skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What would change is that the incentives of the non-ads company would become better aligned with protecting their users against the ads company. Right now Google is working both sides, creating a conflict of interest.

Google would obviously never divest the Ads business, as it is a large revenue stream. Instead they would divest the non-Ads components of Chrome/Android/etc. Given that the larger purpose of those platforms is to create more surveillance subjects (commoditize your complements), this outcome would actually be somewhat sensible.
Another effective film in the same genre is "The Day After."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After#Effects_on_polic...

>President Ronald Reagan watched the film more than a month before its screening, on Columbus Day, October 10, 1983.[28] He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed,"[29][25] and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war".[30] The film was also screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A government advisor who attended the screening, a friend of Meyer's, told him "If you wanted to draw blood, you did it. Those guys sat there like they were turned to stone."[citation needed] Four years later, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed and in Reagan's memoirs he drew a direct line from the film to the signing.
Yep. "does this candidate raise the bar, or lower it". I.e., they have to be better than the average at the company already. As decided by you, from 50 minutes of interaction in a completely artificial, stressful situation.
Yes, sorry I was imprecise, it would have been better to have written "derivative of protobuf". To the extent the RPC part is derivative, it's probably mostly derivative of E?
That was my experience. One interview question I was asked at Google boiled down to pathfinding on a graph. I suggested using A* and said "but I doubt I can write that on a whiteboard". The interviewer was fine with that, I got hired.

I did many SWE interviews at Google. I came up with my own question that obviously required using data structures and algorithms, but probably not something the candidate had ever thought about. Most people had a good thought process which was 90% of the question; some people arrived at the answer I thought was correct. Sadly, nobody ever came up with a better answer than what I decided was best. I was kind of hoping they would ;)

The problem with Google's interview system is that everyone gets to come up with their own questions. Some are bad! Some interviewers are bad! It takes the Hiring Committee a few candidates to recognize this and give the interviewer feedback about what's bad. But, that's why the HC exists and that's why you have 4 or more in-person interviews. The uncalibrated first-time interviewer does not have full veto power over hiring you. It can make for an uncomfortable experience (when is meeting new people and writing code on a whiteboard ever comfortable?), but overall the process does find good engineers.

The end result of the process, which I really liked, was that people on the team you're joining assume competency and don't explain simple things to you that you already know. I remember a few discussions in my first weeks at Google that blew my mind; we were talking about idempotency, and nobody needed to explain what it was. Every time I've ever used that word it derailed the meeting completely, requiring a remedial CS 101 course to bring everyone else on the team up to speed about that concept. Everyone at Google knows what that is, so you don't have explain it. It was nice. (This came up again when there was a discussion about state machines. Again, everyone knew what a state machine was, and used them somewhat regularly, so what was in my past life a discussion-derailing tangent was just a thing everyone knew.)
The change in approach is intentional. It is still possible to use the old method, but for the majority of cases, it is just too heavyweight. There are two main problems with versioning entire workflows:

1. Need to keep the workers with old code around. It might be solved for some languages like Java by dynamic code loading, but it is still pretty complex. For long-running workflows dozens of changes can happen during their lifetime, requiring dozens of versions to be present at runtime.

2. When a bug is fixed the old versions do not get the fix as they are inherently immutable. Thus a workflow that runs for a month and has started yesterday is still going to experience a bug that was fixed today.

The approach that Temporal promotes is to version each piece of code independently when needed. This way, there is only one version of the entire code in production to maintain, and bug fixes can be deployed any time and apply to all the open workflows that didn't reach the code that was fixed.
I'd be interested to hear more about how you do that, and what you try to select for instead.
Yes, if it were true that "expressing even a minor deviation from the party line can result in life-destroying consequences", that would be bad. But it really isn't. You can get fired from a company by disagreeing with its party line on some issue, but that doesn't destroy your life.
Yeah, devs that work for me also work in a critical environment such as yours.

As soon as an issue is raised by our clients, they immediately kick off a 40 minute long timer and put a physical whiteboard in front of us asking us to solve the whiteboard problem in front of them in under an hour. All the while the client is physically behind us commenting on our code and watching our every move as we paint the whiteboard with a solution. This is literally what happens to me and my engineers on the Job. All of our code happens on the whiteboard (we don't use editors or keyboard or mice!.)

The only thing we need to deliver to our client is a picture of our code on the whiteboard along with some trivial complexity analysis and our client pays us money for coding under pressure.

Our interviews just consists of me doing the exact same thing as what happens on the job and therefore our interviews are 100% identical to our real life coding problems.

