foo101

Where can I see the rate limit? I tried https://api.github.com/rate_limit but I see a rate limit of 60 only:

    {
      "resources": {
        "core": {
          "limit": 60,
          "remaining": 58,
          "reset": 1530102452
        },
        "search": {
          "limit": 10,
          "remaining": 10,
          "reset": 1530099950
        },
        "graphql": {
          "limit": 0,
          "remaining": 0,
          "reset": 1530103490
        }
      },
      "rate": {
        "limit": 60,
        "remaining": 58,
        "reset": 1530102452
      }
    }

I have a very similar story with an interesting twist. I knew exactly one person who got on a PIP by his manager and didn't get fired. Almost anyone who worked with this person including me felt that the PIP was justified because he was known to be an incompetent developer.

The PIP ended up because his manager left the company. He was assigned to a new manager who worked in a different location. So the manager-employee relationship became a remote-relationship for them. He played his cards very well with the new manager and got himself out of PIP.

Nonetheless, it took that guy's career years to recover. Everyone around except this new manager still saw him as incompetent. He is still paid as an entry-level engineer.

You are probably not aware but in Google and many other companies it is very normal and in fact common to have a manager earning less than an employee reporting to the manager. I have not experienced any kind of friction due to this. Why should it? It's only fair that someone who brings more value to the company should earn more.

Having said that, Google is not your typical company. I know managers in Google who push thousands of lines of code per week and are often more productive and more hand-on than the engineers that report to them. In such cases, it is only fair that they earn more than the engineers.

I agree with dasil003 that your cynical view breaks down in productive technology companies. Maybe that's what you have experiened but the places I have worked at had no resemblance with the court of Julius Caesar and the managers were definitely not mere email routers.

> Last time I checked my domain got penalized for having abnormal low markup or some such

Do you have a link to the document you were pointed to when you got penalized? If it was Google who penalized you, they must have pointed you to a URL with documentation on why you got penalized and how to resolve it.

I ask this because I run a few websites with even lesser markup than your site but I have never got penalized. I once got penalized due to excessive number of spam comments on one of my websites and they pointed me to https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/190597 ("Remove this message from your site") to resolve the issue. This issue did not affect the search ranking much though (dropped by only about 2 or 3 places in the list of results). But never had an issue with abnormally low markup.

The markup in your website looks pretty reasonable to me, so I am surprised you could get penalized for that when I have had no issues with even lesser markup and they still appear at the top of the list of results for relevant search terms.

I have never worked with Wirth languages, so I would like to know why you think Wirth languages deserve a comeback.

> What do other people do for ad-free hosting?

By your own domain a $5/month VPS and host your apps just the way you like it.

Just 10 years ago, geeks like us used to take pride in buying domain and creating a personal presence with one's domain name. Don't people do that anymore?

I find this trend of looking for free hosting services a bit disturbing. Because you know the cliche that when you are not paying for a service, you are the product.

Even if you do not want to buy a $5/month VPS, please buy the domain. Costs less than $1/month (more like $10/year) and point the domain to your favorite free hosting service with CNAME entries. GitHub and Heroku support such custom domains with CNAME entries.

> "It allows you to skip the tedious work of setting up test data, and dive straight into practising your algorithms."

Setting up your own test data and pretty-printing your trees with your own code are important in my opinion.

> I couldn't for the life of me figure out why my sift wasn't working. Wasted like an hour on it. Turns out it was working, it was just my printing/test-harness stuff that was flawed. Sure that was a useful hard-knock, but it really served as a distraction from what I was trying to do at the moment.

What you think is an unnecessary distraction is in my opinion a very important experience and part of the learning process. Everything you hand-code for your own data structure be it pretty-print, test-harness, etc. are all important while learning.

> Having a helper class that solves some of the basics well and sets you up for success lets you focus on the larger problems without having to constantly re-visit the basics.

Once you have built the data structures bottom-up from scratch along with all the additional utilities to pretty-print it, test it, etc. you have your helpers ready already. There is no need to use someone else's helpers at that point.

