I spent some time with my kid trying to get ChatGPT 4 to write bedtime stories. We found that it kept devolving into the pattern of a generic but acceptable setup followed by something like "and then the heroes solved a variety of challenges, learning together and having fun all the way" that completely skips the meat of the story. We also noticed that it was difficult to goad the AI into adding any quotations; the characters rarely _say_ anything.
If this really needs to happen then I like .GetAwaiter().GetResult() instead of .Result to get the same exception behavior as await rather than the wrapped AggregateException that .Result throws. This is especially helpful if DoSomethingAsync sometimes throws synchronously rather than returning a task.
One thing that frustrates me is that as far as I'm aware none of the delivery apps provide an option for me to tip the restaurant. Especially in these times I want to give some extra support to the workers preparing my meal. The lack of that option is one of the main reasons I usually pick up myself; if any of the delivery apps added the feature I would immediately switch to it!
You could also consider the Precision 5510 [1] if a Quadro GPU works for you. Essentially an XPS 15 but it includes Intel wifi. Recently got one from work and I've been pretty happy with it.
I enthusiastically second this recommendation; Quirks & Quarks has definitely been my favorite podcast recently and is the only one I listen to that holds my attention and interest every single program. It covers a delightfully broad range of scientific topics and while nothing is explored in too much detail, Bob asks interesting and substantiative questions of the serious researchers he has as guests and gives them plenty of time to formulate a complete answer.
A tape that ends with three blues still ends with two blues. But fair enough, if there were a test case then there wouldn't be this ambiguity. Anyway, fun little game. I wonder how non-programmers receive it.
With regards to your last point: I don't doubt that the vast majority of hiring processes aren't correlated with on-the-job success, but Google is definitely the kind of company that would strive for objective measures and to refine their process. They at least claim it's working. I think it was on the Stack Overflow podcast that I heard a discussion of Peter Norvig's remarks about this in Coders at Work. He evidently posted something similar online:
"Our interviews are more to do with practical problem solving, not with puzzles and tricks. Our interview scores actually correlate very well with on-the-job performance: we are doing quite well at hiring the right people, we believe, and we work hard at analyzing the process. Peter Seibel asked me if there was anything counterintuitive about the process and I said that people who got one low score but were hired anyway did well on-the-job. To me, that means the interview process is doing very well, not that it is broken. It means that we don't let one bad interview blackball a candidate. We'll keep interviewing, keep hiring, and keep analyzing the results to improve the process." http://www.mv-voice.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=&t=16...
Oh, that's a pretty small area then. When I saw the map in the article I thought that the suggestion was that all those roads were non-existant. If it's just a blank area of map with a stray label then it's a lot less interesting, but makes a whole lot more sense of course. Thanks for the info.