5,407 karma · joined January 14, 2010
Also gives good age ranges, not just the broad certificates.
* not everybody
A legalised drug trade could be victimless, but not the one which exists now.
Android licencing means that no company is allowed to ship both Google Android and non-Google Android. This means that to ship Google Android on the phone they (Amazon) would have to ship Google Android on all Fire tablets too.
In addition under the licence Google apps need to be both installed (you have to have all of them, you can't pick and choose) and placed in particular prominent locations (so the Play Store needs to be on the first home screen). This would almost certainly mean that Google's store(s) would be have as good if not better positions than Amazon's own stores on the device. More than that there are restrictions around app stores which compete with Google play which would, at the very least, restrict Amazon's ability to pre-install and operate their own app store.
Given that Amazon's reason for making these devices in the first place is to sell content - videos, music, books and apps - stock Android is to all intents and purposes a non-starter for them.
See here: https://www.theinformation.com/Google-s-Confidential-Android... for more information.
Q: In order to use the full MCT design (100 passengers), will BFR be one core or 3 cores?
EM: At first, I was thinking we would just scale up Falcon Heavy, but it looks like it probably makes more sense just to have a single monster boost stage.
Q: Nice to see you are doing things the Kerbal way.
EM: Kerbal is awesome!
The second one:
Q: "Hi Elon! Huge fan of yours. Have you heard of/played Kerbal Space Program? Also do you see SpaceX working with Squad (the people behind KSP) to integrate SpaceX parts into KSP?"
Reply (not from EM): What do you think SpaceX uses for testing software?
EM to Reply: Kerbal Space Program!
Short version - Elon Musk likes and plays Kerbal Space Program.
I don't think that I'm imagining that Australia has more species of lethal animals than any other country.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying Australia isn't a great place to live. I've only been to Melbourne and then only for three weeks but it seemed great. There are just lots of things which can kill you there (though the Australian's have naturally got very good at stopping that happening).
The same things seems to happen if you put in the sort of priorities other countries are generally believed to hold (so put in the environment, satisfaction, work life balance and so on and the Scandinavian countries leap to the top).
So if there is any truth in the cliches, countries do seem to optimise for what is important to them. Which I guess is what you'd hope happened.
As an aside there doesn't seem to be too much you can do to stop Australia being a great place to live - they don't have a slider for "Deadly animals".
What I would say is that like most frameworks it makes things easy when you do it the way it wants you to and will fight you like crazy when you don't. The downside with Ember, probably more than most, is the way it wants you to do things isn't always as obvious as it might be. There is a way and you're going to be able to do what you want to do but you're probably going to have to dig a bit and it might not be intuitive.
Short version: expect something of a learning curve.
The more interesting question (to me at least) is whether search will be as important going forward as it has been for the past 20 years. As more data and activity moves into apps, more stuff is being silo-ed off from Google. Sure apps might be a blip before stuff moves back to the web but if they're not then Google may remain dominant in search but search itself may become a smaller part of the whole.
Remember with this sort of product the questions they have are "is this interesting?", "is this useful?", "do people like what this does?".
Can we get this running on Firefox simply isn't an interesting question to them - they know the answer, it's yes if they throw resource at it, but for a new product team with questions over whether this product should even exist that's not a priority.
Remember, this is Google who have a long history of canning this sort of project. If I were the company who produced Wave, I'd probably look at how I could reduce the cost and time to feedback for my next new thing too.
As an aside, I've tried Inbox and, to me at least, it's the next Wave, not the next Gmail.
And because of that there is the risk of reputational damage around one of their core products. Working in tech you understand what a Beta really means and you can make that call on an informed basis but that's not true of a typical G-mail user today.
They're short cuts you might take to get a product out and get early feedback, the same sort of shortcuts most of us have taken when pushed to release something sooner. This is a product in Beta, not the finish article.
Even if everything work in theory just dropping multi-browser testing would save time. If their aim is a beta product for early user testing, I really don't think what they've done is unreasonable.