Exactly this! If you are learning algorithms, you should be implementing your own trees rather than relying on a library like this that does the work for you.

The real benefit of learning algorithms comes when you put the hard work into it to build the data structures in a bottom up manner. Using someone else's tree generating library eliminates this experience which is a vital experience in the journey of learning algorithms.

Done in true GitHub style with the source code of this post at https://github.com/natfriedman/hello rendered with GitHub pages. :-)

I am going to agree with what doctorsher said in response to your comment. I can confirm that what SiVal said is not a typical experience in Apple.

> You want to know what those Ads are, ther'e justification that I won't go broke if I pursue code.

That does not make any sense. Writing code to make a living is a very very popular profession in India. Your parents must be already aware of it.

Heck, even those who can barely code can get jobs in the software-services based industry who put them through bootcamps to learn to code while already paying them to learn. I know of no other country where companies pay you to offer you 3-month long software development training for no work.

I seriously don't buy that your parent needs any justification about pursuing coding as a profession.

Can you offer specific examples that make you believe that the cumulative opinion of scholars are going to be objectively worse than the cumulative opinion of everyone?

I don't have a good answer but I believe that it certainly cannot be everybody.

Perhaps people who are accomplished scholars in political theory and economics and a few other relevant areas?

Why is democracy such a popular system for establishing governments?

When a member of our family becomes sick, we don't ask everyone to vote on possible treatments? We go to doctors who are trained to diagnose the cause of sickness and offer appropriate treatment.

When a scientist publishes a new study, we don't ask everyone what they think about the study? We ask other accomplished scientists to do a peer-review and offer their opinion on the study.

No matter what field we look at, we do not rely on laymen to decide the outcome but we rely on qualified experts and professionals.

But in case of establishing a government, which can have a long term impact on millions of livelihood, we ask just about anyone to offer their opinion in the form a vote. Why is this a reasonable system?

I have found that I can type much faster than I can write with pen and paper. I am curious what you think about that. Do you find writing with pen and paper equally fast or is it that the speed of writing does not matter while creative-writing?

Writing on a computer also offers the additional convenience of going back in the text, and correcting something, restructuring sentences, reorganizing paragraphs. I find these things to be clumsy while writing with pen and paper. What are your thoughts regarding this?

Finally, I would like to know why do you find fountain pens nicer than ball-point pens?

Yes, DDG gets relevant results too: https://ddg.gg/?q="ip+command"

openssl uses single dash for long options too: -inform, -outform, -text, -noout, etc.

gcc uses single dash for long options too: -std, -pedantic, -dumpspecs, etc.

I am sure there are many more modern commands that do this.

I think JoeAltmaier (your parent commenter) still has a point.

If the leap in complexity of octopuses is so obvious that we can tell it's an alien, do you mean other earlier life in our planet was not alien? That would not make sense because it would be hard to imagine that two independent evolutions of life led to the same protein-based, DNA-based life. So the only reasonable theory is that both the earlier life in our planet as well as octopuses are aliens which is JoeAltmaier's point.

Here is what I would like to understand: If there is any truth to the theory that Octopuses indeed evolved in outer space and were delivered to our planet via a cosmic payload, how is it that they happened to have the same kind of protein-based, DNA-based genetics like we have? Isn't it too much of a stretch to imagine that an alien evolved under similar conditions with similar genetic foundation like life evolved in our planet?

It has everything to do with physical form. The fact that research is carried out via centralized journals is a relic of a practice that is over 300 years old, when printed paper was the only feasible medium to distribute such research.

If scientific research had started in this century, I am pretty sure no researcher would have ever thought of publishing research papers in a centralized journal where the journal gets to make so much money for a contribution that is not commensurate. Instead, they would have chosen an online platform that is funded and managed by the universities and research centers participating in this platform.

What you are saying is equivalent to stating a tautology: Elsevier is still important for researchers' careers because Elsevier is still important for researchers' careers.

The deeper question I ask is: Why is Elsevier or such centralized journals still important for researchers' careers?

