My "never again" story was around a decade ago. Thoughtworks had me interview with roughly a dozen people over half a dozen or more interviews, lasting ~20 hours (if you include the proctored Wunderlic test they administered to me on premises). At the end of that lengthy process, they said they would have loved to bring me on but "didn't have any open positions that fit my set of skills". You know, that set of skills I listed next to my work experience on my 2-page resume.
I no longer submit applications to any job until I've spoken to someone who works there to ask hard questions of them before I interview. I also no longer consider any job that lacks clear articulation of the platonic ideal of a candidate.
I think here in California for nerds who have been around for a while, companies have at least some concept of what competitive rates are, so I hadn't worried about posted salary ranges. If they waste your time leading up to a lowball offer, they at least have wasted their own time as well, so they have an incentive to not do that. That of course assumes you didn't do a take home assignment ;).
Pretty sure I got made to do this one when I got my first job in the UK (at a sports betting company, that turned out to be a pretty terrible job overall - I misinterpreted "gaming company" to mean video games...)
One of their investors came in to run the test, it was his thing, apparently. Weird industry full of weird and corrupt people.
Thoughtworks also screwed me like that. They gave me a take-home assignment which took few hours. At the end, their feedback was - my code is not cloud scalable and their were some values that I used directly and not from a configuration :-).
My (albeit limited) experience with companies like this is that their interview process is far more hurtful than helpful. The processes are so long and so narrow that I can't see how it wouldn't be more effective to just say "come work on this thing for a day with me" and we'll see how it goes?
They must be leaking so many great makers arbitrarily. I assume that this helps the kind of work they do in some mysterious way?
I passed a Nearform interview years back when they didn't have employees, just contractors.
They said "Good, you passed the assignment, we'll call you when we have clients for your range". I kept my old job and I'm still waiting for a client from them.
> it’s a bit sad that we don’t have more passion projects like this
Check out UnReal World, which Tarn cites as a source for his own inspiration (and is itself still under active development and also now available on Steam): https://www.unrealworld.fi/
The reason there is no safe dose is because even background levels of radiation will cause eventual health consequences, just not before another cause of death.
visudo isn't a fork, it just locks the sudoers file against concurrent edits, runs whatever standard editor you want, waits for it to finish, and validate the new file before committing it to the real location.
I can agree that process is too complex, but they're not maintaining a fork of vi for that purpose.
> and validate the new file before committing it to the real location
Controversial take: i think that it'd be really good to have EVERY configuration file have something like that. For example, if i'm working on a long bit of configuration for fstab, cron, Apache2, Nginx, Tomcat or any other pieces of software, i'd want to see whether everything i've written will be considered valid ahead of time, e.g. a "dry run" of sorts. A bit like we have language servers for VS Code, we could have validation servers as well, for configuration.
That said, i don't think we'll ever have that, since it's easier to just write code in an ad-hoc manner, as opposed to extracting validation of configuration as a separate bit of code that can be called from some CLI, not just at runtime, especially since many configuration files allow nested includes.
Regardless, thinking more about models and validation methods would be nice, e.g. XSD. If we leverage type systems in programming languages, we might as well do that at an operating system level - something like shellcheck built in. A validation handler for every file type.
$ docker run --rm nginx:1.20.2 nginx -t -g "daemon off;"
/docker-entrypoint.sh: /docker-entrypoint.d/ is not empty, will attempt to perform configuration
/docker-entrypoint.sh: Looking for shell scripts in /docker-entrypoint.d/
/docker-entrypoint.sh: Launching /docker-entrypoint.d/10-listen-on-ipv6-by-default.sh
10-listen-on-ipv6-by-default.sh: info: Getting the checksum of /etc/nginx/conf.d/default.conf
10-listen-on-ipv6-by-default.sh: info: Enabled listen on IPv6 in /etc/nginx/conf.d/default.conf
/docker-entrypoint.sh: Launching /docker-entrypoint.d/20-envsubst-on-templates.sh
/docker-entrypoint.sh: Launching /docker-entrypoint.d/30-tune-worker-processes.sh
/docker-entrypoint.sh: Configuration complete; ready for start up
nginx: the configuration file /etc/nginx/nginx.conf syntax is ok
nginx: configuration file /etc/nginx/nginx.conf test is successful
You can find some interesting starting points at kaggle.com if you want e.g. a large set of photos of agricultural plants labeled as healthy or diseased (allowing you to immediately start in on building a classification model without all the upfront grunt work).
