shxdow

In order to be fair, threat models should be taken into account. People seem to be conflating nation state operations using advanced capabilities worth at least hundreds of thousands of dollars to compromise high value targets/infrastructure with "my pet project may get 0 day'd" which is the exact opposite of being fair. Moreover, if the argument is "zero days will always exist" you may as well stop using technology entirely.

In Italy Software/Computer Engineer (Ingegnere informatico) is indeed protected, people usually refer to themselves as software developer or programmer unless they hold an engineering degree. The story is somewhat different when it comes to networking where it seems no one goes without the title. As long as you can prove you know your deal it isn't a deal breaker for private companies.

Unless memory is failing me, WhatsApp had ~55 employees (engineers ?) when they were acquired, also I doubt that Facebook is now pumping tens of thousands of engineers on a product that kept itself up with more or less 50 people. Moreover, I'm not sure what sort of change were they even supposed to bring to the app when their goal, as WhatsApp stated, was to take over SMS as global messaging system.

The question I have in regards to your suggestion is, how scalable is it ? Can/could it be applied to a FAANG-sized company ? I'm not rejecting any of your points, its just that every time someone critiques the current hiring practices they fail to provide an alternative system that does not introduce other problems (the first and most notable one is scalability, but there are many others)

I personally wouldn't draw all these conclusions from the email footer alone and I'd refrain from speculation as well. It's a footer at the end of the day, but that's me I guess.

Very interesting work indeed.

I second the sentiment, knowledge of the main goal would add context about the reverse engineering process

I don't know, the name "hc based hacker" doesn't help

One reason why you would want to know how Git internally works is to make a better use of it. The interface it exposes is relatively low level and as such suffers when uses don't understand how the software internally operates. If anything, used being repeatedly pointed to docs shows the lack of understanding of Git's inner workings.

I still don't get how OP (and every person that agrees with him) seems to conveniently avoid tackling all the logistics of their proposed solution.

I think you are referring to Professional Orders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_order) and, depending on where you live, there may actually be one. In my country, computer engineers have a professional order they can join after graduation, in the same exact way all the other kinds of engineers they've studied with do. Unlike some other engineering fields, the order does not enforce nor require active membership in any order to work.

"If you're doing real, creative, problem solving work, then daily physical contact with your colleagues is essential. The bandwidth of knowledge transfer is vastly in excess of anything that can be done remotely, and quickly bouncing ideas off other people will get you through problems and blockers far more effectively than anything else. We still don't have any collaboration software which can replicate this experience."

This looks alot like the argument that was initially used to push open offices, which turned out to be not so right.

Fair point.

As far as non fiction goes, I know how to achieve whatever my goal maybe (learning most of the time). Which translates to taking notes, testing code, proving theorems myself etc... But whenever I pick up a fiction book I'm not really sure if I should be doing anything in particular besides "just reading" the thing. This often times caused a very strong sense of bordedom in me. Is there anything in particular I would want to be doing ? What would make me enjoy fiction more is I primarily read to learn new things ?