Same boat here, although I'm a bit worried about the downsize from 15" to 13". Perhaps with a docking station, it might not be so bad. But hopefully dell jumps on this opportunity to make a 15" developer edition
62 karma · joined September 24, 2016
Other perks include bread toasters if you're a SDE, ping-pong tables if you're in things like legal, and if you're unfortunate enough to deal with oracle there may even be snacks offered (only in a restricted area, obviously).
Your friend should negotiate very hard on salary, and perhaps even more importantly the level (assuming she's not straight from college). Most developers don't care much about titles and don't care if they're coming in as a SDE 1, 2 or 3 but Amazon makes a big deal about it. Being an SDE 1 will mean you can get shafted on everything from worse hardware specs (wtf?) and less hardware (e.g. SDE1's need to buy their own extra external monitors if they want one) and there's a lot less opportunities and discression until you get promoted which can be difficult
Perhaps the parent was trying to talk about "HM type inference" or something, but "type deduction" is also a fine name for a subset of type-inference, and perhaps more explicit for C++ and Go.
"Type inference refers to the automatic deduction of the data type of an expression in a programming language."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_inference
Which you'll notice C++ and Go, are listed as languages with type inference.
But you're right that they don't have as nearly as strong type inference as rust, which doesn't have as strong as haskell etc.
1) Not type checking at runtime is exactly what people mean by static typing, because the definition of static typing means the checks are done before execution.
2) This does not make it harder to optimize, on the contrary if they generated type assertions it would considerable slow things down on the boundary of typed and untyped code.
3) C++, Go, Rust, Haskell they are fully statically typed, the only difference is they support varying levels type-inference which means you don't need to "type out the type" but it's really orthogonal to the whole optional/static/dynamic typing issue.
I think apple acted pretty responsibly here.
I get what you're saying, but if Apples gets hammered with bad publicity every time their anti-fraud team does the right thing, they're going to stop doing the right thing.
Especially as this case is going to be cited for years to come, it's important apple has something to point to and say: "We didn't just arbitrarily ban the account, it was involved in manipulating our reviews"
While I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, the overwhelming most likely case is he was doing exactly what Apple thought he was doing. At the very least, he should take some responsibility for the fact he's paying for someones account who is actively trying to harm his competitors.
Apple probably could've avoided a lot of this mess by not overtly banning his account, but doing the except opposite of what his manipulations intended and make the app almost impossible to find.
Last flight I had some water left in my bag which I realized just before going through the security scanner. So instead of letting it go to waste, I thought it'd be best to quickly drink it. But I was stopped by a TSA agent saying it's a security risk and I'd need to either leave or give him the bottle clear bottle of water.
He had nonchalantly took it, he had no doubt it was plain water and threw it in a trash container full of other bottles. Kind of ridiculous, if they really thought a clear liquid was a liquid bomb or something, why would they give me the option of leaving it with it? And how could it possible be a bigger security risk for me to ingest it, than give it to them to put in the open
While it's not like it ruined my day, it's certainly enough to convince me the whole thing is a joke.
And the sort of people who are going to want to read a fact-checked version of the debate are in the tiny minority and likely well-informed enough that they have completely made up their minds well and truly before the debate.
I do however think that fact checking is an absolutely great idea, it just needs to be done live. There could be a fact checking team which can interrupt candidates with objections, or ring a "pants on fire" bell, or something entertaining.