"However, we still haven't figured out exactly why Google is blocking Inbox on Firefox. That the application is not working, seems to not be fully true. With some more man hours, it seems trivial for Google to get the application to run in Firefox to. Maybe too much Chrome specific technologies or just a try to limit the usage of Firefox on the web?"
Is odd as he's spent the rest of the article pointing out that there are bits of missing functionality (such as transitions), he's disabled CSP which worries him and that there are errors showing, and that's just what a relatively brief review found. Given what is listed it seems pretty straight forward to me that in it's current form it shouldn't be supported on Firefox.
My personal view from my interactions with HR (as a manager looking at redundancy, poor performance, sickness) is that they're best viewed as the Employment Law team.
This might be a US-centric view. In the UK if you don't know employment law you're no use as an HR professional. Your line managers almost certainly don't so HR are often the only people who do.
Maybe it's just a European thing but I've seen more HR professionals despair at the actions of managers than staff. Yes, they may help him/her get rid of you but what they're really terrified of is his ill advised actions which open the company up to a massive liability.
It could just mean a move away from Xamarin as a core development tool into producing things which support development on these platforms.
When I've looked for a job I'll always say to the agent I'll tweak my CV myself because I'd rather I did it than them (I've seen some horribly butchered ones come through - in those cases I can normally tell it was the agency and don't hold it against the candidate but sometimes that may not be the case).
Essentially I suspect everything I asked for happened with you, it just may not have been done by you.
Salary I totally agree on - I post a salary range for the role (usually a range but also dependent on experience) and want to know candidate salary expectations before hand. If we're not happy with what the candidate is looking for based on what their rough level of experience I wouldn't interview.
You'd have to ask them why.
Realistically I can't interview everyone and it wouldn't be in anyone's interest to do so. The current stats I have say I will first interview one in four screened CVs. Out of those about one in three will get a second interview and half of those an offer. So I interview maybe half a dozen people per appointment from about 25 CVs).
That means right now if you give up an hour of your time for a first interview (plus travel and so on), you've got a one in six chance of getting a job. If I interviewed more people, your chances go down. I may end up with a better recruit but I'm actually externalising a lot of the costs to the other candidates who don't get the role.
You think that's jumping through hoops?
In the past five years a fair number of people have left the company I work for and I'd estimate about 25% were money related.
As I say there's no one rule but I've seen developers put up dreadful money for a job they liked and take a pay cut to get out of somewhere they hated and if I had to generalise I'd go with that over them following the pay cheque.
1) Like all things it's a balance. Developers are valuable resources and I'm not going to dump 100 CVs on them when I can reduce that number. Aside from anything else they'd hate me if I did but also I can reduce that number without significantly reducing the quality.
2) In many cases these aren't HR generalists, they're recruitment professionals. They know about whether people are eligible to work, they know about qualifications, they can spot odd patterns and gaps in CVs and they can spot a well written CV.
You mock spotting typos but how interested should I be in someone who sent out a professional document to someone they were trying to impress and didn't proof read it? How serious are they about the job? Are they going to send the same sort of thing out to my customers? Maybe it's just me but while it wouldn't exclude them outright for this, it raises alarm bells.
3) You can define basic rules which allow someone relatively non-technical to filter out complete time wasters. If a candidate hasn't listed JavaScript in any of their roles and I've asked for commercial JavaScript experience then I can reasonably conclude (1) they don't have it, (2) they do but not enough to warrant listing it (which is effectively 1) or (3) either they are an idiot or their communication skills suck because despite knowing it was relevant they didn't mention JavaScript when applying for the job. Whichever it is of those I don't think I need to waste a developer's time having them look at the CV - maybe they do have those skills and a developer could work that out but I could probably find someone who knew JavaScript who didn't also have the questionable decision making skills that led them not to mentioned it.
Let's be clear, this isn't a stage where people making difficult, detailed decisions requiring specialist skills. This clearing what should be a relatively low bar to create a long list where those with real skills will get involved.