neild

Well, that rather depends on what you mean by "character" and "in half".

    >>> s = u're\u0301sume\u0301'
    >>> print s
    résumé
    >>> len(s)
    8
    >>> for i in xrange(len(s)):
    ...     print s[i]
    ... 
    r
    e
    
    s
    u
    m
    e

    >>> print ' '.join(s)
    r e ́ s u m e ́

If you care about living somewhere hip and exciting, Fremont is not for you. If you're okay with suburbia that's outside the heart of Silicon Valley, but still reasonably close, it's worth considering.

When using channels, the choice between buffered and unbuffered depends on the situation. There are cases where a buffered channel is required to avoid deadlocks. For example, consider the case where you start N goroutines and use a channel to collect the results. If you return before collecting all results, the remaining goroutines will block forever trying to write to an unbuffered channel. Using a buffered channel with size N avoids this possibility.

Apple will replace the 95Whr battery in a Retina MacBook Pro for $200[4]. $30 more than Dell charges for a similar-capacity battery, but this does include labor and the MPB gets 7+ hours of life with it[5].

I do not believe your assertion of "exorbitant fees" is supportable.

[1] http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/precision-m4600/fs

[2] http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/category.aspx?c=us&l=...

[3] http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6400&re...

[4] http://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/service/battery/

[5] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/retina-macbook-pro-maxi...

I'd say Go is, though.

About once a year, we'd lose a week or two to tracking down a memory issue. While the root cause was never a GC bug, the GC would make it dramatically more difficult to figure out what the real problem was.

The closest we had to an actual GC bug was a leak involving a data structure containing a list of IP addresses that was incorrectly interpreted as containing pointers. It took forever to figure out what had happened, since the issue only appeared if you worked with a specific set of IP addresses--and even after we had a replication case, the GC made it extremely difficult to determine why memory was growing rapidly. The fix was simple once we identified the precise problem--flag that memory as "atomic" (i.e., guaranteed not to contain pointers)--but finding the precise data structure that was holding memory live was a nightmare.

We eventually ran into a slow memory growth issue that we couldn't figure out. After much debugging, one developer became fed up with the situation and tore the GC out. It took him about two weeks to produce a version of the codebase that leaked less than the GC-enabled one, and another couple weeks to eliminate virtually all memory leaks. We continued to find minor leaks for another several months, none of which were difficult to correct. (We used a debugging malloc library that flagged leaked memory on exit, so we always knew exactly where the leak had originated.)

Not only did the GC-less version leak less, it used about 40% less memory.

I would strongly recommend against using the Boehm collector for any long-running processes. The tradeoffs may be more acceptable in short-term processes where slow leakage over time is unimportant.

I considered writing more, but really, what else is there to say? Working at Google is not defined by the presence of cafeterias, alcoholism is not a way of life, and overwork is no more prevalent than any other Silicon Valley company I've worked at.

A tech demo is a demo. It's real. You can use it, you can see how well it works, and you can get a feel for whether it can be developed into something real or not. Making a tech demo is an exercise in putting your money where your mouth is.

A concept video, in contrast, is just a bunch of special effects. It exists free of any constraints. You can make a concept video for something which is impossible to make--time machines, faster-than-light spaceships, cars that run on water.

Push the power button to turn on the screen. Hold the phone to your ear. Wait for the be-beep sound, played quietly through the ears-only speaker. Speak. Keep the phone against your ear. Siri will respond through the ears-only speaker.

Why would you think that would happen?

And while I'm at it, why is "consumption device" an insult? Books are consumption devices. Nobody sneers at a child with a book.

My current computer, made by Apple, comes with interpreters for several languages, all more powerful than BASIC. It comes with text editors. And, best of all, it comes connected to an Internet from which I can not only download interpreters and compilers for all sorts of languages, but find extensive documentation on how to use them.

A child today has access to so much more in the way of programming tools than I did. We live in a glorious golden age of hobbyist programming.

If you look up the cost of individual medical coverage and the amount of money provided by unemployment insurance, you may find yourself with the answer to that question.

It isn't easy to make a successful tablet. Apple made it look easy, but it really isn't.

Apple came into the tablet market with:

- A core OS that's had over 20 years of work put into it.

- A touch UI layer with five years of development.

- A large developer ecosystem primed and ready to start making software for the new platform.

