pencilcheck

DB: Postgres

API: Postgraphql (generate graphql from postgres schema and stored procedures automatically)

Frontend SPA: nextjs framework with reactjs

Cache: Depends on the usage e.g. Redis

PaaS: Heroku

The article hopefully addressed this question... I would say the role of the PM in my opinion is not about taking their time to think forever to take action. They are the ones to put the whole team in a better position to take action while strategizing so they move forward and make better decisions as time goes on. As there is no way you can know everything ahead of time before making 100% correct action. That is impossible.

In my opinion, those are PM who are incompetent because they can't pull and affect those people around them to come to an agreement that everyone is ok with. This type of PM (which is everywhere) is afraid of confrontation to their superior and often can't ask the right questions of their peers and ultimately pull the right resources (in or outside companies) to help out the rest of the team to move faster or done things right.

I would say a incompetent PM wouldn't be able to make their own deadlines but to only comply deadline set by their superior who of course has no intention or knowledge on how the system actually works and the time it takes to accomplish them. A good PM would be able to fight back and make a much better deadline that both engineer, sales, marketing, design and business all would be happy about. In my mind, a great PM pushes tech to meet new business goals and pull business to be aware of technical pitfalls. A great PM is in control of all sides of the project and able to pull them together without being expert in any of the fields.

In my opinion, I still think Gitup is much better.

I was using this last year. This is out for awhile now.

so cool, installed immediately

自由言論 - that's free speech in Chinese

And he even got it wrong, it's integrated development environment

Looks like what they are collecting is in this array:

[TuneMyGc.walltime, TuneMyGc.peak_rss, TuneMyGc.current_rss, stage, GC.stat.values_at(*stat_keys), GC.latest_gc_info, meta]

In this file: https://github.com/bear-metal/tunemygc/blob/70a02b9dd252c6f5...

Or in their protocol.md: https://github.com/bear-metal/tunemygc/blob/master/doc/proto...

Come on, where is the option to choose traditional chinese? :P

Very cool stuff. thanks

How does it know that web is the one to built with linking from other commands? Also if there is no Dockerfile the web in the README is not running in docker, how is the env being filled by the linking process? Is it hardcoded?

Pragmata Pro works for me

There is also a hidden factor: white male in his early 20s attending ivy league schools like Stanford and MIT

It’s unfortunate there are always people who think bring resourceful is not a essential quality of a good programmer...

Reasoning from analogy is the wrong way of saying what people have in mind when they provide examples to explain what it is. To me, it sound more like reasoning form what already works. In most examples I have seen, it is mostly about solving a problem using existing solutions/packages available and add your own flavor to it. That's why the "analogy" thinking because that's how the idea is presented, people pitch the idea using other's solutions. But what Elon Musk is different from others is that his thinking is stemming from scientific research more than you think it is. It is asking about the right question by digging deep into the core of the problem until you cannot dig any further. For example, in Elon Musk's example of battery, you first start with a goal: how to build an electric cars that is cost effective. You break the goals down into smaller problems, and you could recognize that battery is the biggest contributing factor in providing the solution to this goal, then you ask, why is the cost of battery so high yet it yield so little? Then you break the problem down into further smaller problems such as the cost for each component that comprised the battery, then you keep reasoning from there until you can find a ground where you can start reasoning back up. Personally I think the name "First principle" is also misleading since it is not mainly about principles, but more about asking the right questions.

This author has no real deep understanding of current AI research and the what semantic web actually means. Throughout the article, the author not only ignores and reference any authentic websites for defining semantic web, but also trying to make fun of it by unrelated example such as Google's Knowledge Graph.... Comparing semantic web with the Knowledge Graph is like comparing graphs with oranges. Those are completely different beast and for different purposes. This goes to show the understanding of the author and his/her intent. And ironically, everything that the author tried to sell us on are spot on part of semantic web. For example, the Stream data he/she defined is precisely what semantic web is trying to do, is to label and give meaning to a certain data instead of a big chunk of text/binary. The author also mentioned about pushing and pulling, I argue that the way information/data is disseminated has nothing to do with the ontology or the semantics of data.

And there you go, such a shallow article with a very aggressive link title bait, just pathetic.

Ruby is for stubborn people :D

I have coded up one pass solution in ruby, check it out!

https://gist.github.com/pencilcheck/7252934

A lot of solutions here doesn’t seem to take account of multiple puddles, my solution does take that into account.

