_2xvp

Neovim nightly already has some tools available as plugins. I'm using tree-sitter for syntax highlighting, text objects, and folding right now. Pretty satisfied so far.

>Look at it done correctly: tomc1985 objects that "[he is] one of these people, and [he] most definitely exists!"

You also need brackets around "exists" since the original quote had "exist". I think you're proving the point. I completely agree with the author that sentences like this are absolutely miserable to read. You can quote him as saying "I am one of these people, and I most definitely exist!" and, because we all have basic reading skills, we all understand that the "I" refers to the person speaking. Mangling quotes with unnecessary brackets is bad writing.

The option seller needs to buy the stock to deliver the shares when the option expires, so if the price continues rising their losses are unbounded (by contrast, their gains are bounded by how much they originally sold the option for).

>objectively clearer terminology

Sorry but I find this claim (which I've heard from others too) ridiculous. "Blacklist" is an actual common English word in the dictionary. "Denylist" is an incredibly awkward-sounding neologism without any context or history behind it. There is no way that "denylist" is the "objectively clearer" one here.

>So we will probably need to recapture CO2 as well – or rather we will need to develop the necessary tech first.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but isn't the necessary tech "planting trees"?

You could expand this category to an AI for a number of similar games (like checkers and reversi) as well. I've written a double dummy solver for bridge--a program that computes the optimal result of the play of a bridge hand--as a side project and I think it's also a very good choice. A lot of the same tools as chess engine development apply: alpha-beta and the myriad variant search algorithms like MTD(f), transposition tables, heuristics like the killer move heuristic or the countermove heuristic. But you also need to apply some domain specific heuristics and tools, and since the whole thing is performance critical you need to worry about low level optimizations and good multithreading. In the bridge case it's not at all trivial to get something that can even finish at all in a reasonable timespan.

Chess is a very rich and pretty well-balanced game--that's what makes it so rewarding to study and to play. Even amongst modern computers that are miles ahead of the best humans, there's nowhere close to a single dominating opening or set of openings. On the human level, there is already far more computer opening theory than most players (including very serious, titled players) are capable of memorizing, so things haven't gotten stale yet.

>I remember back in the day when we used to just ask people if they could do FizzBuzz now we're looking at if they used an interface to wrap their ORM usage. That's something that can get picked up at code review and taught. Not everyone is going to code by default at the style of a company but they can learn to do the things the company wants.

>Then there is the obivous, lets test people for things they aren't going to do. Google and co made this the in thing and the fact we now have books upon books just designed so people who are good at tech can pass a tech interview is a sign in itself that there is something rotten.

So which is it? Should interviews be related to the work at the job or not? The Google type interviews evolved precisely from the philosophy in your first paragraph I quoted: that a lot of domain knowledge can be learned easily and that it was most important to test for more fundamental knowledge and abilities as well as general problem solving skills.

Ultimately I think it's a lot easier to criticize the interview process than to come up with a good alternative, as well as establishing some basic criteria about what should be selected for and against. Not that I think Google style interviews are perfect or anything, mind.

This comment thread is discussing Uber's profitability and how much they'd need to raise prices to break even independent of Prop 22.

If that was only in the US or other wealthy economies, maybe. But they're an international company. Some of those rides are in places where a $2 increase doubles the price of the ride. I think it would be more revealing to compare with their total receipts and see the % change that would be required.

>There's also the weird thing of younger people like myself avoiding proper punctuation/capitalization for the aesthetic. Mainly because a lack of proper writing can make certain messages feel more "relaxed" and casual, if that makes sense.

I don't think it's weird at all, and I don't think it's simply aesthetic. All these things (punctuation, capitalization, emoji/emoticons, representations of non-verbal communication like "lol" and "hmm", message boundaries, message send times) are ways of conveying tone, nuance, and a personal voice in an otherwise sterile, flat medium.

These nuances have been around as long as we've had instant messaging, but the specifics have changed over time. Representations of laughter are a good example: over the years we've had (in no order) "lol", "Lol", "LOL", "rofl", "ROFL", "lmao", "lmfao", "LMAO", "LMFAO", "hah", "haha", "hahaha", "HAHAHAHA", "roflmao", "roflcopter", and others. Over time the nuances of these options have changed, with some no longer au courant (the rofl family is currently outmoded), just as spoken slang and language rapidly evolve. Punctuation choices and so on follow similar patterns.

I do roll my eyes a little bit at some of the wild prescriptivism that can be found in this thread, which I think completely misses the point. The footnote from the original post I find especially infuriating:

>sloppy with their written communication, which is to say "careless and unsystematic; excessively casual".

Casual speech is not sloppy! Choices of punctuation, capitalization, and so on are deliberate.

The cheapest tool you can find is surely the sort in your programming language's standard library. Writing your own sort seems crazy to me.

I don't know why everyone is convinced this is satire. Satire of what? To me it reads as a straight piece on a very opinionated way to hire people.