Why can't the academia move to a model where only the impact of the paper matter where the impact is measured by some open source metrics like citations, number of stars, etc. I am not suggesting these exact same metrics. These are only examples. But it should be possible. For example, in the software world, GNU, Linux, Node.js, Git, etc. did not become important by publishing in a centralized journal but by publishing on open repositories, some amount of marketing, and by the virtue of being very useful. What prevents existing researchers from moving to such a model? If enough influential people move to this model, Elsevier and others automatically become unimportant.

I am surprised that it took so long after the invention of the Internet. In the pre-Internet era, these journals used to play a significant role in distributing research papers in physical paper form. It made sense then. There was no way to copy a 10 page research paper from Germany to China with a few finger taps at low cost. But with the advent of the Internet and its pervasiveness, it no longer makes sense to rely on a costly media based on physical printing, distribution, and centralized organizations milking money out of it.

I remember Timothy Gowers calling for a boycott of Elsevier back in 2012. It's 6 years since then and Elsevier is still alive. Influential researchers still submit their work to Elsevier! It took less time (a few weeks?) for everyone to boycott Digg!

It's surprising how the Internet has been used to distribute cat videos, advertisements, time-draining, and attention-draining content to a sickening degree but it is still underutilized to distribute good content like research papers such that the Internet becomes the primary and de facto media for such content.

> Furthermore, after a couple hundred interviews over the course of my career, use of the term "cyber" is a huge red flag. Very few such people with "cyber" on their resumes are hired where I work.

Sounds like a workplace one should avoid. It seems quite petty that one would consider a harmless and a completely acceptable word to be a reason to look at a potential candidate with a negative bias.

Maybe I should start including the word "cyber" in my resume going forward to filter out petty employers like yours.

From the original article:

> EFAIL describes vulnerabilities in the end-to-end encryption technologies OpenPGP and S/MIME that leak the plaintext of encrypted emails.

I don't understand how this is being touted as vulnerabilities in OpenPGP and S/MIME.

Sure there is undefined behavior in the OpenPGP and S/MIME standards but if implementations choose an insecure behavior for the undefined behavior, then it is a flaw in the implementation, not the standard.

I don't understand what point is. Do you agree that Lisp metaprogramming has benefits or do you disagree with that?

If you agree, then what is your point? That we should not use a powerful language because it is not popular? Or that features in popular languages are the only features worth having?

If you disagree, can you elaborate what exactly about Lisp metaprogramming do you not find powerful? That would make your arguments more concrete. Otherwise you are just going around in circles stating the same opinion over and over again which is really only your opinion that many of us don't seem to agree with.

So why do you think they had to grow from 50 employees to beyond 1k employees?

> I think that guy needs a better work environment

How do you make this conclusion when you know nothing about the author's current work environment?

Consider that what you see in the slides could be hypothetical examples or examples inspired from someone else's life or from his previous work environment. Also consider that some people, although aware that they need a better work environment, are unable to find that better work environment in near future. They need the skills and techniques to be able to deal with the current work environment.

Why should one of the sides be a constant? There is plenty of code where both sides are variables.

I don't think "Yoda notation" is good advice. How do you prevent mistakes like the following with Yoda notation?

  if ( level = DEBUGLEVEL )

When both sides of the equality sign are variables, the assignment will succeed. Following Yoda notation provides a false sense of security in this case.

As an experienced programmer I have written if-statements so many times in life that I never ever, even by mistake, type:

  if (a = b)

I always type:

  if (a == b)

by muscle memory. It has become a second nature. Unless of course where I really mean it, like:

  if ((a = b) == c)

> There may be cases where by-reference (yes, that's an absolutely acceptable thing to say, even in C)

I don't want to be nit-picking. But I would like to know why "by-reference" is an acceptable thing to say.

When I learnt C, C++, Java, etc. I was repeatedly told that pass by reference exists only in C++. In C, a pointer is passed by value. In Java, a reference is passed by value.

Doesn't calling "pass pointer by value" as "pass by reference" lead to confusion and distortion of the true meaning of "by reference"?