I dunno. The stock price will probably dead cat bounce, but this is the sort of thing that causes companies to spiral eventually.
They just made thousands of IT people physically visit machines to fix them. Then all the other IT people watched that happen globally. CTOs got angry emails from other C-levels and VPs. Real money was lost. Nobody is recommending this company for a while.
I have a feeling that Microsoft's PR team will be able to navigate this successfully and Microsoft might even benefit from this incident as it tries to pull customers away from CrowdStrike Falcon and into its own EDR product -- Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.
My (very unprofessional) guess here is that investors in the near term will discount the company too heavily and the previously overvalued stock will blow past a realistic valuation and be priced too low for a little while. The software and company aren't going anywhere as far as I can tell, they have far too much marketshare and use of CrowdStrike is often a contractual obligation.
That said, I don't gamble against trading algorithms these days and am only guessing at what I think will happen. Anyone passing by, please don't take random online posts as financial advice.
They aren't good. Also, diffusion models work well for the artists to spit out pixels. The artists assume the LLM generated code is the same quality and that the OP is a fool who won't do what they ask due to lack of skill or stubbornness.
It's messing up the dynamic where creatives come up with blue sky stuff and developers come to a compromise on a possible solution. Now you have this AI model hallucinating plausible, but fake solutions.
The model says what they want to hear because it is a chicken, not a pig in this scenario.
You might like "Software Architecture: The Hard Parts." Though you already describe some of the points of the book. There isn't a magic bullet and every decision to split something apart or which parts to combine has various trade-offs.
The book isn't perfect. The use of afferent and efferent terminology and some of the arbitrary methods to put numbers on decisions weren't ideal. Most of the concepts are sound. The fact that almost every decision has cost/benefit and real world implications for a living product was refreshing. That a monolith can't be cut over instantly with zero effort to a perfect system is absolutely true.
It's good food for thought for anyone considering slicing up a monolith, but maybe don't follow it to the letter.
The author's real issue is failing the first coding exercise then apparently not hitting the books to solve for problems being presented. They aren't testing if you're a good software engineer, they're making sure you studied for the test and retained enough to pass it. Them not course correcting to study for the test being given is a pretty bad signal.
Coding exercises are dumb, but going on pedigree and resume without a practical test is also error prone. So you work with the system you have. If you want the cheese you go through the maze and press the lever.
Alternatively, complaining about it to a large enough audience may work as well. That's 10x outside the box thinking.
> The author's real issue is failing the first coding exercise then apparently not hitting the books to solve for problems being presented. They aren't testing if you're a good software engineer, they're making sure you studied for the test and retained enough to pass it.
Note that the author of the anecdote isn’t the owner of the blog.
The blog owner is the author of books about cracking the coding interview.
This anecdote is carefully chosen to make her book sound more important. It’s “don’t end up like this person, buy my book so you can understand the coding interview!”
The anecdote’s problem is likely the fact that they quit a contract job after 3 months and then took a sabbatical going into a tech recession with 100,000s of laid off tech workers competing for every job. If your primary experience in the preceding 8 months was a short job that you separated from early, you’re not going to be at the top of the hiring list no matter how good you are at coding exercises on whiteboards.
The iPad runs iOS, which I suppose is what they meant. Windows ARM is less locked down than Windows S. iOS is still a walled-garden with a few holes here and there.
The second part of your question is key though "why most people should care." They obviously don't. It "just works" and generally keeps them from doing insecure shit. Want to buy hardware from someone else? Tough shit! Why would you anyway? You've got money to burn and no desire to write code that runs on your box without a second "real" computer. Buy some more lightning cables while you're at it. Don't forget to mention green bubbles next time you message an Android peasant.
I said that last part pretty snarky, but you're not wrong about most people not caring. That's their audience and they've nailed it.
> The iPad runs iOS, which I suppose is what they meant. Windows ARM is less locked down than Windows S. iOS is still a walled-garden with a few holes here and there.
The conversation never mentioned “iOS” or phones and the submission is about Intel who has nothing to do with mobile or Android. He specifically said MacOS:
>> Well yes, but then you have to use macOS and the locked down close ecosystem that is Apple.
What does any of your response have to with Intel, Windows or MacOS?
* Got a crappy knock-off Dustin Diamond page that wasn't official and looked like it was the result of a 12 year old and a copy of MS Frontpage and a case of Jolt Cola.
* A "furniture porn" site that was horrific. Not the modern usage where it's a lot of photos of nice furniture, the other interpretation. No humans, just weird ass pictures of chairs.
* Then something actually good: http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/ Apparently there was a Windows Refund day in 1999 where *nix users could get a refund for the copy of Windows that came in their PC.
It's because the simulation was built to simulate a culture that wasn't yet aware of aliens and alien interaction isn't part of the experiment. It's also less expensive in compute resources.
More eyeballs actually may mean secure code, but only if those eyeballs know what secure code is and if those eyeballs can be bothered to check out the source code.
Security software cannot be trusted really unless it is open source and people that know what they are doing look it over. Then you build it yourself on your own system and checkpoint every change you merge in.
Almost nobody does this. So you end up with openssl's heartbleed and other problems due to plain insecure coding in combination with actual protocol weaknesses.
It's hard to write secure software and algorithms. The guys writing GUI code care more about performance than security. If your UI is running as root, it is not secure.
They just made thousands of IT people physically visit machines to fix them. Then all the other IT people watched that happen globally. CTOs got angry emails from other C-levels and VPs. Real money was lost. Nobody is recommending this company for a while.
It may put a dent in Microsoft as splash damage.