bzbz

What made you prefer Mail to Gmail, given you don’t seem satisfied with Apple’s Mail app?

Define “smarter” —- already a vague and overloaded term.

And then consider whether the point of the class is to test smarts, or something else.

I’d expect that’s not the intent of most undergraduate degrees.

Agreed. I vaguely remember another HN link that said Apple tried a competing-team approach to building a better siri, but it fell apart due to internal politics reasons?

Why is it the fastest possible?

Wouldn’t you be able to run a higher clock-speed simulation, and therefore compute the sound ahead-of-time, on a digital device?

one forgotten difference is, the underlying hardware would have been built (by woz or others) to a high degree of quality

in general, the bar has fallen. it is not limited to design.

when you find these kinds of bad decisions permeate, you can usually point to the incentive-setters: leadership and shareholders.

Exactly, this form of internet bullying always detracts from the point its author is trying to make.

That is a crazy low rate. Which gym is it?

What part of it seems like a criticism to you?

For anyone who's wondering, their estimation method works like so:

1. Assume a range of values

2. Assume a fair probability function for sampling over the range of values

The estimated size is the %-of-hits * the total range of values.

In your example, the amino acids order is sufficient to directly model the result: the sequence of amino acids can directly generate the protein, which is either valid or invalid. All variables are provided within the data.

In the original example, we are testing weather using the previous day’s weather. We may be able to model using whatever correlation exists between the data. This is not the same as accurately predicting results, if the real-world weather function is determined by the weather of surrounding locations, time of year, and moon phase. If our model does not have this data, and it is essential to model the result, how can you accurately model?

In other words: “Garbage in, garbage out”. Good luck modeling an n-th degree polynomial function, given a fraction of the variables to train on.

> For some reason […]

Likely because Apple themselves provide an emulator that accommodates most developers’ needs.

So sign your UUIDs and combine them into “$UUID:$HASH” strings for the same benefit. Or a more structured JWT-like payload that still verifies auth against the DB (as opposed to carrying authorization within the token).

No need to reinvision the rest of the auth flow if you just want to add hashing to reduce DB load.

If anything, an obfuscated microservice-based application is easier to understand than a monolithic version: network data transfer is easier for observers to understand than memory modification.

> An ambassador service can be thought of as an out-of-process proxy that is co-located with the client.

> This pattern can be useful for offloading common client connectivity tasks such as monitoring, logging, routing, security (such as TLS), and resiliency patterns in a language agnostic way. It is often used with legacy applications, or other applications that are difficult to modify, in order to extend their networking capabilities. It can also enable a specialized team to implement those features.

Not surprised this is a Microsoft page, given their legacy of long lifetime support for their software products.

It’s not for microservices, but rather for software maintenance of systems that other vendors would consider past EOL.

What is this comment even trying to say?

This number includes taxes, benefits, etc, not just raw salary.

Notably Signal employees do not get equity, so the salary must be higher to remain competitive.

Signal is probably the hardest class of product to build. Name an optimization/distributed systems problem, they probably have it. And quite literally, a Signal bug could jeopardize an activist/journalist’s life.

So for a <$200k salary and no equity, how many world-class engineers do you think you could hire?

I simply wouldn’t trust the product, if it had mediocre engineers.

I think you may be misinterpreting it. Was there an option to log into another account after you clicked “Sign out and Remember”?

Being able to switch between two accounts seems useful in the context of:

1. A recruiter signing out in order to sign into the profile of their CEO/Eng Director to send recruiting messages on their behalf.

2. A marketing person signing out in order to sign in to the company account.

“Google gave the second-place bidder a built-in handicap to make their offer more competitive” is the tamest way of phrasing it, given that the “handicap”’s only effect is to cost the first-place bidder more money.

It never helps the second-place bidder. I’d argue “handicap” is deceitful.

I was skeptical when the author implied automation was the solution.

But actually, the given solutions are mostly communication-focused, and the automation is to aid in that.

Good read.

Strengthening the rail network and increasing the cost of oil? Sounds like the right incentives to me.

How do you calculate this? Is it based on your previous prescription somehow, or does it require another optometrist appointment?

As easy as it is to reply to a salesperson’s email

> Maybe in context of old C, but in java you have two nestings just for being in class method. So as a general point, it does not stand anyway.

In reference to your above point. You’re saying modern Java makes you start out at 2 levels of indentation. I’m saying your modern monitor’s width compensates.

And screens are bigger than they used to be, so you conveniently have more tabs to make up for it. I think it evens out

Is this really a problem? Async/await makes async simple, and using a store like zustand gives you hooks and [g/s]etters out of the box.

But they can’t retroactively gain data. So it’s not the same. Besides, security is something you apply in layers.

It seems like you’re grasping at straws to defend your original statement.

Elephant killing incident??

Why wouldn't you just use epoch time?

Your example handyman can negotiate on rates, serve the same client in the future (with the possibility of a re-negotiated rate), and set their own terms and conditions for providing the service.

None of that applies to drivers who can either choose to take what they're given or quit.

I can't find a reason why that the court's criteria isn't sound. Can you find one?