- A worldwide online software store with a gigantic existing customer base. (Do not estimate the difficulty of making it possible for developers anywhere in the world to sell software to customers anywhere in the world without forcing anyone to jump through the hoops of international tax law!)

- An online media store selling music, movies, and TV shows.

- A brand new ebook store.

- A worldwide network of physical stores to demo and sell the new devices.

You can't build that overnight. Apple has spent over a decade making smart decisions and putting themselves into the position where they are today.

Harald is quite good, IMO, but there isn't a lot of overt economics so it may not be what you're looking for.

Eche of theym sholde ... make theymselfe redy. — Caxton, Sonnes of Aymon (c. 1489)

Arise; one knocks. / ... / Hark, how they knock! — Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (c. 1595)

'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech. — Shakespeare, Hamlet

I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly. — Austen, Mansfield Park (1814)

That's always your way, Maim—always sailing in to help somebody before they're hurt. — Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884)

Caesar: "No, Cleopatra. No man goes to battle to be killed." / Cleopatra: "But they do get killed". — Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)

The singular "they" has extensive precedent. Some proscriptive grammarians feel that it should be disallowed, but given the usefulness of a neutral pronoun and the venerable history of the usage, I think they may be safely ignored.

The type of housing you can afford is a quality of life issue as much or more than it is a cost of living issue. If you live in San Francisco or New York, you accept a smaller living space than you'd get elsewhere. In return, you get access to nightlife, concert venues, and other amenities that can only be had in a densely-populated area.

If living on a hundred acres of woodland is important to you, you will not live in San Francisco. If being able to bike to work is important to you, you will not live in Los Angeles. If staying out of the cold is important to you, you will not live in Minneapolis. Money won't buy you any of these things.

At some levels, it may seem that it's just an issue of money. You can, of course, buy a detached, single-family house in San Francisco. It'll cost you millions, but you can do it if you're rich enough. Attempting to paint this as a difference in cost of living, however, is simply disingenuous--the detached home in San Francisco is the local equivalent of a mansion in my home town. It's not equivalent, any more than hiring Michael Franti to make a personal trip out to Connecticut to play for you would be equivalent to catching a show at a local concert hall.

And, finally, it's important to remember that unless you're living entirely hand-to-mouth, not all of your income goes to living expenses. If you're in the well-paid engineer club, then hopefully only a relatively small portion of your income goes to living expenses. Moving from a cheap location to an expensive one may increase that portion, but it doesn't make any sense at all to multiply your current income by a constant factor to determine the "equivalent" in a different location. That's what that calculator does, and it's deceptive and wrong.

It costs more to live in San Francisco that it does to live in Detroit. However, that additional cost is largely static: You'll pay a lot more for housing, you'll probably pay noticeably more for food, and you may pay somewhat more for clothing and other items. You won't pay more for a car (if you have one), you won't pay more for the items you buy from Amazon, and you won't pay more for your Netflix subscription.

If you earn $30,000/year, the difference in cost of living between San Francisco and Detroit will be dramatic. You may not be able to afford a place to live in San Francisco at all on that salary.

If you earn $300,000/year, the difference will be almost negligible, since your living expenses will be a trivial portion of your income. (The one kicker will be housing--you'll probably need to settle for a smaller living space.)

It doesn't make any sense to apply a cost of living adjustment as a strict multiplier, which that calculator does. It claims that someone making $30,000 in Detroit will need an $80,000 salary in San Francisco to be equivalent, while someone making $300,000 will need $800,000.

That's clearly ludicrous. It does not cost an additional $500,000 annually to live in San Francisco.

Determining equivalent cost of living is a complex question, and will always be imprecise. There are things that simply can't be converted--on my current salary, I could afford to buy a house with a hundred acres of surrounding woodland near my home town. There is no amount of money in the world that will buy that in San Francisco. Equally, there are many things available in San Francisco and its environs that can't be had for love or money in my home town.

You're being taken advantage of, and you know it or you wouldn't have posted this. You're taking an under-market salary and no benefits, which means you're probably making about 50% of what you should be when you count health care, 401k and so forth. You have no equity, which is the traditional tradeoff at a startup: Accept a reduced salary for the possibility of a large payoff at the end.

Right now, your best case scenario is that the company is wildly successful, the founders go on to fame and fortune, and if you're very, very lucky, they might just decide to throw you a bone. Which they won't.

Leave.