https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Facebook,Amazon,Google&track... says higher numbers are better (more senior, more highly paid) at Facebook, so maybe the GGP post is talking about working at Meta, leaving, and then coming back to apply for a less senior role than they'd had previously? It confused me.
I have a strong suspicion that doing pure keyword searches of job descriptions (or resumes, on the employers' side) probably has some pretty hard limits on how well it can work, especially in the presence of participants with incentives to spam.
They leak uninitialized memory contents into the HTML being served; that memory could (and did) contain data from any other traffic that passed through their hands.
So a request sent to Cloudflare customer A's site could return data from Cloudflare customer B, including data that B thought was only being served via https to authenticated users of B.
I'm a long ways from being a VC, but I see one reason they might prefer the larger, higher-burn-rate company. I think one of the hard jobs for a VC-funded startup is growing really fast (to become big enough to be worth-while when the VCs cash out). The company with more head count may have a head-start on that growth (assuming they actually hired the right people). So if you're a VC looking to place a bet on a company becoming huge enough to offset all your other failed bets, a company that's being very cautious about growth might not be what you're looking for.
Also, there's apparently evidence that prior trauma puts you at greater risk of PTSD from subsequent trauma. Which helps explain why different people in more or less the same situation can have very different responses, because of their different experiences earlier in life.
So you're advocating forgiving the educational loans of doctors who lose their license? Or do you leave them massively in debt, without the (relatively) lucrative profession they had assumed would allow them to pay off that debt?
I think that's a bit harsh; it's more like "If you know how to issue instructions to a computer, you can derive anything else about the world from first principles."
The author keeps talking about going through all possible proofs built from the axioms, as if that's a thing that obviously could be done. However, if your system is complicated enough to allow arbitrarily large combinations of axioms in your proofs, then I don't understand how you can expect enumeration of all proofs to be a finite process. Any statement that says "enumerate all possible proofs" followed by "and then do X" is meaningless, because you will never reach the "do X" step!
My understanding is that telephone, cable, and power providers share the poles. Don't the power companies usually own the poles? So if they added internet providers to the list of companies authorized to share the poles, AT&T wouldn't have grounds for complaint. Since internet providers (such as AT&T) already share the poles, this seems like a reasonable move.
In my neighborhood we had 2 competing cable providers for about a decade, and they managed to share the poles (along with the phone company and the power company) without any problems (or at least, any problems that made the news).
One obvious reason would be if they don't trust the book value. For example, if the assumptions made in computing the book value are systematically wrong in some way.
The fact that the article presents different metrics in response to different inputs (CEO expressions of disgust correlated with 9.3% boost in overall profits over the following quarter, CEO expressions of fear correlated with 0.4% rise in stock price the following week) makes me strongly suspect excessive data-mining.
It's not £8 per call, it's £8 per minute. I don't know the protocol for satellite calls, but I'd been taught that for both 911 calls and VHF-Marine distress calls, you're supposed to stay in contact with the dispatcher, to update them as the situation changes and to help guide the responders to your location. E.g: "The fire truck is at Smith Street, they can't find you." "No, I'm on Smith Lane, not Smith Street". Or "I can hear the helicopter, it sounds like they just flew by south of me, can you have them fly back 1000 yards further north?" For satellite distress calls, I would imagine this could take a while, though I imagine they'd set up a schedule where you'd only call back periodically.
The difference is that if NASA screws up, there's a certain percentage chance that the bug will be exposed, and cause a problem. That percentage usually stays constant over the lifetime of the system, regardless of how many times the bug has already bitten them. In an adversarial situation, there's a percentage chance that the bug will be exposed, and after that a 100% chance that adversaries will exploit it.
If you reach the page through a Google search ("tea grown in scotland" gave it as the 8th result), they show you the article after a short marketing-interests questionnaire.