I want to personally thank you for your work, and let you know I couldn’t have done an important project of mine if spaCy didn’t exist, and if it were not a free resource.
Your project was 1 of the 2 instrumental tools in my project to structure the transcripts of every word said on the floor of the New York State Senate over the past ~30 years in order to develop a topic-based “proximity” heuristic (based on CorEx, the 2nd instrumental tool) for which state senators were focused on which issues, based on the things they actually said on the record, not based on their press statements or their voting records (the latter of which doesn’t capture all the information you’d hope it would due to procedural nuances too obscure to detail here).
I haven’t written about it or made results publicly available yet, but I do intend to. I can make a note of the email in your profile and ping you with a link when it is available if you’d like.
I suppose it would depend on what one takes “open source project” to actually mean. You’d have to reject contributions from your community if they weren’t interested in giving them back upstream in a way compatible with your commercial license, and you’d probably be forever open to claims you violated some individual’s GPL contribution of a feature you may or may not have seen if something similar makes its way into your commercial project.
There are obviously lots of open source projects that find a way to navigate this world via dual licensing, and I’m neither a lawyer nor an expert on the subject, but those projects don’t really fit my own personal definition of “open” (as I derive it from the Unix philosophy instead of the GNU is Not Unix philosophy).
OpenBSD uses and actively supports a customized (not forked) X called Xenocara, which takes the opposite philosophical route from Wayland by putting a wider part of the ecosystem of X features into one coherent project so it can be maintained, improved, and culled (simultaneously, and without committees). You can learn about it on the Xenocara project pages and in its robust manual pages.
If you read other comments in separate parts of the threads here, you’ll see people describing re-scoping certain elements “out” of Wayland and “into” other layers to fix “broken” parts of X. Those “widely agreed upon” solutions for other layers exclude considerations for the way OpenBSD works in fairly fundamental ways that make it seem (to me, at least) there is no practical purpose in exploring Wayland on OpenBSD beyond the point it has already been explored.
I’m speaking about the coherent and supported OpenBSD operating system, not what can be found in packages.
If there ever become features fundamental to the current user-developers of OpenBSD that are enabled by Wayland, I would expect them to further modify Xenocara to support those use cases, but it is hard to even imagine what those could be. Most of Wayland’s promised future features are anti-features to the OpenBSD approach.
I expect that in 5-10 years, many user applications will be Linux-only, and there will be many conversations about how stubborn BSD (and Windows/Mac) designers are for not aligning to earlier decisions made on their behalf.
These are just my personal opinions with no inside knowledge from any part of this intellectual territory, and I do not accuse or blame ANY developer on ANY project for working on what they are interested in, but I expect this unified Linux (and Linux-only) outcome is the unstated but express purpose behind promoting Wayland for some of the commercial interests that support it.
I want to doubly emphasize that I am talking about the motivations of executives determining the allocation of capital and human resources, not about the motivations of the developers, which are clearly to facilitate cool or useful new things.
> and there will be many conversations about how stubborn BSD (and Windows/Mac) designers are for not aligning to earlier decisions made on their behalf.
Windows & Mac are already on exclusively Wayland-style compositors, they made that transition years & years ago (Vista was Microsoft's transition, for example, which was 13 years ago now). Why would they have any issues here?
> Windows & Mac are already on exclusively Wayland-style compositors
Only in a narrow sense; nearly all of the features one might reasonably consider fundamental parts of Windows/Mac are “out of scope” for Wayland. Wayland relies on layers upon layers of other solutions for things like central registries, interprocess communication, and negotiating hardware access.
From the Wayland perspective, this is all perfectly reasonable. It’s just how software gets made.
From the perspective of someone who isn’t already running a Linux kernel with evdev + KMS + DRM, we aren’t able to even find common language to discuss what being “a compositor” means to Wayland.
All of the features that are considered "out of scope" for Wayland are also out of scope for other OS's compositors, too. So not in a narrow sense at all.
