While all languages change, Pythons changes seem to be existential in nature.

For such a long lived language to have this much immaturity is worrying. I guess the side affect of such popularity later in life.

Static types are sanity when the people and years keep increasing. It isn't at all important in small one man projects since most of your defined types are in your head in any case.

There is nothing wrong with JavaScript as a language beyond it's, originally questionable, foundations that have since been iterated upon (much like PHP).

As a massive fan of static typed languages. There is no denying that dynamic typed languages are more fun to develop with in smaller project. It just they often hit a tipping point when they become a horror to deal with. I can still remember my first legacy Python code based where everything was thrice nested dictionaries.

Keycloak, while complex, doesn't feel overly complex. It exposes the complexity of the auth space to you.

On the other hand, Auth0 attempts to close of the complexity of the space by creating an opaque/proprietary layer. And then the primary pain point with Auth0 is that it's feature are behind another pricing tier.

If less complexity is what Stack Auth does differently than Keycloak. Does it do so by having a less transparent view of the auth process? Or does it do it by surfacing this complexity in a more digestible format?

> monopsony

> (economics) a market in which goods or services are offered by several sellers but there is only one buyer

well that is my new word of the day I guess, not a bad one at that

Sound like you should be doing a proper cost/value/risk analysis of the current solution along with a proposal for change.

Once you do that you will probably have a reasonable understanding of your potential: budget, opportunity cost, RoI, risk, etc. for undertaking some kind of organizational change.

The actual software development side of this seems secondary until the above is done.

Thanks for the summation. I was aware of Rosetta Stone as an older entity.

Babbel sounds interesting.

The supplemental is what I'm using it as, in between my A1 and A2 in-class lessons I'm using it to keep my level up and improve my ability to sentence build. New vocabulary is also nice.

Can you elaborate? It seems pretty opaque what they are like since it seems to be credit card up front with both of them.

I don't think they do anything special. It's just on aggregate between their various interactive mechanisms, there is nice variance to the types of interaction you get to do. Speaking, typing, word selection, etc.

Thanks for the recommendation. But just checking it out there,it seems to also follow a gamification model that forces you to click "commitment" buttons like you are some kind of child.