When science tells someone that the interview process they've been conducting for years is essentially wrong people have to sort of remake reality and their own reasoning to justify the science rather than admit fault. Obviously, this isn't what's happening with me or you in this case.... the interview process at my company is 100% identical to real world scenarios so I'm good.

I've always been telling everyone I know since before this article that I interview for anxiety not useless technical skills; anxiety is what determines whether a developer is great or not.
Why is sensible behavior suddenly political?

The owner/operator of the facility, EDF, envisaged a 40 year life for all 2nd generation reactors. That would have meant the reactor would have been shut down 2 years ago.

It's in a flood zone and a 2011 commission found that it didn't have necessary redundant cooling in place should the canals around it fail.

It's in a seismically active area.

It's on a river over an aquifer so any leakage will have severe consequences.

It has to be shut down during heat waves because the excess heat it dumps into the neighboring river will kill wildlife.

In the last decade it has had a number of small incidents.

It has served it's purpose for longer than it's expected lifespan and it's being shutdown safely before a catastrophe happens.

The SOP of Capitalism to do it until something bad happens doesn't mesh with Nuclear power.
I just went through an job hunt. I've been in tech for nearly two decades, and tech hiring has gotten definitively worse. It was never good to begin with, but it has become more painful from a candidate's perspective.

Employers are so focused on the well shared "the worst hire is a bad hire!" that they implement obtuse and ineffective hoops candidates must jump through in attempt to weed out "bad" candidates. This results in hiring those who survive the process, not those that will do the best work.
Facebook Struggles to Recruit, Retain Black Technical Employees
You are correct that charity can be exploited (both the "charitable interpretation" we strive for here, and giving actual resources to people in need). More generally, kindness can be exploited. Love can be exploited.

Be charitable anyway. Be kind anyway. Love anyway.

The alternative - not being charitable, not being kind, not loving - can ruin your life. Yes, you can be exploited. But give charity, kindness, and love, if not for the other person, then for yourself. Being the kind of person who won't be kind or love is miserable.
µ would be used by scientists, engineers, doctors and nurses.

That doesn't seem unreasonable, when we have <, >, { and } for mathematics, \ originally for logicians (to combine to make /\ AND and \/ OR) and |, @, _ and # for programming.
this would probably be a solutions yes.

Getting there politically is a hard and long process.

The EU exists partially to prevent large multinational companies from playing smaller countries against each other (by having a common market).

Personally, i think european integration is necessary to keep the continent afloat in the era of globalization. Europe is a continent that is highly fractured politically, and having smaller nations is a problem against gianst like the USA and china.
Depending on your camera settings, your camera will attach lat-lon in the metadata of the photo when it takes the photo.

Google doesn't have to rifle through anything; from the application's point of view, that information is as clear as the filename and the color of the top-left pixel.
What is going on with Outlook for Windows? For years, it froze its entire UI whenever there was some network lag on the IMAP server, and the recent improvements for Outlook strangely focus only on their Mac, web, and mobile versions. Does the Windows version still have a future? It seems to be stuck in some maintenance limbo.
After Quarantine, 28% of People Report Feeling Overwhelmed by Driving
Why can’t they offer actual stock instead at that point?
I've never been in such an apartment, but that is how Robin Colcord's private elevator worked on Cheers, so I believe you.
In order for Cisco to make products in China they need to share all of their IP with their Chinese partner, you need a Chinese partner company in order to do business in China.

I've seen people say that you don't need a Chinese partner, I've done business in China, I needed a partner company, and I was only doing software.

You need to share your IP with your Chinese Partner company. Your Chinese partner company is partially owned by the Chinese Government. When you share your IP with your Chinese partner company they share it with their owner, the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government then shares your IP with all the other Chinese companies that could benefit.

The Chinese haven't needed to steal Commercial IP because western companies have been handing it over to them willingly.

Making fakes

I got to know people at my Chinese partner company, and a relative of one guy was in the business of helping western companies manufacture in China. I was lucky enough to get a tour of a few "high end brand" factories. The relative was quite open about the fact that they right down the road was another factory, which I also toured, that looked almost identical to the first, where they were making similar products, almost identical to the first. The only difference was the leather, and quality of the fabric, and the hardware, you can't make a knock-off handbag if you use the same quality materials. The relative did allude to the fact that the cost of the second factory was buried in the cost of the first.

Never China.
Welcome to windowsME
Reporting accidents isn't the issue. It's having them on the regular and being past the standard operational period that worries me. Not sure why that's contentious.
This tends to happen when you overleverage on a risky asset. Good, housing prices in many markets need a sharp correction for affordability
The features do work though, navigate on autopilot is great. Sure there is a potential for misuse but that’s true for any car, cars are just inherently dangerous.

