I don't have the same experience with Apple. My MacBook had to get replaced multiple times due to a bad graphics card. My subsequent one had to get replaced multiple times because of the butterfly keyboards breaking.
So far so good on the latest one but it's annoying to deal with so many replacements
Consider another example. Google suggests an alternate route that will presumably save 15 minutes.
Let's say enough cars take the suggestion to slow down that route by 10 minutes and speed up this one by 10 minutes. Even if you end up saving five minutes relative to the original estimate, you'd have saved ten minutes staying put.
You're describing the generalized second price auction (GSP) which is NOT incentive compatible, which means the optimal strategy isn't to bid truthfully. VCG is.
I'm curious, if the message saying that "FB will also import contacts if you proceed" were still visible, would you still consider it "unauthorized access"? Is it really "unauthorized" if users give informed consent?
I doubt it, so it seems that we're just bickering over whether the accidental removal of the message is considered a "bug" or a malicious act by some engineer to trick users into sharing their data because they (and their company) lack business ethics.
> A Facebook spokesperson said before May 2016, it offered an option to verify a user's account using their email password and voluntarily upload their contacts at the same time. However, they said, the company changed the feature, and the text informing users that their contacts would be uploaded was deleted — but the underlying functionality was not.
> "Last month we stopped offering email password verification as an option for people verifying their account when signing up for Facebook for the first time. When we looked into the steps people were going through to verify their accounts we found that in some cases people's email contacts were also unintentionally uploaded to Facebook when they created their account"
so Facebook discovered this bug in an audit of its code, fixed it, and planned to notify everyone who was impacted.
> A Facebook spokesperson said before May 2016, it offered an option to verify a user's account using their email password and voluntarily upload their contacts at the same time. However, they said, the company changed the feature, and the text informing users that their contacts would be uploaded was deleted — but the underlying functionality was not.
I doubt it was an engineer who deliberately removed the text but kept the contact import functionality.
> Random IO is processed first through the SSDs (the thing that they are really good at) while sequential IO short-cuts to the hard drives - which is pretty slick.
Any idea why the sequential benchmark numbers improved 4-5x when it is still "short-cutting" to the HDs?
> I was still working full time at Powerset on July 1, 2008
I'm curious how this works normally. He was employed full time at PowerSet nine months after he started working "full time" on Github. What did Powerset think of his devoting his time and energy to Github? What is the industry norm? What about the IP issues that complicate the matter? Couldn't Powerset have claimed ownership over Github since he was a salaried employee?
Like a butt-load of positive PR? I think they calculated that the positive PR value (or maybe mitigating negative PR) was worth the incremental cost of capital from the normal markets vs. from the DOE
This is interesting and expected for evenly distributed request patterns. How about for more typical request patterns that follow power-law distributions? I would guess that it'd lead to much fewer page faults. I could write some math but does the benchmark tool let you choose a distribution of keys, which would help check that type of pattern?
