the tweet starts off pretty strong, which I didn't care for but I understand. this phrase however feels wrong. i guess i don't understand Italy, but isn't this like saying the SEC or FCC is quasi-judicial?
> In other words, Italy insists a shadowy, European media cabal should be able to dictate what is and is not allowed online.
ah, unlike when CF themselves decides unilaterally, not even as part of a cabal, what should and should not be allowed online. got it.
Nope, but that was the example I had in mind when I chose my phrasing :)
I think I can describe the principles at work with DNS, but not all of how IP packets are actually routed; the physics of beamforming and QAM, but none of the protocol of WiFi; the basics of error correction codes, but only the basics and they're probably out of date; the basic ideas used in private key crypto but not all of HTTPS; I'd have to look up the OSI 7-layer model to remember all the layers; I understand older UI systems (I've even written some from scratch), but I'm unsure how much of current web browsers are using system widgets vs. it all being styled HTML; interrupts as they used to be, but not necessarily as they still are; my knowledge of JavaScript is basic; and my total knowledge of how certificate signing works is the conceptual level of it being an application of public-private key cryptography.
I have e.g. absolutely no idea why Chrome is famously a memory hog, and I've never learned how anything is scheduled between cores at the OS level.
it’s true, you can’t. however the VCs and the employees don’t own the same shares. even the VCs in different rounds don’t own the same shares.
where TFA analysis falls short is assuming employees have to be paid out at all. since the execs are moving over, there’s definitely some equity being traded in this “non-exclusive licensing deal” but it doesn’t have to involve common stock at all.
however this breaks backward compatibility, as you noted. in the golden age of unix it was critical to maintain backward compatibility so that local tooling didn't magically break.
HP-UX seems to have an env var UNIX95 that affects XPG4 compliance in operation/output. Solaris always had a /usr/xpg[46] path (and /usr/ucb). GNU tools have POSIXLY_CORRECT. and so on.
I never liked using any of those because then you're on some other system, or in a break glass situation, and none of the tooling works as you expect. In the today world of a near monoculture of linux, it's fine I guess. And there's no reason today that complex commands like `ss` shouldn't be controllable via env var.
Configuring configuration via env var is a good historical example. I think that especially works nicely when you Buy An Operating System. You know, one that is created and provided by A Vendor. In principle, the vendor can architect a unified metaconfiguration system, e.g. one or several env vars that align behavior to a standard.
But I dunno if it would work so well to to hypothetically apply that tactic to a modern bazaar-based OS like Linux. Distros do amazing, valuable work to unify things, but modern Linux is basically a zillion software packages in a trench coat. So either the distro carries a zillion patches to have a few env vars, or the distro carries no patches and there are a zillion env vars. Either way, total cost of maintenance explodes.
Maybe when people say "text is the universal interface," they really mean that once you've released a textual interface, the interface becomes universal, unchanging for all time.
How do you reckon? My understanding is that they're valid perm positions that legally must be offered to US citizens before they can be filled by anyone else.
it's really, really easy to say that applicants don't meet the requirements, since hiring is sooo subjective. "none of the applicants had 8 years and 2 months experience in this company working on this team, so they won't be able to perform the duties".
or, if they do have a flood of qualified applicants (the point of the website), they can simply not go forward with PERM at this time for their selected candidate. PERM roles aren't new jobs in the sense that the employer is "down" one employee if they don't fill it. PERM roles are simply a status change for an existing employee.
Nominally - although perhaps more often barking and not serious - is if you're a super duper qualified US citizen, you either can find a job there, or, you sue the company for discrimination, either way you get paid. The latter being the part that's highly hypothetical and potentially not realistic.
I definitely wouldn't want to work on your team, if that's how you interpret such an answer. Perfect interview then -- we've both eliminated the other as a viable employee/employer, so that's a win and we got there from just 1 trivial coding question. There's so much more to say here, but this is no longer timely, plus this isn't great forum for such discussion.
FWIW I have never been asked this question or similar, but since it's so famous I do have my own answer at the ready, which is just slightly more complex than the naive solution, but still well within the realm of production-worthy (maintainable, testable, readable) code. We don't really ever see any discussion of such because of course it isn't "interesting".
You're retconning. Brighter headlights (xenon) were invented in '61 and first appeared in '91. By 2000 the tech made its way to less premium cars.
Tesla didn't have the big screen (which heralded the current stupid trend) until 2012, and of course it took a number of years for Tesla and the giant omni screen to be popular. Thumb in the air I'd say 2018-2020.
You want brighter headlights so you can see better and drive more safely. The interior brightness is a separate independently evolved problem.
The horizontal cutoff is a tradeoff that comes with the bright lights (Xenon tech anyway). And there is plenty of low light leakage to reflect off of animal eyes. The problem IMO isn't pure brightness but rather these intensely bright lights (itself a benefit) coupled with poor aiming or poor maintenance of aim. Some states in the US have a mandatory annual vehicle inspection which includes headlight aim checks.
the tweet starts off pretty strong, which I didn't care for but I understand. this phrase however feels wrong. i guess i don't understand Italy, but isn't this like saying the SEC or FCC is quasi-judicial?
> In other words, Italy insists a shadowy, European media cabal should be able to dictate what is and is not allowed online.
ah, unlike when CF themselves decides unilaterally, not even as part of a cabal, what should and should not be allowed online. got it.
reply