I want more than anything to use Firefox, but the fact remains that they have internal issues that prevent them from creating a quality product. Slow startup times, constant hangs, memory leaks, crashes, and general sluggishness prevent even people who care from using Firefox.
Firefox will never match Chrome head-to-head, and is a dying browser. Then only way Chrome doesn't win is if a new competitor appears.
Those four role models don't look like me, and I think they're all awful examples of people someone should look up to. But you need to acknowledge both sides. Stop being so stubborn and look at it objectively. We do need more diversity in role models, however by saying you want less of the current role models you are initiating a direct attack. It's tricky business either way. But perhaps it would be better to say that you wish four great role models that look like you also held such prominent mindshare.
What's telling to me is that while the list of investors if full of famous names (politicians, founders), there isn't what I would consider a single reputable silicon valley investor anywhere in the list.
I know companies do this, but I don't understand how it works. Given the competitive nature of hiring good engineers what type of candidate would accept a contract position when they probably have five other offers?
I think there's two different complaints at play in this thread. Surely you're not suggesting that candidates be exempt from proving themselves. The number of developers who become incompetent over time is high. I think the question is whether they should prove themselves through algorithmic questions. I'll never higher anyone just because they have credentials. A Computer Science degree is a credential, yet so many with that credential cannot write the simplest of programs.
UI Design or a Frontend Software Engineer? I'd expect people working on the frontend to just as proficient in time complexity, space complexity, and performance analysis as a backend engineer. I don't particularly gravitate towards companies working in CRUD apps, but single page applications with complex UI flows and data collection can certainly need those abilities. For one, it's not particularly uncommon to have an actual tree in the UI. How would you represent that tree? How are you going to handle it as it grows to thousands of nodes?
I think few frontend developers would consider the work they do to be "UI design".
So you want a company to hire somebody after talking them for 30 minutes? Based off of what? You honestly can't imagine talking about technical software problems for more than 30 minutes? That's a pretty big red flag to me.
There's irony. Asking for GitHub is 10x worse than algorithmic questions. I just went through the interview process at big companies, with all the resources out there it's easy to get good at these types of questions.
During my professional time I write software to make money. During my free time I write software to make money. As an aging software engineer algorithmic questions just screen for how much time you're willing to put into an interviewing. GitHub screens for how much of a sucker you are.
I somewhat agree with you. The US does have a great system in place, and I believe that in the US we're most likely to catch bribery when it occurs, if not close. However, the fact that catching bribery is common means that bribery is even more common than that. You just can't get around the fact that politicians are people and people are vulnerable to bribery.
If Google's human inputs have racial bias that is certainly something that should be fixed. DuckDuckGo has safe search on by default.
> That a query for an innocent term such as 'black girls' even with 'safe search off' should not result in a bunch of porn.
I don't know what results the search term 'black girls' should return. If you just search for it, it doesn't return any porn for me. If you're seeing porn, your search results make reflect your search history since Google will customize your results based on your search history. Interesting.
That being said, it should return whatever people are searching for. We must be careful not to cross the line from fixing mistakes to politically correct moral censorship.
You act as though seeing it in an independent cinema is an advantage? Isn't a month of Netflix's subscription cheaper than going to the cinema? That's the real problem. Trying to charge that much for a single viewing of a single movie. Consumers will cheer for whoever is not trying to screw them over at any given time. Cinemas have taken advantage of consumers for decades, and continue to try to do so by banning content from their festivals.
The idea that real users will only be slightly inconvenienced is something I see often. However, that imposes real costs. A significant percentage of those users will not be determined enough to solve a captcha every time they login, and their usage will drop off.
It's the reason I will never use CloudFlare for any product I build. Their DDOS and spam protection does protect you, but it also literally drives away users.
The question Twitter should be asking is not, "Which accounts are bots?". That would just be bad business. Instead, they should be asking at what point does the presence of bots hurt the user experience more than imposing barriers on usage.
I'm not saying Amazon will switch to passenger transport, but you can imagine that their strategy would be to dominate the market by subsidizing ticket prices, then once they have the proper penetration, to raise ticket prices and be the first airline to increase margins in some time.
Am I missing something? Virtually the entire open source ecosystem resides on GitHub, an unprofitable walled corporation. Not having searchable logs could be an issue, but how that different than an irc channel?
It's not a guaranteed win, no. However, if they are at the point where they wish to be euthanized then their outlook is grim. However, even a minuscule chance is better than zero chance, correct? In addition, by donating their brain structure they're directly fueling the research needed to improve that chance.
It seems interesting from the perspective of the customer, but the really interesting thing is that if this succeeds, they will have access to brain imaging data that no one else has. You can't normally get such detailed scans of a human brain, because it requires the human to die. It's a business model that allows them to accelerate the pace of research without the human rights violations that come from human experimentation. The real value in this company is in what research arises from the data they gather, while being funded by people paying to donate their brains to research. It's a diabolical everybody wins situation.
Trivial appears to be the right word. In the linked cases of bribery government officials were bribed for a hundred to hundreds of thousands of dollars. When public officials are bribed, they all tend to be in that ballpark. What happens when you can offer dozens of millions of dollars, or a hundred million or more to the right official? Most likely, no one would ever need to offer that high of a number.
I thought so before too, but after reading the paper again, I came to the same conclusion as the parent. The usage of distributed lattices is key, but it only works because it allows them to reduce messaging cost and gossip at background intervals. As far as I can tell, this means that you can receive a successfully written response, have that machine die , and all data within the last multicast period is lost. Therefore, it isn't suitable as a datastore, and the benchmarks are mostly worthless with the exception of Redis.
That's true, I have more customizations to vim than I can count, however the idea that someone had tried to convey to the parent was probably not that he shouldn't customize it, but that he should remain idiomatic. I don't, for example, change the functionality of common keys, as I need to use them when I'm on an environment that's not my computer. Instead, I add functionality that didn't exist before or change defaults to my preferred settings. If I do change a key, it's a key I will never use, like caps lock.
Redis is an impressive piece of engineering, but it performs best as an in-memory kv-store on a single core. Its distributed capabilities target a different problem than other distributed kv-stores attempt to solve. Redis Cluster focuses on reasonable functionality for an in-memory store. However, Redis Cluster is neither highly available, nor consistent. There are multiple modes that can cause catastrophic data loss, so Redis Cluster works best in situations where losing data isn't a big deal. For it's intended use case, nothing else comes close to offering the same functionality, performance, reliability, and ease of use.
I've just finished reading the paper. One difference is that Anna offers a weaker form of consistency than etcd. Etcd offers sequential consistency, and Anna offers casual consistency. I believe that this could eliminate many etcd use cases, since ordering for non-casual events many be different depending on the node you access.
I'm not sure I fully understand etcd's durability guarantees. When an operation is completed, does that mean that the data is durable on a single machine, and then becomes durable on other machines at a later point? If so, it seems like Anna could offer the same durability guarantees.
I think Anna's architecture could be more of a competitor to Cassandra, or DynamoDB as long as you only need casual consistency. The performance implications do seem pretty interesting.
It's good to know that there are decent people out there, but as an American who isn't white, I don't why anyone would go through the trouble of living in the Midwest if they had the choice. If anyone wants to move to the US, I always tell them to avoid the midwest and Texas like the plague. There's no point in being in an area where a significant number of people hate you because of your skin color.
You'd think that this was an April Fool's joke. I hope that there are enough sensible members on the committee to reign in the emotional immaturity of their younger members.