I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I don't just mean politically - I know everyone thinks that news that doesn't align with their politics is just brainwashing. Broadcast TV is just generally awful now IMO.
We went quite a few years without ever seeing cable. My kids would stream shows and consume other media on-demand, but any advertising was minimal and fairly non-intrusive. And then they were watching a kids show at a hotel once and the ads came on and the effect it had on them was crazy. They suddenly desperately needed all the toys in the commercials and were repeating catch phrases from ads after only seeing them a couple of times. The contrast in their behavior was insane. And they HAD to keep watching it like I hadn't seen before. I spent a week off-grid with my parents a while back and it was great. We came home and my Mom put on the news suddenly everything was terrible and she was angry, but she had to keep watching.
Just awful for mental health if you can't separate yourself from it.
Mental / emotional burnout is certainly not uncommon in tech (probably in most other careers, I'd bet). Most people in Silicon Valley are changing jobs more often than 4-5 years. I don't like to constantly be the new guy, but there is a refreshing feeling to starting on something new and not carrying years of technical debt on your emotions. Maybe it's time to try something new, take a bigger vacation than usual, or talk to someone about new approaches you can try in your professional or personal life. But certainly don't let the fact that you feel like this add to the load - you're not alone, and it's not permanent.
"Confront" means that you can actually take it to court and evidence is examined deeper than "this machine generated this alert and the machine must be right".
I get nervous that so many cases in our legal system get pled out, because sure - if the person is actually guilty and owns up to it that saves the cost of a trial. But it also means that an awful lot of tactics just never get put in front of a judge or a public court. This is one of the prime examples.
I've lived in one state that decided cameras couldn't be witnesses, and I've lived in another state that has had scandals related to cameras being tampered with in order to increase ticketing revenue, etc. And in my current state it's fairly common knowledge that if you get a camera-related fine in the mail you just have to contest it because they will never let it get to court - they're just harvesting the low-hanging fruit. All of these policies suggest to me that your particular opinion of this law is far from the settled consensus. The combination of those things makes me very skeptical of how critical an eye has been over the whole system to verify it's working well. It doesn't seem anyone is willing to go under oath on behalf of the system that's fining people. It'll send out fines, people will from time to time find out the fines are wrong, but I just don't hear much about how much rigor is being spent actually proving anything on the other side.
I probably wouldn't do this in a shared office, but I'm pretty open about the fact that I often like to have a show in the background while I work. Keeps my mind from wandering too far if I have a momentary pause for a big download or a long compile or something. And a lot of people find moderate background noise helps them focus. I've been through every Star Trek multiple times and am plenty productive at work. But Bay Watch isn't something I would want coworkers to see. Nipples or no nipples, it's trying to sexualize / objectify about as much as they could get away with in prime time TV. I can't go join a meeting about inclusive culture with my female coworkers if they just saw me staring at Pamela Anderson's bouncing tits in the middle of the workday.
A national currency would be even more centralized, and centralized banking systems have not been free of problems either. They acted irresponsibly for years and then many got bailed out because they were "too big to fail". And people that society doesn't approve of can get screwed over if the payment processors choose not to do business with them. Moving in the direction of eliminating cash for these people scares me.
Maybe that says more about you than them. You're on a social website right now, engaging with people voluntarily, but you're insisting you're only happy by not connecting with people?
As far as I know, someone noticed something fishy and told the final interviewer their suspicion to be sure. Like the way the candidate would only explain stuff after it was written. If you're on a video call and observant, I think you could tell if the typing didn't sync up with what you saw. I imagine it might be hard to notice at first, but if someone suspects it I would think a skilled interviewer could throw a few wrenches in their plan to see how the respond.
I suppose it is possible that a temporary contractor has an email address from that company, but I think you can get reasonably high signal by looking at their LinkedIn history. Switching positions every few months is a red flag. Even if they're an independent contractor, longer-term arrangements with each client suggest better relationships and better commitment to real outcomes.
I see plenty of recruiters who just work for recruiting firms and don't hide that fact. Anyone who won't immediately tell me who they're recruiting for gets ignored. I'm sure I end up talking to the occasional contractor but you can easily filter out a lot of obvious low-hanging (and rotten) fruit).
I'm curious how trials like this work, in that if you engage in practices that leave you at risk of HIV infection, you really ought to use condoms or other prophylactic measures. Without telling people they no longer recommend such practices, I wonder how they get enough signal to prove efficacy.
Apparently my coworkers interviewed someone a while back who got pretty far into the onsite interview panel before they realized the candidate was not the same person typing out the code they were seeing on CodeBunk...
You say "just" because the technology for doing this isn't novel. It doesn't feel like it's "just" anything when so few businesses bother to even put that much effort towards a good customer experience.
