dodedo

"That Apple actually has to make these computers also?"

Indeed. Why would a salesperson at an Apple store be entitled to more than the going rate for retail work? Merely because an Apple /engineer/ did an outstanding job? That's nonsense.

Can Apple store employees show outstanding performance relative to other distribution channels? Relative to other stores, or to online sales? If so then the retail employee is producing value and there are grounds to demand higher compensation.

But if the cash haul is universal across distribution channels, which it is according to the article, then the folks entitled to a bonus are working back at 1 Infinite Loop.

a@b is also a valid email address.

It is also a valid SMTP address, assuming you have defined "b" as a FQDN in your DNS.

What we have here is a list of TLDs which have MX records, but an MX record is not even required to send mail to a FQDN. An A record will suffice, for any RFC compliant SMTP server.

"the syntax" and "where you explicitly tell the compiler" are the exact same thing. Syntax is, fundamentally, instructions to the compiler.

Some languages don't contain instructions that can instruct the compiler to loop or recurse (C, assembly, brainfuck). Some languages contain a sub-language or meta-language which can instruct the compiler to recurse (java, C++). Some languages use their native syntax to instruct the compiler, making looping or recursion trivial (Perl, Lisp).

A non-terminating compilation is a non-terminating execution.

Perl is a dynamic language and can execute Perl during compilation. Some languages such as C++ allow metaprogramming via templates or other special compile-time meta-language constructs. Perl simply allows metaprogramming via Perl.

From the reception to my comment it seems HN readers aren't very familiar with dynamic languages. Perhaps I invited those subject to dunning-kruger by providing an overly simplified example.

Here's a non-terminating compilation in Perl:

perl -wle'BEGIN {1 while 1}'

Heh.

I'm at another large valley company, at a similar point in my career, and I have almost the same base / equity compensation. Added up I hit around 220k.

I've had offers from other shops in the same just-over-200k ballpark, and I know peers at google pulling in around the same. I don't doubt 250k for a second.

I'd like to see the gender dimension here. How were these ratios changed by increasing numbers of women attending college?

Ah, I understand. I had assumed some level of sarcasm in your post -- my mistake.

I agree with you.

Personally, I never use my debit/check card. I only use credit. There are much stronger consumer protections. I can contest/deny a charge, and not pay until it's resolved. No fees. Cash back. A free, no interest loan on which to float my purchases until the end of the billing cycle.

It is amazing to me that people use, or even sometimes prefer, their debit card over a regular credit card.

Time and energy? Perhaps. I think the primary issue is math and accounting illiteracy. Most Americans have no financial education whatsoever.

In person? Not sure about that, but I know that recently I tried to set up payments between BofA and WellsFargo and I wasn't able to do automatic or online transfers of amounts over $1000.

When I was younger I had a joint custodial account with my father, for a similar purpose, though it wasn't my primary checking account. It's much, much easier to move money between two accounts you control.

As Marx wrote, from your link, " 'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property." And this is true for tangible property, though importantly not true for intangible, intellectual constructs.

The term "Intellectual Property" is a misnomer. It would be better named "Intellectual Control" as it does not in any way protect the inventor's natural right to use the fruits of their invention. Rather, it exists only to deprive others of a similar ability. Patents derive their value not from the nature and value of invention, but from the controls and limits placed on the intellectual freedoms of others.

We do not know how to share physical objects, so assignment of use is natural and necessary. This is not true of intellectual constructs.

You are questioning me, but it's fair. I should've said with minimal experience (nothing that'd be on my resume today).

It was a contracting gig. Hourly, operations and NOC type work.

I have no degree. Base salary 160k roughly 50-60k in equity/year. 10 years experience. I'm not at the top of my game yet.

I started at 70k with no experience no degree.

Feynman used the term "cargo cult science", and others later used the term "cargo cult programming" to describe this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

Several weeks ago on HN I came across this slideshow: http://www.slideshare.net/olvemaudal/deep-c which sparked some debate as to the merits of deep, complete understanding of one's environment. I believe that those who do not have a broad understanding invent their own miniature cargo cult to get by -- or perhaps it is that they are willing to cargo cult and therefore do not develop a deep understanding?

Whatever the case, it's incredibly common in the world of software.

Of course. You and I know they're doing it wrong, however sirclueless suggested above that type correctness is "arcane" and asks if "we would really care" when it comes to type issues in printf format strings.

I have to work with folks who confuse size_t with int, and as a result they have overflow bugs depending on whether O_LARGEFILE is in use. So yes, I care. Not because printf format strings are terribly important, but because understanding and adhering to the type system is essential to write bug-free software.

This project seems to be a poor-quality re-implementation of openssh's agent forwarding by someone who doesn't fully understand ssh's key mechanisms. In fact, it's a good deal less secure than `ssh -A`, as it exposes the agent proxy both in a unix domain socket AND in a tcp socket bound to localhost -- the latter of which is accessible by any local user.

The README uses very vague language, but my guess is that the author does not understand the difference between agent forwarding with `ssh -A` and copying private keys and starting a new ssh-agent.