Wayland is one thing, not an X replacement. There is, unfortunately, not a great story/push to standardize all the other parts of X outside of Wayland's scope.
But it's important to recognize those other parts are also very much not handled by the Wayland-equivalent on other OS's, either. Window's DWM doesn't do clipboard management. Android's SurfaceFlinger doesn't do input. MacOS's QuartZ Composer doesn't do global keyboard shortcuts. And from an app perspective, none of those other OS's conflate those random unrelated things in the way X did, either. They aren't part of the same library or technology group. As in, you'll never find clipboard references in CoreGraphics. You use NSPasteboard which talks to the pastboard server, instead. Entirely unrelated & orthogonal to the compositor, as it should be.
Only on Linux is a full desktop environment stack shoehorned into what's supposedly a display manager.
Fair. The point I’m trying to convey - without burdening the reader with too many specifics - is that there isn’t really any problem with Wayland on non-Linux systems per se, but rather fundamental philosophical and design differences that spiral way out into other parts of the operating system and beyond (into hardware).
A question like whether or not IPC and application buses are managed by a supposed display manager is a more complicated decision than it appears on the surface, with lots of questions that need to be asked that feel like you’re challenging the literal meaning of words depending on which contextual paradigm you’re approaching the discussion from.
The net result is Wayland being a reasonable solution to a real problem that still further isolates Linux into a GUI desktop silo. The result is only “cross compatibility” if you consider the “cross” to mean across Linux distributions, which - in fairness - is actually what most people DO seem to mean.
I got your point, but I'm flat out disagreeing with it. Wayland aligns Linux with the philosophical & design differences of other OS's, it doesn't diverge at all.
In the same way that X's unique snowflake design hasn't significantly impacted cross-OS compatibility, why would Wayland make this any harder? If anything Wayland reduces cross-OS complexity as you can finally have a compositor API on Linux like you have on literally every other OS, which greatly reduces the friction for things like embedding video within an app.
But otherwise right now on any cross-OS application the design is going to assume that composition, clipboard, and keyboard shortcuts are all independent systems. Only on X is that not true. X is the unique, unorthodox design in the broader world of "all OSes"
I agree that X is the odd duck out in its attempt to follow the Unix philosophy. Wayland further pursues the “GNU is Not Unix” principle by introducing a modern desktop paradigm to pair with its modern application busses and other modern features.
On the other hand, 98% of their domestic electricity is renewable (95% hydroelectric). If other nations followed Norway's lead by nationalizing their respective oil sectors, it could be an important step towards curbing consumption.
Their politicians love touting that 98% green energy production but it’s incredibly misleading.
Sorry by the way I really don’t mean to take this conversation so off topic. It was meant half tongue in cheek :) every country has blind spots and this was about coronavirus and cruises, not global warming! And this is only their politicians; Norwegians are the most lovely people. Nothing against the country.
Well, then if 98% is already renewable, why keep pumping oil out of the ground and contributing to global warming? (Hint: money)
I don't really think there's a way around this for Norwegians. If you're upset about climate change (and you should be) then you should also be honest that continuing to extract and sell oil is contributing to the problem.
It's nice that Norway has a small, homogenous population in a country with low population density, great education, and opportunities for easy (relatively speaking) renewable energy. Many countries don't have those luxuries.
With that being said, I applaud Norway in general as a country. I think they do a lot of great stuff. But I think it's fair to point out what I perceive as a shortcoming that they currently have in the context of this discussion.
You criticize Norway for continuing to pump up oil, which you attribute to greed, and then, in the same comment, point out that many other countries don't have the opportunities for renewable energy that Norway (allegedly) has. Do you not see a connection here?
> It's nice that Norway has a small, homogenous population in a country with low population density, great education
This all seems off-topic to me.
> But I think it's fair to point out what I perceive as a shortcoming that they currently have in the context of this discussion.
Considering this post is about an US based cruise ship lying about a virus, nothing in your comment is really appropriate for "the context of this discussion".
I no longer submit applications to any job until I've spoken to someone who works there to ask hard questions of them before I interview. I also no longer consider any job that lacks clear articulation of the platonic ideal of a candidate.