This is so unfortunate, but I'm not surprised. What kind of poor management, when met with an efficiency that could double an employee's output by automating their current job, limits it back to the 50% efficiency? I've met some managers like that...
This is one of the easier things to get used to-- I don't find "code switching" between syntaxes to be difficult at all, especially if you are already looking at a codebase and can visually copy what's already there. It even makes some sense, if you read it as "variable foo is a bar".
I think they specifically mean python packages with c dependencies that are built for musl. For example, if you "pip install", is it going to have to rebuild completely from source?
“We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem.”
Until we fix the issue of homelessness, it is good to be wary of automation. Especially because you can't just invent new jobs for people that had no demand before just to employ them.
I've gotten into the habit of applying to positions even if I don't meet the "required" skills. Just put your best foot forward for the jobs you want--you don't have to help the company whittle down the applicant pool out of some sort of modesty. That's their job.
An inexperienced dev might do something like put API keys in frontend code. You can even do an advanced search of Github to find people's keys to steal to get access to paid APIs.
I'm really glad these points are being pushed in this thread--it is almost impossible to tune a portfolio for performance without knowing something the market doesn't (data, computing power, information). That's why I only ever tune my portfolio for the level of risk that I can tolerate. Because that's pretty much the only thing you _can_ tune for.
It has some more granular control over "pasting" in values. For example, you can use {} for the arg value itself, or you can use {.} for just what's before the extension, or you can use {/} for the basename, or {/.} for the basename without extension, etc. You can also get progress bar, ETA, etc.
It's not exactly more legs -> less chance of falling, but rather it is larger footprint -> less chance of falling. The footprint is basically the shape made by the outermost points of contact. If the net force vector (generally just project center of mass in direction of gravity) goes outside the footprint, the system is unstable. You could absolutely have a chair with more legs be less stable than one with fewer legs, if the footprint is smaller.
Sometimes you even have different firmware/software teams write code for each of the three different configurations (often targeting different processors/architectures, etc). Pretty cool
You can always make your own base image with go installed that you update the instant you need to, if you really can't wait for the team responsible for the accepted docker image to do it...
In practice most Ruby "DSL"s are just regular libraries that you happen to be able to use without the familiar foo(bar) function call syntax. It's the difference between "Domain Specific Language" and "A Domain Specific Language", or embedded vs. hosted/standalone DSL's [0]. The value that Racket provides is facility in developing standalone languages, as opposed to the embedded DSL's that people make in Ruby.
To address the examples you gave, RSpec, Chef, etc., those literally ARE just using Ruby, no new syntax, no new semantics.
While I appreciate the distinction between license and classification, does it really matter if a piece of software is "in the public domain" if its very existence and content is classified and non-disclosable? It may as well not exist as far as open-source or public domain is concerned.
I would think since every transaction is recorded on the blockchain, and he is the only one with the keys, any activity involving those BTC would raise a red flag.
I found tutorials like this [0] one to be pretty useful, since they show how to actually use frameworks like LLVM, and lex/yacc/etc. practically. Note that this one is from 2009, and uses an outdated version of LLVM. Actually following along requires some debugging and digging through documentation, which is also helpful in its own way.
Check out GFortran, it's 100% free as part of the GNU project. I believe the Intel Fortran compiler is also free (as in money, maybe not as in freedom). The speed argument does matter too--how many high frequency trading/fintech/big data/banking/engineering companies are built, at some point in the stack, on high-speed libraries written in Fortran? I don't know any numbers, but any company that uses numpy is transitively also using Fortran in their stack.
Why is it a surprise that CS people still talk about something that is, at the moment, alive and well? Fortran remains one of the best ways to get native vectorized code for fast math operations. Yes there are higher abstractions like python, but if you want to write code in the same domain as Fortran, you are using numpy, scipy, pandas, etc., and those are all literally wrappers over low level C and Fortran code. Abstractions don't remove the need for low level, "out-dated" coding models, they just make it easier for most people to build on them.
Yeah blindly using ORM query builders can result in a bunch of N+1 query issues, and retrieving unnecessary data, which can impact the database load. Good advice
I made a similar utility a while back to help trim down my family photos library that had many duplicates [0]. I took the approach of a dry-run option and an option to go ahead and delete duplicate files too. It also traverses the folder recursively, to get all files in a tree.
You can split "secret" data structures into another header, and them simply not give that secret header to the customer. If you give the binary and a header with some structures missing, the user can still use whatever you did give them.
It's not O(1). You are only calling the API once, but if you put in a larger list the time will increase in accordance to whatever the complexity is of the sorting happening behind the scenes. Calling this O(1) would be like saying qsort is O(1) because you are only calling the function once.
Anyone is free to modify, build, and distribute their own versions of Android. How else would OEMs ship their own skins? This also means you can audit Android source for vulnerabilities, backdoors, etc.