joshklein

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.

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.

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).

You are observing the video of the crab playing over an SSH connection inside PuTTY, a terminal emulator.

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 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).

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

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).

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.

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.

> 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.