One of the responsibilities of your manager is to deal with a lot of this stuff for you. It can be nerve-wrecking as a new grad, but one of the things I would do in your shoes is have a 1-on-1 meeting with your manager as soon as possible and explain what you have said here: what was said in the meeting, what you felt was fair / unfair criticism, that you plan to learn from what was fair, but that you're concerned about the unfair perception they may have of you. Get their advice. Ask them to help do some damage control of your reputation if that's necessary.
Don't alienate yourself. Just diversify your friend investments. That's often a good idea anyway. You don't want one life event of one societal change to make your entire social support system come crumbling down.
I agree that a lot of the implicit type conversions are problematic, but Python's handling of that is hardly as unintuitive as things like a lot of Perl syntax, or JavaScript typing, etc. If that's the kind of impractical example you have to come up with to showcase this problem, honestly I think that's still pretty good, and I'd still call the implicit type conversions an overall win for the use case being asked about.
I think we could make better languages than Python that fix these issues. Like an implicit boolean -> int conversion does more harm than good, IMO (and it appears in your example). But I'm still not surprised that of the languages we have had when we have had them, that Python absolutely dominates this space.
Python has a very simple and consistent and unsurprising syntax compared to Perl. I think most programmers from other languages can look at Python and feel like they're reading pseudo-code that they actually understand for most operations. So for people coming from a mathematical or scientific background, it unlocks computing abilities without having to learn a bunch more knowledge from another domain. Add to that the success of libraries like NumPy and SciPy that round out the capabilities of the language itself and make many practical tasks very accessible, and it's just a nuke-from-orbit type situation for most other languages.
I mean, even the author of Learning Perl, said "sometimes Perl looks like line noise to the uninitiated, but to the seasoned Perl programmer, it looks like checksummed line noise with a mission in life."
I think the point of interest was 32 cores to handle what sounds like 10 messages per second at most. That's not really a ton of throughput... It's certainly a valid point that an awful lot of uses cases don't need Twitter-scale firehoses or Google-size Hadoop clusters.
In my experience, a higher portion of Azure customers are larger enterprise customers that engage professional services from Microsoft to architect things, etc.
AWS is far more popular in general, but especially with smaller teams that are more self-directed, start with prototypes and iterate from there. It wouldn't surprise my if the latter often only built in redundancy after learning lessons the hard way, even though AWS provides the ability to do so from the get go.
Purely conjecture, but that skew in the customer type is definitely there.
Agreed. I eventually found a very good counselor for my situation.
But I'm extremely fortunate that I'm both very well off and wasn't suicidal. And it was very apparent to me that if I was different in either respect, I perhaps wouldn't have been able to turn things around.
One of the many things needing overhauling in our mental health system. I avoided seeking help for a long time because I was interested in jobs that would likely require government security clearances, and (I don't know how true this is) I had heard from multiple sources that a history of seeking help for mental health issues may disqualify you. Which is a little backwards in practice. If there's an issue I want to address it and manage it. Because of my desire for those jobs, I let the problem fester for longer.
I also found when I finally broke down and sought help (not for suicide, granted) the process of trying to take advantage of my company's resources like paying for short-term counseling, etc. was incredibly frustrating. You couldn't get a hold of the people at the company we paid for the plan, everything on their site was outdated and badly maintained, they only covered certain therapists, and they happened to be therapists who make a point of specializing in treating pretty much anything with drugs, etc. Had I been on the edge of suicide or unable to eventually just pay for the care I needed directly, I can only imagine trying to navigate this process could've finished me off, emotionally.
Yes I chose my use of "apparently" and "if this is true" carefully. There is another widely reported instance, better known as Meta PC, filing before Facebook for the mark "Meta", covering "Computers, laptops and portable computers, tablets, computer peripherals, servers, networking equipment, software, computer components, namely, ram, disk drives, namely, hard and optical disk drives, and all related accessories, namely, keyboards, mice, wireless keyboards and mice, speakers, external hard drive backup devices, wireless air cards, wireless routers, monitors, chairs". This is indeed live on the USPTO search right now. That to me sounds like a potential problem.
If this is true, the detail that sticks out to me is that before the legal filings StreamLabs thought to reach out about using the name. If StreamLabs thought the names were similar enough that they reached out about using the name, that proves that even from their own former perspective, they're using a mark that was already recognized in the industry and similar enough to their own mark - surely consumers could have the same perspective (many in the comments here were already confused). They also can't claim ignorance. Why should they expect trademark law to now protect the name for them?
That's fair, but I will say that my experience with cable news is that every time I see it, not only does it feel extremely manipulative and emotion-based, but it's like, "oh - we're all still obsessing over this one court case instead of literally anything else that happened yesterday". Every time I look at world news, it seems to at least be covering a much greater variety of things that don't seem so predictable and click-baity and that do seem like they're actually of consequence to a larger selection of the population.
edit: Some of this unavoidable - you have to make judgments on what to cover and what makes the front page, and you're never going to eliminate people's biases or agendas completely. Not that it makes that acceptable, but I don't read World News and feel like the whole institution is beyond recovery and worthless. Cable news in the US? Yeah - I do feel that way.