krschultz

For context his full name is Jake Burton Carpenter, the company is his middle name.

No way? Google will have nearly as many employees as Amazon in NYC and as far as I know they didn't get special subsidizes.

It depends, the GraphQL spec isn't all that opinionated on caching. There's a little bit of guidance on the matter but not much. [1] The implementation of GraphQL that you choose might be more "batteries included" though.

[1] https://graphql.org/learn/caching/

Thanks! At least I learned something today.

GraphQL isn't a system per-say, it's a spec and many tools around it. Putting the spec in a foundation (with a few of those tools) gives the entire community certainty about the direction of the project. Hopefully that spurs more people outside of FB to commit to GraphQL.

The existence of the foundation is orthogonal to FB's internal investment and usage of GraphQL, which was and will continue to be significant.

If you talk to a recruiter at any of the big tech companies they should put you in touch with teams that are looking for someone with skills like yours. I frequently have phone calls, coffee, and lunches with people that are considering interviewing at the company I work for. The whole conversation is just answering questions like yours.

The era of tech washing their hands of being accountable for user generated content on their platform is over. YouTube works quite hard to keep their platform safe. It's still not good enough. But I'm sure they have more people working on that problem than have ever worked on Gab.

Gab is in the same category as The Daily Stormer. It's not courageous to hide behind free speech absolutism to protect content that invites others to violence. That's being too weak to engage in making the hard choices of what you will support with your efforts. It's the exact opposite of being principled.

Absolutely nothing in Twitter's policies supports your argument.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu...

I'm sure NYC looks better than these cities, but I'm not sure by how much if the stats are through the lens of a dating app rather than the overall population.

You can't cite AT&T without mentioning that AT&T was broken up by the government. It's entirely possible that the government will come and split Alphabet into several companies. That has been suggested by several knowledgable tech pundit. But until that happens I just don't see Google faltering.

The Stack Overflow developer survey is another data set that I trust.

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018#technology

The Innovator's Dilemma would be my first choice. There's 30 more that would be worth reading after that, but that will change your view of the industry.

Why is that allowed and fine? I read this clause to explicitly prohibit that behavior.

Almost 100% of my open source contributions have been done on company time. The company makes money in some other way and we use an open source project so working on the project is not competing with the main business. That's how a ton of open source software gets written and it's why the Apache license is so popular.

The hard path has been to found a company with the business model of money directly off an open source project. That's doesn't seem to work out in most cases, and the gates the companies put up to charge money piss everyone off.

The clear result of this would be parents that can afford to send their kids to college will send their kids to college by just paying for tuition. Interest rates will go up significantly, which makes the math on taking out a loan worse for anyone that doesn't need one. It would be a death spiral for loans.

I'm not convinced the politics of subsidizing education get better after that. There's a very high risk that a large and powerful swath of the country reacts to it with "I worked my ass off to pay for my kids to go to college, why should I subsidize yours?" The resulting increase in inequality is bad for society as a whole, but honestly it's a feature for most upper income parents.

It would probably put some pricing pressure on college, but the predictable knock-on effects are really really bad.

I do question this a little bit. One of my hobbies is racing sailboats, which doesn't have quite as exacting requirements as fighting wild fires, but it still requires specialized gear. I could not for the life of me make the splice required for a particular component on my last boat. It always looked good, but it inevitably failed after a few days of racing. When I bought one from an expert it would last for years.

Craftsmanship matters and you just won't become an expert building exactly the number that you need for yourself.

I appreciate the analogy to architecture. Specific words are useful. You can communicate more information succinctly by labeling something skeuomorphic, brutalist, material, etc.

I sure hope you are not involved with hiring at your company because your perspective on this is a great way to get sued into oblivion.

It's actually in your best interest as the hiring company to not find out if the person is pregnant or expecting to have a child. Let's say that you decided not to hire someone for a set of reasons unrelated to pregnancy, but along the way you asked the candidate if they were planning to get pregnant. Good luck proving that you didn't make the hiring decision on the basis of knowing they would take leave. Which of course is illegal under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This is why most companies make it a policy that you can not ask these kinds of questions so as not to taint the interview (even though technically it's not illegal to ask the questions, it's just illegal to use them as a basis for your decision).