Overall Tesla’s have great safety ratings. Can you show me hard data that autopilot makes the car measurably less safe? If anything I would guess that it makes good drivers better.
Try temporal.io. It is just a Java library without any code generation and AspectJ. It also allows to write synchronous code while Flow was only asynchronous.
May I suggest you consider fostering a child? Or spending more time as an educator of some sort (through teaching, mentoring, etc.)? There are definitely ways for you to give love to a younger generation that does not involve your daughters decision to have children or not.
You removed from the OP quote:

> nor more than a whisper on the national media circus. I presume you haven't heard about it, either.
Unfortunately it is all true, which is why people here in France are getting pissed and protesting it.

See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-protest/pr...
White nationalist Jared Taylor has repeatedly stressed that the woke left is doing his work for him.
They don't talk about nuclear waste highly toxic that is buried in the north east of France and that they don't know what to do with. Nuclear is good for environment temporarily, but on the long term, if we don't know how to reuse nuclear waste, it will be worse.
> "Incognito mode" has never meant "Third party sites can't track you," but one could argue its plain-language understanding should be that.

This is how browsers have increasingly implemented the feature as well, to match user expectations. Arguing that incognito mode is solely a "I don't want this in my history" feature ignores how it is perceived by pretty much everyone.
Admittedly not too familiar with the hardware R&D work going on here, I know Intel is largely manufacturing with a bit of development from things like the purchase of Movidius.

For the software side, what are those R&D departments actually working on? Would you really say it's R&D and product development? From what I can see, both from my own experience and from job posts, most of the engineering jobs are themselves operations related (SRE, infrastructure, customer support). I wasn't saying we don't have engineering roles in Ireland, but what we do have are not prime roles in terms of the companies products and services, and we should be looking to grow beyond facilitating company operations.
Do have data on this? My experience is that everyone is selfish.
You're being too literal. There are lots of "sounds" that have no objective correlates at all. What do we do with those [conflicting] subjective "truths" when there is no meter?
The in-laws bought us a Facebook portal to keep in touch with the grandkids. It is kept unplugged and in a drawer except for when in use. We only use it for WhatsApp calling and it is an impressive device, excellent voice quality and tracking camera for the price.I'm just annoyed it doesn't work with jitsi...or zoom or Google meet/hangouts. Same problem as this zoom device, what happens if you need to join a WhatsApp call or something else...surely it's feasible to build a dedicated video calling device on Android that is multi platform at this price point.
In this case, we're taking offline an amount of nuclear power that exceeds the entire photovoltaic contribution to the French grid, and replacing it with power from a combined cycle plant in Germany. In turn, Germany is commissioning a new coal power plant, in part because of the increased French demand for electricity.
Plenty of space, yes, but in zones where you don't have to worry about natural disaster seasons, or ridiculous supply chain issues (I'm thinking southwest US for water)? NE is no cakewalk in the winter but we generally don't have to worry about a hurricane decimating a whole city.

As far as production, remember the automation issue as well as the fact that, well, more content is great perhaps in smaller communities, but think of the absolute firehose the Internet is and how many creatives would want to be able to sustain off of a consistent fanbase at at least an average salary. If more (or everyone) becomes a Youtuber, does that itself reduce who is watching the vids, reduces payouts because of the sheer amount of content, and lead to a scarcity? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY: Is too much of the same type of thing being created (e.g., people used to one Nicki Minaj probably think it's great to have Saweetie and Meg Thee Stallion, but what if they get their own copycats/spinoff artists? Too much of the same thing at once?) I'm assuming economically both our scenarios would adjust to views in an increase/decrease in population.

Also throwing more people at the science situation doesn't necessarily help if we aren't training quality people in the field and resort to degree factories. Think about the sheer number of papers being published nowadays. I assume it is hard for them to keep up and who knows how much more bad science (or disinformation in general) would occur then.

Please put my Malthusian fears to rest!
That's a very interesting analogy.
The Pandemic Has Accelerated Demands for a More Skilled Work Force
- How long without cooling does it take for the samples to be destroyed?

- When it does go down, how long does it take you to catch it?

- Are you doing active "chaos monkey"-style testing such as intentionally turning off random systems and ensuring your backup procedures detect and solve the problem before the samples are destroyed?

- Given the current deterioration rates in your industry and your facility under normal operation, what is the probability of a sample surviving 10 years? 20? 30? What about after accounting for the possibility of equipment/system failures?
> Afaik originally the life-span for most reactors of that kind was 40 years

It is not. That number was made so that EDF would get a proper return of investment. Some plants based on the same design have been granted lifespan to 60 years in the US.

