quelltext

No quite, those are hints to guide the optimizer to do a better job based on programmer knowledge. They aren't attributes to indicate "I expect / need this particular optimization A to be done on this code block".

I think there's probably an underexplored sweet spot where IDEs gain the ability to hint at what type of optimizations the compiler will be able to do, and you could even specify which ones you want to select visually. Which in term is left as a textual annotation that's "statically checked", i.e. if the compiler cannot perform the expected optimization anymore it will reject the annotation with an error or warning whichever degree of freedom you decided to give the compiler.

Could get a bit unwieldy but it might not have to. You could also combine this with generative ML to suggest refactors that lead to potentially more easily optimizable code. It doesn't have to be perfect just assist enough for you to gradually build intuition. ML could also provide estimated guesses on how an optimization might speed up a given logical unit of code.

What you get is writing readable code but still a clear idea of how it will behave / impact the compiler. It does of course go counter the idea of abstraction. But if we do advocate for people to learn how the compiler will optimize or not we might as well invest in tooling to support that.

Adyen is several years older than Stripe. Hardly a fighting back against incumbents situation.

This submission is about Ed Fredkin not Al Franken (who is still alive).

Wouldn't it make sense to allow encoding additional data in the suffix? For instance a sharding key (or whatever you wanna call it)?

Just think about logging polymorphic object IDs. If you see an identifier with a type you can immediately know what table it is in and you can even build super simple tools like browser extension that let you look up objects by IDs as is. You can also just share these IDs as is with folks on Slack to debug etc. and they know exactly what kind of entities you are talking about.

Super useful and I honestly don't wanna go back to a project that doesn't use this pattern.

A girl?

That looks like a painting of a geriatric.

That doesn't use OCR.

What takes me out is that he "fights" like a geriatric.

What's the point of making the faces look young when the rest doesn't add up.

You mean that feature they got rid off a while back and replaced with something much simpler?

https://www.macrumors.com/guide/haptic-touch-vs-3d-touch-wha...

(I'm just ranting.)

Can you expand a bit. I was not familiar with n8n and looked at their website and it seems they have many users. Why is it bold?

Why shouldn't it be able to handle the task here?

It would have been better for the post to put the motivation up front, and then explain how they deal with the problem, instead of the other way round but I'm not sure what issues you have with the tone.

What they do here (preventing "piracy" and reducing cost) is no different from what other hosting platforms do.

FWIW, I didn't get a bad impression and learned about MUX in the first place (good).

I don't know. Not to offend you but in general I consider leadership roles to be more easily replaceable than IC ones. Fundamentally, it's the ICs that usually have all the intricate knowledge of the details. That is something I'd argue cannot be handed over in just two weeks, in particular to just anyone.

On the other hand, the leadership folks I interact with always make only super high level decisions. Rarely does it get intricate. It's more important to know how to quickly assess the big picture and how to communicate. All lot of what a leader does and makes them uniquely leaders is not something that's based on acquiring company specific and product and infra specific knowledge accumulated across several years.

I rarely care if my manager leaves beyond the fact that I have to build trust with someone new. But ultimately they aren't super in the weeds on anything mission critical.

An engineer that can jump into an incident and immediately identify the problem on a code path because they have worked on it or around it intimately at some point does make a difference, but also just having a detailed mental model of how the system pieces interact is super crucial. Bus factor is a thing, even though it rarely is catastrophic. Lead time can help here.

Of course leaders leaving also is a challenge, but it's because of their unique charm, ability to grasp issues quickly and make sane decisions. But none of this can be transferred to a new guy, in 2 or 4 weeks or 8.

Isn't that article / researcher saying the same opinion the submission article is responding to? JetBrains about 9-10 years ago made those arguments and claimed to work on providing the tools to solve those challenges.

I'm kind of curious what actually happened in that time. I've actually seen a few of these research projects over the years, i.e. providing tools to build languages with automated IDE and debugging support. Ultimately, I think (like the submission article's author) that it's something else holding adoption back. It may simply be lack of a convincing use case, e.g. industry adoption by one large company could make the overall approach (DSLs) more convincing.