As a candidate you might actually be acting more in the interest of the company to not tell them you are going to be having a child so as not to put them in that position? I honestly haven't thought through it that much so I could be convinced of a different opinion.

If you're planning to continue working after having a child, I think you should go about your career as if the pregnancy wasn't happening and just take the leave as appropriate. If that means you work 6 weeks before leave, so be it. You'll be back after leave to continue on.

What would the company do if instead of getting pregnant you got hit by a bus one day? I had to take 2 months of medical leave on 2 weeks notice when I got deathly ill, that was way less notice than a pregnancy. The startup I was at had only 12 people and they handled it. I'm unconvinced by all these arguments that it's too much of a hardship for companies to deal with their employees having a life.

We currently let companies have wide leeway in what they negotiate for compensation with their employees (and contractors). But the problem that you think deserves to be banned is that some companies pay the people on parental leave?

Man do I have bad news for you, my company gives people bonuses when they have children.

I'm going to guess you will get more growth in your career by learning how to be empathetic than negotiating with such an asinine argument.

If you're going to make a financial argument (as opposed to the moral one), you should take a look at how we fund entitlements in this country. You want population growth. The financial disincentive for having kids is a real problem.

My team has hired more than one person that immediately went on leave. We literally paid them for months before they started. We did this knowingly, and I cite this with other candidates as a concrete example of how well we treat our employees.

Guess what, in our industry the people that are planning to have kids are also very likely to be senior and experienced. They're hard to recruit. Consider leave as part of the cost of hiring good people.

If you're not doing things like this, you're not actually competing for top talent.

I used to think your first point was correct, but it's actually not. If you look at the founders of startups, very few of them have worked in other startups. Usually they ladder up as the founder of progressively larger ventures.

The other pathway is a prestigious college / MBA program or working their way up through one of the big tech companies and then leaving to start their own thing.

I've seen very few "former lead engineer at X startup founded their own company" stories, and that was literally what I was trying to do with my career for probably 5-7 years.

Have you never canceled a fraudulent charge or had the credit card company flag something that you didn't purchase?

We typically do rename before open sourcing and intend to avoid namespace collisions. E.g. Litho was not the original name of that framework either.

I am familiar with most of the other tools mentioned here (e.g. SonarJava) from my time doing Java development outside of Facebook and never had a collision in my head because this project is not actually a library or tool for Java. It's a standalone Electron app that works on iOS and Android for debugging purposes, the only Java part is incidental in the Android app (and could be Kotlin or C++ or whatever you want).

That's a perfect illustration of my point. The US went to pretty great lengths to have specific bans on import / export from Cuba. German train companies build plenty of things that would not meet FRA standards in the US, the US does nothing about it. But Cuba is seen as a special case. So do you think GDPR and PII are more like Cuba and terrorism, or more like chemicals and transportation standards? I think the latter.

That's not how most regulations work. If you are a chemical company selling something that is legal in the US but illegal in the EU, the EU doesn't use your bank to enforce their regulations on your business in the US.

Using the banks to cut off commerce across borders is an enforcement action for what countries agree are crimes - terrorism, money laundering, fraud, etc. It takes a lot of political willpower and negotiation to use that tool. I sincerely doubt it would be used against American websites that choose to not serve the EU.

FWIW the first serious startup I worked at chose not to do CE compliance (the EU governing body for electronic devices that may interfere with RF). Thus we did not sell our product to Europe.

Every single blog post had a set of people raging that we were assholes for doing this, but the reality was the cost of compliance just didn't make sense for the MVP. It was high 5 figures in cost which was just too much at the time. If we had achieved product market fit then the obvious move would have been to do that compliance to gain more customers, but we never quite got there.

I doubt GDPR gets to that level of cost, so the ROI looks a bit different. But I still think it's a reasonable decision to say "I simply won't do business in the EU because it costs more than I'll gain". A lot of companies also don't bother to go through the effort of printing the dual language labels required to sell their products in Canada, even though it's a decent sized market close to the US.

Tech, specifically the internet, has grown without regulation for a long time. But that era is over. These kind of decisions are routine in non-internet businesses where distribution, borders, and regulations exist. I suspect we're going to have to think a lot more about this in our work in the future.

TBH location tracking is the most sensitive PII I've seen anywhere, and plenty of 1 man shops are doing it. It takes like 100 lines of code.