> how far past that are we willing to go?

As long as its safe. Why throw away something that works, is safe and reliable on the counts that some folks put out a number?
Write Short Paragraphs
It seems pretty obvious to me that this kind of interviews are simply there to assess how much you want to work for a certain company. As in: would you be willing to study for months, go through mock interviews, read books, test your skills etc. to have a shot at working for us? Even though the majority of that stuff will likely have zero impact on your day to day work?

That's all there is, really. I've had no problems in the past implementing complex algorithms, if I needed it to get the job done. Today I'd barely be able to tell you their names. But to get to the point of knowing most of them by heart and being able to implement them with no help whatsoever, would take a lot more work and dedication, knowing that you'll probably end up not retaining most of it anyway.

The same system is used in competitive sports and academic tests. They mostly measure how much you really want to be part of that league/team/school, rather than whether you'll do well or not. If there was a perfect correlation between pre and post entrance test performance there wouldn't be PIPs, performance based layoffs etc.
Direct link to the paper: http://chrisparnin.me/pdf/stress_FSE_20.pdf
Indeed GitHub's contributors graphs gave me the impression that https://github.com/markstory worked on passbolt. Isn't that is what they are supposed to?

Wish you all the best with your enhanced developer insights.
That's basically the argument. I find it incredibly useful to me personally, but when people ask "How do we guarantee Google doesn't share data between accounts," the answer definitely is "We trust Google at their word."
(0xC000005 == STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION, accessing a memory address that couldn't be accessed, ie a segfault.)
I also treated my Google interview as a free trip to the Bay Area, and used it to visit a friend and do touristy stuff. Wasn't expecting an offer, but got one and stayed there for many years.

I've read advice that you shouldn't schedule your interview on a Friday, but that's exactly what I did so that I could spend the following weekend in SF :)
It s not, I ve been interviewed that way and interviewed others that way. Many times it led to horrible mistakes so now I give a simple project to do at home with no deadline.

If a guy can do well that kind of well rounded project, even by cheating, I want him and his network all the same.
Startups and smaller companies are a different story. One of my friends got a job at a startup by virtue of standing in line at a cafe holding a programming book, and the (non-technical) founder standing behind him hired him after a quick chat.

Bigger companies often don't let you through like that though. My friends are constantly offering to refer me to roles at their companies, but every one of them would still involve going through the whiteboard interview ritual. For now, I'm not taking them up on the offers because I'm not confident I'll pass the leetcode rounds.
It's interesting to me that the interview process of our field makes you question your choice of career. It seems like such a small thing compared to everything else.

I absolutely despise the interview process, but there's no question to me that I choose the right career.
A lot of schools use teachers aides to support kids with special needs, like Chicago has 12k teachers, 4k special ed classroom assistants, and 3.7k special ed teachers. So like the top line teacher to student ratio may be similar to a suburban school, but I doubt that the suburban schools have that high of a ratio of special ed support staff and teachers.

https://cps.edu/About_CPS/Financial_information/Pages/Employ...
And preferably "apples to apples"-- are we going to include the entire lifecycle of solar manufacturing, too?
Here's the study: http://chrisparnin.me/pdf/stress_FSE_20.pdf

They asked students to find the "Longest Substring Without Repeating Characters".

For the formats: "We created two interview settings: public setting and private setting (see Figure 1). In the public setting,
wearing an eye-tracker, participants solved the technical interview problem in the presence of an experimenter. The participant was
instructed to talk-aloud while solving the task, which is a standard
practice in technical interviews [28, 47]. The lab space contained a
whiteboard at the front of the room. An experimenter was situated
near the participant for the entire session without interrupting
participants’ thought process. If a participant asked for clarifica-
tion, the response was brief. For example, if a participant asked,
“Does this look correct”, the experimenter was instructed to reply,
“Complete to the best of your ability”.

In the private setting, participants solved the technical interview
problem in isolation. Participant were provided a private room with
a whiteboard. Participants were informed that the experimenter
will step out the room and will not return while they are solving
the problem. Thus, they had to make sure that there is no questions
left for them. When the participant was ready to begin the task,
they wear the eye-trackers, the door was closed, and the participant
worked in privacy, until the task was completed within allotted
time. After the experiment, we clarified with participants if they
had any uncertainty about the problem they just solved."

They ran a randomized controlled trial on the effect of having another person in the room, which is interesting. It does not, however, show that these interviews fail to assess software skills.

This is also essentially the worst case for having another person in the room: they are completely superfluous, just watching you, not helping, not communicating, not collaborating. Not even saying things that might make you more at ease.