norcalli

It would be horrifying to have meticulously documented notes on every thing you ever said that may or may not be true, and may or may not have been a joke. If his career had been a comedian and not a FOSS advocate, then would he still be crucified for saying the same things or would he simply be an awful comedian?

I would be dollars to doughnuts that the author of that site and the editors of that "wiki" have made or thought worse things at some point, but because they have not reached a certain level of celebrity, there's no dossier on them. It's truly ridiculous to me the amount of effort spent on trying to claw others down.

I accept that inequality exists and perhaps RMS has some awful opinions, but if that's the case then just ignore him.

If there are people who are choosing to make it incumbent upon themselves to take down these "problematic" individuals, then it must be because they think that all of the systems that have allowed a person to continue to exist despite those opinions must be unreliable in adequately judging them. If that's the case, then wouldn't it be more practical to fix the endemic problem rather than destroy a single person? I'm guessing that the latter is just easier to do and more profitable as well. You gain "credibility" by attacking someone else, so it's difficult to believe that they are doing it for altruistic means.

All in all, I'm pretty sick of this nonsense. A world where everyone is constantly being watched by eachother and reported on is already too authoritarian for me to want to continue living in, not to mention the already authoritarian governments doing the same.

This would be a perfectly reasonable argument for almost anyone in the world, but most certainly not for Donald Trump due to his position and his track record of statements on public record on Twitter, of all places.

It's rare to see the usage of the phrase `optimize [..] quality` with a negative implication. Does this qualify as Newspeak?

All completers will be able to utilize floating windows immediately, so it's not a special feature of coc.nvim. Using LSP is also not unique to coc.nvim. Deoplete, for instance, supports both as well. I personally have no interest in using coc since it's a javascript based project.

I'm honestly tired of the personal anecdotes in scientific articles. I don't want to have to scan 3 paragraphs through before I get the gist of the article.

They're also generally faster to launch and surf (unless you're doing a lot of updates, which requires double buffering and is still very dependent on your terminal's performance).

You also have to be more clever to pack information in a smaller section (typically < 100x100 character space), and you avoid unnecessary graphics that are distracting.

It doesn't work very well. I got SEGFAULTs every time I tried; filed a bug report; no resolution. So, while it does exist, it's not a high priority for the Julia team, so I wouldn't rely on it.

I've never understood this. JSON is really not that difficult to work with manually. I tend to write my config files as JSON for utilities I write. What is it with peoples' innate aversion to braces?

I use the same technique (and I'm 26 now, so relatively young) and it's how I've always interviewed others. Granted, I've only worked at smallish startups, but, either way, the company didn't care about my technique for evaluation, and just my final "yes", "no," or "maybe." So, I think it depends on the engineer.

If someone can keep up in a technical conversation about their background with me and answer every question I have about a technical project they did, then basically they pass. It works especially well even if I'm not familiar with their project, because I have an opportunity to learn, so I can ask any question that comes to mind until they teach me what they learned.

I did hire someone that I regretted, though, but to be fair, this was among my first interviews. The mistake I made was getting too easily caught talking about programming and technical things without specifically diving deep into his past project. He and I vibed quickly and I liked him, and that felt like enough, but after only a week it seemed obvious that he wasn't going to be producing much code, and we let him go. Otherwise, I've been happy and my ability to discern has only gotten better as I became more experienced.

I got a little offtopic, but my main answer to your question was "if the company leaves the decision up to a majority of engineers saying 'yes', then a lot of companies do this." Google does this, the startups I've worked at do this, and some of my friends companies do this.

The regret metric is different for a false "no" compared to a false "yes." I'd rather say "no" to someone who could've been great than "yes" to someone who wasn't, so I would say that it isn't that important.

Before I read the article, I thought this was a trite comment, but instead it's an apt analogy. It really is a distributed system of components whose byproducts can propagate between/through cell firewall.

But if I managed to compromise a single machine on your subnet, then that means all Intel machines I can touch are also vulnerable, no?

I feel like there is some astroturfing going on with this post...

It's weird that more time was spent on the logo design and the background than writing a simple summary, which is vastly more important.