This is spot on to my experience as well. Startup employees seems to move in waves and being the first wave of employees at a startup usually means working the hardest and getting burnt out. In my experience it's the second and third wave employees that have it easier, get to reap the benefits.
(Also, your bullets didn't format properly, you may want to edit your response to fix that)
The main dysfunction I see with interviewing is that we’ve abstracted the interview further and further from what you will be doing day to day.
Code on the white board? Why not on a computer? Why not work on some real code for the project? Sign an NDA and work on an actual feature. Try to get closer to what you expect the candidate to do on a daily basis.
> I don’t interpret the original piece as saying any of these tools and techniques are not useful.
I don’t even know if that is up for interpretation,
> I have nothing against tools like this. I’ve even contributed money to the Light Table project. I think that good software tools make it easier to write good software. However, tools are not the answer to the “Apocalypse”.
If this is indeed the article OP is responding too I can’t but help he was missing the point. The point is scheduling pressures lead to awful code because quality is cut.
Chromium has been found to phone home on a regular basis. The data (or metadata) that is sent back is most likely beneficial for Google.
I have Google Analytics on my startup's SPA when it can't even be crawled by Google due to the framework we use. The only logical explanation is that Chrome sends data back on the sites you visit.
Just because there are legitimate reasons for sending all that data doesn't mean it's not also usable to track you or whatever. In fact, having all that data in the first place lowers the barrier to start using it for other things. We've seen that happen countless times.
What it comes down to is that Chrome sends a whole bunch of information about me to a company who's main product is serving ads. I don't know exactly what data they send or how they use it, and that in and of itself is a major problem.
In the end, sure, Firefox does the same things. But Mozilla's core business isn't selling my personal information to the highest bidder, so I trust them more than I do Google.
How many times with Google though? Of course, there are different kinds of data that may be sent too. Safe Browsing is very different from telemetry for example.
You've described perfectly valid use cases for a browser to request additional information. But I think we can both agree that collecting data for the purpose of improving a specific product that Google owns (outside of Chrome itself) is wrong.
How is that relevant? Astroturfers etc have been buying old well-historied accounts for ages now, so it's not a very reliable method of distinguishing shills anymore. It's only useful for sockpuppets and amateur shills.
This kind of personal attacking is totally uncalled for here. Either their statement is correct or it is not, either Chrome is doing tracking on the sly or it is not.
Either there is proof, or there is not. The burden of proof is on the one making the argument.
I'm just curious why HN highlights new users. Why do you think they do? HN already tries to take action against "aggressive" accounts or astroturfing with ghosting them, so it seems possible because of that, that they highlight new accounts for similar possible reasons.
While I think Disk Creator is awesome for certain I’ve never found that a fresh install is needed for macOS upgrades. They have maybe the best upgrade process in the biz right now.
Honestly, I haven’t even bothered doing that with Windows in a pretty long time—maybe since the 7 to 8 transition, after which they’ve had a pretty robust upgrade path. About the only place I do do that regular is on Linux, but that’s because it’s stupidly easy to do so due to the packet managers, not because I actually have to.
While I’ve not felt any particular pain from updating, other than perhaps some binaries from homebrew that needed to be recompiled, i've got an enormous ~/Library folder along with a few hundred GBs of other cruft accumulated through several upgrades of OS X over the last four or five years. Most of it is applications not related to the OS, so not blaming Apple here, but the opportunity to rebuild from a clean slate is welcome for sure.
Yeah, exactly, what does this actually accomplish besides putting the user in a worse situation where they are no longer given any sort of patent grant?
At least it might give the louder parts of the community that have been consistently complaining about this issue a good reason to stop shouting quite as much
Because an unspecified parent grant is most likely an implied patent grant, and especially for FOSS there is a very strong case since your are explicitly permitted to study, modify, and use any part of the code.
