64 karma · joined November 28, 2018
I could understand if NVidia would have done some kind of investment that was only sustainable if the good times would continue the same way for a while.
But it seems to me they will just continue to make good graphics cards, as they did before. So why should they be in trouble?
You seem to trust the government. Are you a Trump fan? Not saying it would be a bad thing. Just pointing out that governments aren't perfect.
Saying it doesn't have any real uses sounds like the IBM guy who estimated the demand for computers to be about two or three globally.
As for fundamentals, it is obviously a technological product, with people working on improving it and building services based on it.
It's also trying to solve a rather hard problem, as it turns out. It's possible that it simply isn't good enough at solving that problem yet (too many bugs or whatever).
On the other hand, of course, people have to be able to discuss their parenting issues, and it is important that there are also articles about that. I don't know a good solution for that problem.
Maybe she couldn't deal with the not-so-perfect normal life daughter, and that is why said daughter shut her out.
Maybe not - but after "ruining" the Led Zeppelin song for he daughter, now she went after the one other thing that seems to make her daughter happy, which is Instagram. What if that article now gives her daughter unwanted fame and ruins that part of her life, too? Maybe it is still about control, not participating in someone's life?
I don't like if they burn coal for it, but there are also other energy sources, sometimes there is even spare energy that needs to be used somehow.
The argument made was that time travelers would go through the effort to punish miners, of all people.
There is a lot of other senseless wasting of energy going on theses days.
I can only hope that firms will eventually figure out that reCAPTCHA is a bad user experience.
Of course bad stuff can happen, no question.
From the article it sounds to me as if there is a lot of Methane to go around. Maybe we should use it up, and use the energy to power air conditioning and growing food in mines and wherever. That would already solve two of the scenarios in the article - unworkable climates and food shortages.
Diseases also seem treatable, and the article mentioning bubonic plague is rather reassuring. We have antibiotics now to treat that, and vaccines against many old scourges.
I thought CO2 is mainly an issue high up n the atmosphere. Presumably on the ground, it would also help plants grow, which would in turn use it up.
I'm just saying, things might turn out different than expected.
Maybe in general, it simply is impossible to prevent change in the world. A large fraction of the doomsday scenario addiction of mankind might simply be fear of change.
Maybe the idea was to occasionally quit apps and open other ones, not to keep them all open at the same time?
Or even better, this one about git: https://xkcd.com/1597/
It's good to use version control, but I wouldn't rate it too high in judging developer competence.
Coding: I actually like coding tests in interviews. Then I know my potential future colleagues will also have had a coding test. The company cares at least a little that my colleagues can code.
Just don't take the coding test too seriously. Don't expect me to write correct syntax on a whiteboard, for example. It should be more about having the right ideas, or even be able to discuss possible approaches if a solution isn't obvious immediately.
Also, make it a little challenging - no computing of Fibonacci numbers or FizzBuzz.
I liked one where I was asked to implement Quicksort (not that original, but OK), but they also gave me a definition of Quicksort along with it. That seemed fair.
Doesn't Methane burn? Maybe another energy source for the future...
I still think it is like startup options: people have to learn that if they want to earn x, they should put it into the contract, and not be satisfied with a vague promise of possible riches in the future.
It is so basic that I find it hard to sympathize.
Journalists must have known they are gambling if they don#t receive real money for their work. If not, they were incredibly naive and perhaps have learned a valuable lesson. Namely, don't rely on empty promises.
The article mentions stock options. Stock options also don't always pan out. It rather feels as if these journalists feel entitled somehow to their riches, as they have seen their brothers in tech receive. But they forget to think about the people in tech who toiled in startups that failed and who also received nothing.
It also implies that maybe you won't get rich. So these journalists didn't get rich. They made a gamble and lost. End of story.