rewmie

64 ms·

751.
by rewmie 3y ago
> think all good people have an obligation to voice an ethical objection to their company's behavior whenever relevant. Posting a cynical tweet does not reflect a moral high ground, specially if the person doing the tweeting doesn&
752.
by rewmie 3y ago
"defamation only applies if it's published on paper, right?"
753.
by rewmie 3y ago
> What other factual statements should you not be allowed to make about your employer's clients? The author seemed perfectly fine with getting paid by their employer, but somehow felt morally justified to openly criticize the way th
754.
by rewmie 3y ago
> (...) but I think it makes the employee look bad. The fact that the author claimed brought a third party to a work-related meeting with a VP with the purpose of live tweeting it to the world already speaks volumes.
755.
by rewmie 3y ago
> If OP wants sexprs, they can get quick-and-dirty sexprs by: You know what it takes to implement a parser for s expressions? E := atom | '(' *E ')' With atom expanding to all data types you wish to support. Let'
756.
by rewmie 3y ago
> language syntax design is a total sinkhole. Sintax design, not implementing a parser. You're arguing that you might not make up your mind and feel compelled to churn parts of your implementation due to your indecisiveness. That&#x
757.
by rewmie 3y ago
> in that case, pretend I wrote "grammarless" You are always parsing a grammar. It seems you simply aren't aware of it. Every single time you write code that expects to find a certain type of token after another type of to
758.
by rewmie 3y ago
It seems those in this discussion arguing that they don't need a parser or a grammar simply aren't aware they're implementing ad-hoc parsers and grammars but doing it poorly.
759.
by rewmie 3y ago
> The problem with parsing isn't the difficulty, but rather the potential for endless bikeshedding. You're having to make a ton of opinionated decisions that in turn produce more questions about your syntax. I fail to see your
760.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Arguably the needs of the standard library of a language designed in the 70s compared to today are very different. C supports modularity since the 70s. You do not need a standard library with everything and the kitchen sink. The standa
761.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Arguably, it would be better if GitHub documented an explicit number of supported commits, so that one can know beforehand which usage scenarios the service is suitable for. I don't agree. Clearly GitHub can easily handle this num
762.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Wow, you’ve really done a crack up job ruining any possibility of interesting discussion here. What interesting discussion? Any owner of any service in production is well aware of how mundane it is to have third parties poking and prod
763.
by rewmie 3y ago
> What are you basing this on? To start off, based on the fact that GitHub is around for over a decade and this was the first time this sort of attention-seeking stunt was made public. Do you have any indication this sort of stunt is rel
764.
by rewmie 3y ago
> With lambdas you’re stuck on AWS. You're not getting stuck on AWS because you added a lambda to offload a background task, or because you implemented a low-traffic REST API with API Gateway. If you're rethinking where you dep
765.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Nothing technically novel. But evidently it was at least a somewhat novel stress test execution for GitHub’s live systems, otherwise surely it would have been dealt with sooner and messaged with less benefit of the doubt to the user. N
766.
by rewmie 3y ago
Was there a guard needed? I don't think so. It seems GitHub didn't saw any degraded performance and barely noticed the issue, and odds are they presumed the author screwed up with their GitHub actions configuration. Once they dete
767.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Which strongly suggests they hadn’t considered such a load test on their own. Not really. GitHub has been around for over a decade. People bother with problems that have a realistic chance of happening. If GitHub didn't bothered t
768.
by rewmie 3y ago
> "someone else’s computer” _is_ infrastructure. _everything_ you run in cloud runs on someone else’s computer. That's meaningless pedantry. You don't talk nor care about infrastructure when you're adding a controller
769.
by rewmie 3y ago
> but I think what you’re missing is people are using lambda functions not just to run some image resizing function, but as their entire backend. Sometimes it makes sense. I see people criticizing stuff they know nothing about. I worked
770.
by rewmie 3y ago
> But basically I think of a serverless function as like a one-shot container (...) Implementation details don't really matter. The CloudFormation/CDK deployment of a lambda can include only the source code of the task you want
771.
by rewmie 3y ago
In my anecdote, we already had very explicit and rigorous guidelines. We had goals, evaluation requirements, question banks, and more importantly post-interview meetings where all interviewers matched notes and we're tasked with gather
772.
by rewmie 3y ago
> You just don’t let an engineer ask whatever they want. In my anecdote, the data structure engineer was indeed tasked with evaluating the candidate on his data structures knowledge. Except that the candidate had guidelines that went in
773.
by rewmie 3y ago
> If every time you add a new feature to your application you also have to add new infrastructure, I feel very, very strongly that you're doing it wrong. Sometimes? Sure. Every time? Embarrassing. I have to call out your take becaus
774.
by rewmie 3y ago
> What kills me is the fact that the interviews (especially the technical ones) go in depth into topics that aren’t ever pertinent to the job. It’s simply so the interviewer can rank you vs themselves. You need to be good but not too goo
775.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Just pay for api access if that's all you need The comments suggest the API pricing was just a stunt to hide the fact that Reddit wanted to kill third party apps in general, and in particular the ability of third parties to use Re
776.
by rewmie 3y ago
> This is a feature in my opinion. I tried to join a server. Went through a long list of them. I was confused on which to pick, and if that decision mattered, and what would be the security implications of it. I finally picked one reluct
777.
by rewmie 3y ago
> There are literally thousands of sites that let you login with your google account. I fail to see how "but everybody is doing it" is a valid argument.
778.
by rewmie 3y ago
> (...) they always miss one of the most critical parts of the Docker ecosystem - the easily hackable and extensible container image format. Exactly this. Docker might have a ton of nifty features, but it's killer feature is undoubt
779.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Not sure what cursed C++ you've seen but UML is easily 100x worse. I don't know what UML you've seen, but the one I typically see only expresses high level details and is created to convey the important details, and ther
780.
by rewmie 3y ago
> Remember the days people thought they could build everything in UML diagrams, and have the code essentially be generated or trivially written from there? Those days were a decade ago, and everyone with a license to software like Enterp

More ›