Now DSLs or DSL-like languages are of course in use in many orgs but they very often aren't more than configuration languages and often embedded in something else. Very rarely do they get complex enough to warrant debuggers. So I think we a) still lack good examples of DSLs being worth it, or b) a more convincing argument why today's methods would benefit from building a whole new language (incl. tooling).

Was surprised how stable that setup was. Looks like a lot of fun.

Unrelated to the main content, the AI TTS somehow bothered me (I believe the voice is premade/Josh from Eleven Labs). It's not super jarring but still noticable. In a way it's too consistent.

Didn't ruin it but given a choice I'd rather just listen to the creator narrate and convey their excitement for instance about that workshop.

I don't know. I can understand that as a reviewer, if you see work that relates closely to your own prior work, you would be inclined to point the authors to that work.

They may simply have missed it or failed to realize the relationship before so blindly saying "it's fine I will just ignore that they skipped over my own work" when it is in fact related doesn't seem like the right approach.

If it really is unrelated I doubt anyone feels the need to point to their own research.

Providing an API abstracting over the complexity of payment processing is the technology.

Google's search engine is technology but you would probably say "isn't that just a researching documents"?

A bit weird how you only deem companies technological if they have released popular OSS or Apple because they produce libraries/frameworks they use internally. Pretty sure all software companies use internal libraries.

I read this twice and still don't get it. What was that exactly supposed to be doing?

3DS won't help here. I don't believe the customers there are disputing for "fraud use of my card" here, which is the only thing 3DS helps with.

People said Twitter needs those bad and superfluous engineers that Muskman cleaned out and here we are everything is fine... oh.

What kind of population control did Japan engage in in the 60s?

For anyone like you (and me) who says being laid off doesn't mean bad performance you have someone else saying it's good that Meta, Twitter, etc. are cleaning house, getting rid of all the slackers. Those are the folks calling it a red flag later.

The thing, is we want to believe that a company makes careful decisions about whom to lay off. We know it doesn't quite work like that but as you said yourself there can be a bunch of reasons. And with that context you're still looking at the reality that the company didn't deem the laid off workers important enough to keep.

I don't agree with what happened to the candidate here and we are all at risk of being laid off after all, but at the same time we cannot just assume the companies didn't have reasons to select one person over the other. And being overpaid itself might be a red flag for some hiring managers.

What I mean is, we cannot have it both ways, saying RIFed doesn't mean anything while at the same time assuming that companies follow a rational decision process and don't just play roulette.

So, like any other instance of this (in academia).

It's even worse that these Googlers (managers in particular) are picked up by other companies as a shining example, e.g.: "They'll know how to run a team / organisation."

And usually it's just them doing things like they did before which apparently isn't necessarily a good thing (sometimes is but often isn't). I cannot fault them, given the hiring expectation. But that's the problem. There's this cult that if Google does something ot must be the right way. It's filling books.

It's similar for Amazon hire in my experience.

    Well, only specific bank accounts are subject to FACTA:
    
    ...
    
    Investment accounts and custodial accounts (of individuals and entities), even when they are a resident in the FACTA partner country. This is true, as long as the custody account doesn't have income flows into this accounts (eg dividends or interests).

You say that investment accounts are subject to FACTA, but not anymore if dividends or interest earnings flow in? I'm confused.

I don't get the dryness comment.

> And virtual DOM reconciliation implementations in browsers can use only public APIs like appendChild().

Why can't they also use innerHTML?

Meaning, they could define a cost function where they deduce that it's cheaper to use innerHTML on a potentially larger than necessary scope if the alternative is >some_threshold for modification API calls.

Not anymore (in Europe at least) from the article.

Doesn't Adyen only take on established companies? You cannot just sign up and get started.

The notice in the US is not a notice in the way you would apply it in Japan (or how common sense would dictate). It would be illegal to block someone from accessing company systems or premises just because you tell them "officially you are terminated in 60 days".

That "giving notice" is used in the message is because of some law (I forgot) that requires this time but also permits to actually block people from working as long as they are paid.