waythenewsgoes

Status pages at cloud providers aren't usually based in reality -- usually requires VP level political games to actually get them changed especially for serious outages.

> If the interview for a coding job doesn’t involve actual coding, how do you know that the candidate can code?

LeetCode problems seldom resemble real-life coding scenarios, which in theory is what you are supposed to be most concerned with.

Why not present them with a real problem that you actually had to solve for your business? And ask them to walk you through how they would try to solve that? Perhaps as part of a take-home assignment?

Leetcode test or nothing is a false dichotomy. Accepting it is lacking without attempting to look into alternatives doesn’t seem logical.

>You can certainly memorize solutions

You can most certainly memorize the high level steps to LC problems. In fact I would argue that this is already the status quo. You may still be able to learn how they would approach a problem this way, but if they are good at “selling themselves” they can make all that “seem” real as well.

As long as you don’t wake me at 3AM to rotate a red-black tree, or find the median of two sorted arrays we should be good

I have always seen LeetCode problems as effectively hazing rituals in a job interview setting. A high pressure interview situation simply won’t bring out peak problem-solving capabilities in many people. At best you get some superficial insight into someone’s problem solving methodology, but at worst you filter out otherwise excellent fits for not being able to solve an ultimately inconsequential problem under pressure.

LeetCode questions as interview questions are mostly theater. Most people who do well on these aren’t actually “solving them” on the fly from scratch. They just happen to have seen the exact same problem before and retake the steps they’ve memorized to get to the answer. Testing whether or not someone can regurgitate the solution they have memorized to a math problem doesn’t tell you much about how they will perform in a truly novel non-contrived constraint problem scenario, which is generally what most dev work entails.

Perhaps if you are working at Bespoke Algorithms ‘R Us, benchmarking this would have more value to your org, but for most dev roles at most companies it is hard to see it as more than a compliance exercise, or maybe even as a tool to weed out those with families that can’t devote the hours/day to LC memorization.

How would changing the mechanics of grading affect graduate readiness for jobs? I think two separate ideas are being conflated.

Whether or not someone gets an A or a C in a course for Physics likely will not have any bearing on the needs of an employer who needs someone who is a Python wiz for data science.

Maybe the bigger problem is colleges offering undergraduate majors which lack demand, coupled with in-demand majors not having enough relevant course content for the job market, or maybe employers have just gotten more unreasonable in terms of expectations for graduates over time?

It's hard to make the argument these students are less qualified.. look at the acceptance rate of top schools over time, its essentially at or near all-time low percentages for the majority.

In a just society this would be considered extortion

In terms of raw output, the answer is likely no.

However, this might not matter as much now as it did in the past due to nuclear weapons being the primary deterrent in war these days, and the fact that our standing fleet of aircraft, aircraft carriers, nuke subs, tanks, etc... is essentially second to none. Additionally what we do have is highly capable and extremely specialized, in my opinion, leading to not really needing as many (quality over quantity). Take for example, an F35, which doesn't really have an equal in the skies, we have over 630 of them, with the goal of having around 2500. China only has 300 J-20s which are basically a copy of the older F22. Russia only has 22 non-test Su-57s. Would we have a realistic need to build 1000 of them within a year?

Due to many factors, but primarily free trade and globalization, it's unlikely that we ever see that non-automated manufacturing capacity return, though if needed we could probably mobilize the economy via the defense act to force more manufacturing capacity, though it's hard to imagine we would currently need to.

I don’t think the problem is necessarily PCs being inefficient. IMO it is more likely that it is simply much harder to optimize for random hardware combinations that people run, and that there is a lot of pressure on devs to optimize console gameplay (likely at the expense of optimizing PC gameplay, perhaps devs also see less of a need to since most PCs are better equipped than consoles anyhow, that and deadline pressure)

Others may not necessarily agree, but at least anecdotally, a sizeable portion of drivers I see make all kinds of mistakes (law of averages dictates more of them are so called "neurotypical" than not no?).

"Acting Unexpectedly" can often mean following the actual laws and general guidelines for safe and/or defensive driving. I would hazard a guess that sometimes doing the intuitive thing is, in reality, unsafe and/or against the law. If the car does this in 99% of circumstances, and still gets rear-ended, who is really the problem here?

If I am reading this correctly then I think it is simply preventing the companies that buy ads on Meta from using Meta’s own generative AI features to make certain types of ads. It’s not really feasible to accurately block AI generated content anymore with good accuracy afaik.

I would imagine they did lobby against this, likely fighting tooth and nail legally. However I do not think the EU is as easily swayed, especially as EU regulators are generally skeptical of the business practices of large US multinationals. IMO, and possibly objectively, the EU is generally more pro-competition and pro-privacy, it is also much harder to buy out politicians due to the parties being really fragmented and it would appear more difficult to unilaterally impose the will of these corps on their citizens.

Likely involves their most senior devs bypassing normal deployment procedures / access controls. In this case, to be able to edit their live production environment instance instead relying on Workers KV / other impacted internal services (which a lot of their infrastructure relies on) Which would then enable a proper rollback. The aim being to restore service as quickly as possible to minimize the customer impact.

In theory this is beneficial as it helps fund the ICANN and keep it independent. But the reality is that these are effectively money printing machines, effectively out of reach for all but large corporations, which bring questionable value to the internet in general. I selfishly hope that we can establish a free TLD, or at least one which just directly funds ICANN operations instead of benefitting rich middle men.

Wouldn't having a demonstrably false accuracy rate, but simultaneously claiming to be 99% accurate in all circumstances constitute making knowingly false statements, and perhaps even malicious disregard for truth?