allyourhorses

Prior to this model, protein folding hadn't seen significant advancements in a decade or more. Worrying about the lack of tests in a first of its kind model is very much akin to complaining about the choice of font in a user manual for the world's first warp drive. I understand you're attempting to frame the problem in terms in things you know, but trying to weigh down pioneering research with professional development ceremony is very much counterproductive. The 'missing' ceremony would not have contributed to the strength of AlphaFold's result, the model's only purpose was to compete within the context of an existing validation framework.

Parent comment is classical old guard mentality Googler who thinks if something sounds big and impressive it automatically is big and impressive. It was a marketing trick that weirdly infected employees throughout the org, glad to see here the trick has all but completely lost its effect.

> However, it was also an experiment from day 1, not "the next big thing"

Not sure I understand that distinction. If I label all my projects as experiments, do I also get to escape culpability for their failure while loading on the self-praise when they succeed?

> Do you really want to spend that limited bandwidth on your favicon that you might have already sent to the user before, maybe even in the same browsing session?

That's a really going point, but if the site's coming down over classic HTTP then still possibly yes, as separate requests are liable to require additional rounds of cold start. The other detail is that I don't think I've worked with a favicon much exceeding 1500 bytes before.

Another option would be pushing the <link> into the footer, but HTML 5 seems to require <link rel="icon"> only in the header. I wonder if browsers really enforce that.

re: cacheability of favicons, this is basically a non-issue as the bandwidth-delay product of even a 10mbit/50ms connection is already 62 kB. Anything below this size on such a connection is likely to render faster than a separate request round-trip.

This raises to almost 1.2 MB with a 100mbit/100ms connection.

> At the time I left, out of ~150k employees, only ~300 had worked there longer than me.

This one really stuck out for me, I don't think that stat has ever been public before. This probably means most (if not all) of the folk who built Google's most successful services are no longer with the company. Like a successful open source project where the originators have aged out, and all that's left are hundreds of folk making incremental changes spanning years

I can see how they ended up with an attribute that did not duplicate a potentially private URL. Consider downloading from an Intranet and copying to a USB pen that is then handed over to a customer

It also freezes in place the network policy active at the time of download.

Would personally still prefer the URL!

(1990)

Because it let me replace Ansible playbooks with a sensibly designed YAML syntax usually needing 40% the number of lines, and got my deploys down to a roughly constant 6 seconds regardless of the size of the application. Kubernetes let me finally stop thinking about deployment, I can get new apps online in 5-10 minutes or less.

Don't even get me started on monitoring.. k8s murders everything else here

Presumably they're at least 15 years away from integrating their email after the merger, going by typical dinosaur corp schedules

Serious question for fashionistas.. which of the modern frameworks integrate 'properly' with Closure Compiler? Not just minification, but structured so the compilation/code removal/constant replacement/inlining/obfuscation steps work correctly.

I've seen a few with instructions to compile with Closure Compiler, but of the (approximately one) I've checked, the output was barely even minified, never mind optimized

Selling is a horrible misnomer, the process is entirely about understanding that you have something the other party might want, and communicating this effectively. You could take a shit hot salesperson and give them a garbage product, and force them to work an idiotic market segment and they'll sell nothing. On the other hand, you could take a person (like me!) with almost no interpersonal skills whatsoever with a solution to a very specific issue faced by people they're already in contact with, and they'll sell like champions.

So the whole framing of product and market, and communication media is way more interesting (IMHO) than 'selling' as an explicit skill. (And yes, I do "sell", but I'm not "good at selling", because my skillset is tied to a tiny handful of niches where I have this framing figured out)

edit: there's another bit that annoyed me about this post, and it's the idea of explicit 'selling' before having a solution to sell. It's something akin to putting the cart before the horse. Any selling opportunities I've discovered have always been in the pursuit of solving some other problem. I suppose basically if you have a genuinely good solution to any problem, selling is barely a skill worth worrying about. This is as true in interviews as in product marketing