Yea, perhaps disable auto pilot mode when you are in less crowded areas.

Open source == standards? Don’t kid me

Still, he is one of the target customers :) And you might noticed in the excerpt you have pasted, it says that

`Torvalds wanted a distributed system that he could use like BitKeeper, but none of the available free systems met his needs`

I am still skeptical for the effectiveness of FizzBuzz. I wonder if there are actual science experimental result to support this hypothesis where asking FizzBuzz as a filter would actually be effective. I wonder what is the percentage of those candidates who failed this filter are actually the worst kind of candidates, and if those who passed this filter would turns out not be a good fit. I see no correlation between passing FizzBuzz and being a good fit, productive engineer. Most of the proponent of FizzBuzz seems to assume that engineering skills could be accurately form a pyramid, where there are some questions where you need to understand before tackling other higher level questions, and that people who don't understand the "basics" will not be able to grasp or excel in the skills in higher levels. May I ask how many interviews here have taken CS courses and may I ask how many of you find FizzBuzz is relevant to any of the courses you have taken? Do you need to know FizzBuzz in order to tackle the vast problem spaces of Computer Science? Do you need to know FizzBuzz by heart to have experienced working in a large projects with thousands of people? Do you need to know FizzBuzz to implement a binary tree? Do you need to excel in FizzBuzz to code up a language parser?

To me, it is absurd that people believe in FizzBuzz because I see this mindless ritual of asking FizzBuzz question can be best described as Cargo Cult Science as coined by Richard Feynman (http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html), where in this context of hiring, recruiters are hoping that by asking FizzBuzz he will definitely filter out all incompetent programmers/engineers so he won't have to waste time finding out if the candidates are actually suitable for the position and the team.

If FizzBuzz is the ultimate filter for the position he is applying for, or if it should be considered universal, then why wouldn't university teaches them to memorize all possible variations of them in their introductory programming classes? Also wouldn't you think people who are not good programmers would cheat his/her way out by simply memorize the solution? Then aren't you still wasting time asking FizzBuzz questions?

I recommended LimeChat http://limechat.net

However Linus built git for himself, not for others, therefore he doesn’t need to go through this because he will be the first customer once this product is finished and released.

This article is aiming for entrepreneurs who are building a product for others because no where in the article did he infer any possibility that the product/service is something they want regardless of others.

I think it's just a matter of perspective and whether they are used to the tech, but I can see this technology being deployed in 10-20 years time, by that time older people that don't trust tech will still not drive a car or use a computer, those that wants to own a car would still owns a car, but I bet the majority will hop on this new revenue of personal, car sharing system.

Are you countering his argument or just grumbling to yourself?

What drive less car can do and the system in the whole can do is to be able to know where and when a car is driving in the vicinity where normal human cannot perceive. So the situation you describe will not happen at all if those systems are in place. Actually, you just describe a scenario where it is preferable to have a system that monitors human error that could prevent accidents like the one you describe to happen.

Also I don't know whether you have been following tech recently, and if you have seen the intro to drive less car, you would probably seen or heard about the infamous laser and radars mounted around the car as shown in the article in the link: http://www.slashgear.com/back-to-basics-how-googles-driverle...

It is virtually impossible for the car to crash into anything because the car can literally "see" everything around it. Also the algorithms is smart enough to anticipate or plan an alternative path to prevent collision with the objects. You sounded like you have never heard or been following tech especially machine learning, so I forgive you, but you should do some research first before posting comments like this...

Paul Graham invented lisp… that’s when I stop reading

I will try my best to explain this paradox.

This is a paradox only if you act like a computer. So what do I mean by that? This problem simply means, that if you selected an envelope, and you know that there is a chance that the other envelope will have higher value than then one you selected, then by probability, you could conclude that you are better off swapping to the other envelope. However, the paradox starts after you switch envelope because now you can start this all over again and think, hey, even though I just swapped, but it is still possible that the other envelope has value higher than the one I just selected!

To explain it in mathematical terms, when the value of the currently selected envelope is Z, the expected value of the other envelope will always be Z/2 * 0.5 + 2Z * 0.5 = 5/4Z higher than the one you selected.

The trick is to think procedurally, instead of trying to be realistic. In other words, it is always statistically possible that the other envelope has higher value than the one you selected, therefore you should always swap.