<still includes typescript just not in tags
T'is a society we spend our days, fellow kidsters
Honestly, the whole experience of being on the other side of an interview has been eerie. I had no idea how difficult it can be to find people with appropriately matched skills.
The only reason some of these interviews have been so shocking is because when I read their resume's/CV's they list several years of experience and then don't seem to be able to do more than restate their resume or handle the basics, if that.
Today I interviewed someone who's been working in tech for twice as long as I've even been working at all. They were interviewing to be a DevOps/Systems Engineer and stated that they work heavily with shell scripts.
I'm willing to accept that interviewing pressure causes generally worse performance than usual, but it took 3 tries when whiteboarding to arrive at a solution to print to stderr.
Today's the interview that convinced me I need far more "basics" questions ready.
It seems to me like the more positive thing to do would be to re-examine one's principles and from there either suggest smaller, more practical changes or to use those principles as a guide to properly branch off of the GNU project. If there's really something valuable in a fork I'd rather people stand up for that than to compromise their own work. Do they believe that their principles wouldn't be accepted in the organization as-is? Why not?
Somewhat considering reading up on some of the people involved and try to figure out what they think. I am years tired of the fractionalism in this field and it seems to be getting worse over time, not better.
There is currently a mutiny going on within the GNU project. Some people are breaking away to fork parts of GNU. I won't mention it by name, or link it, because I don't want to boost it.
If you see it: it's *not* the GNU project. Keep supporting GNU, on gnu.org !
"The discussion after the first presentation of this paper, at the ML Family workshop 2017, was one of many indications that monads have a special, almost cult status in the minds of functional programmers. There is no doubt that monads clearly delineate effectful computations, in syntax and in types, and offer the reasoning principles (equational laws) about effectful programs. What many do not seem to realize is that these benefits are not unique to monads, or that not all effects are expressible with monads,5or that the flexibility of the monadic encoding (‘overriding semicolon’) is limited. Code generation and abstract interpretation, for example, do not fit the monadic framework (see §5)."
This thing has negative profitability and still costs $120. For what, the novelty? The raw materials?
using deus ex as webcam during political discussions
XMPP: exists for decades, literally offers everything you can want in a privacy based chat setting
Everyone, ignorant to this fact: "WHY ISN'T THERE AN UNCUCKABLE PRIVATE FEDERATED MESSAGING SOLUTION???"