Xyik

Its in google / Nest's best interest to put in common place security measures like MFA or notifications like detecting an unknown device accessing the camera. If I'm paying this much $ for a product, i don't want to have to deal with having to understand the 100 different ways it could be compromised and having to deal with that.

The issue is not so much white boarding as that is a broad term like others have mentioned. Using a whiteboard is a common part of many jobs. But it is not often that we have to write 100% correct code that compiles on whiteboards quickly.

What whiteboards should be testing for is problem solving, and whether a candidate can use a whiteboard to illustrate, communicate and collaborate towards solving a problem.

So if the question becomes whether or not problem solving should be evaluated, i think the answer is obviously yes, and algorithms have a place here. However, algorithms should not be the ONLY way to evaluate this attribute.

I believe code design is ultimately subjective. Unlike other metrics like performance which can be easily and definitively measured, you can't easily measure 'good' code. The definition of 'good' changes based on the context of the code base and function the code is trying to achieve. In this case, choices like having giant functions and files is definitely subjective.

Love this thread. I see this a lot, where engineers blindly follow best practices and have urges to re-factor code when its not necessary. Big files are not necessarily bad and I love that a lot of the comments are with me on this. Having to open several tabs and remembering where you are in the stack can be hard once there are more than a couple of frames / function calls in. There is a lot of benefit to keeping logic in 1 file or 1 function, and there is a time and a place for writing really granular DRY code. As with all engineering, there are always trade-offs to every decision and I think its about time we put to rest some of the traditional rules of thumbs and 'code smells' new engineers learn and adhere to like a bible.

Its sad that everytime there is a post about Facebook the comments are extremely toxic and negative, and don't really even discuss the article itself. I would argue that 80% of all tech companies are doing close to 0 in making the world a 'better place'.

I think try catch is fine with some documentation or commenting around why the developer chose to do so instead of specific handling for all the different possible exceptions.

Why shouldn't people optimize for the number? At the end of the day, people change, and being optimistic or excited about the job today doesn't mean they'll feel that way 4 years from now. Money on the other hand, is quantifiable and can be saved up, its a much more flexible resource to optimize for than immediate happiness.

this is so true, and my experience exactly.

one thing i do disagree with is commenting, there is a time in a place and its hard to derive on a rule on exactly where, when and how, but well placed comments are VERY important and can save developers a ton of time.

competition is a good thing, it encourages all competing parties to strive for a better product.

from an investment point of view, its a bit similar to Lyft vs Uber ... pretty much the exact same business, but there is always room to eat market share.

I work on an engineering growth team that focuses on large-scale digital advertising and can say it does work, for the right business, in the right context. You need a proper analytics team, engineering team, and experience to do it right. Most people who buy online ads have no idea what they are doing.

when you climb high grades the rock becomes extremely difficult to navigate and 'grip'. The common example is stacking 2-3 credit cards on top of each other and looking at the edge from the top - thats the size of the rock people are holding onto and stepping on with all their weight. In some cases you won't even have a flat piece of rock to step on, imagine climbing a brick wall. Asides from the difficulty, there are obvious elements such as high winds when you're at that altitude, mist, rain, wildlife, etc.

The issue is that its much easier to critique and call out issues than solving them. Most of the time, the individuals involved are aware of the issues already - critique is only valuable once the criticizer has made an effort to truly understand the problem and what's already been done / being done.

apparently japan is really good at this.

can you explain a bit about how preferred shares wipe out employee options? thats only in the scenario the company exits for far fewer than its current valuation?