It's fair to point out they also sued after they issued a warning shot, in the form of a C & D.
I like your analogy of the site being forked. I don't believe for a 2nd that the companies scraping the CL data and putting a pretty UX on it were doing it out of any sense of altruism.
CL is popular because it's simple, easy, cheap. They have tons of competitors that they manage to beat, so they're doing something right. Companies that want to horn in on them should create the marketplace as well as the front end, but they would fail at it so they're just left with complaining.
I don't think that temporary part fabrication for critical assembly lines qualifies as overhyping 3d printing. That seems super reasonable :) A 3d printer in every house, completely removing the need for centralized manufacture or distribution, a bit moreso.
Would this actually be a pretty bad application of 3-d printing? I thought the metals were generally or exclusively done through sintering, and and for some reason (may be incorrect) it didn't do as well with tensile & deformation stress. Not to mention porosity. Seems like something a casted product would be better for.
Don't forget agriculture, aerospace/defense, banking. Hard to get bent out of shape when someone gets a slice of the pie that is trying to improve things.
"Those fears were not in the slightest irrational. People had really really bad reactions to the regular pertussis to the point that people routinely advised new parents not to get it for their children."
Simply not true. You can easily find my citations (including CDC). Please provide yours.
"So what's better a vaccine that doesn't work as well, that people are willing to take? Or a vaccine that works well, but far fewer people are willing to take it?"
The risk from Pertussis is greater than that of DTAP by a lot. This is like suggesting we take away seat belts because some people believe they'll trap them in a burning vehicle.
Just because you are willing/able to leave a company doesn't mean you advertise it. Hence "explicit" vs "tacit" in my comment. What a person says about being loyal is irrelevant, you can't assume anyone will stay long term (kind of the point). But if they go out of their way to say they're looking, then they don't want to be there and you shouldn't waste the time & resources training them up.
That is apples and oranges. He's talking about a tacit understanding, and not necessarily in the context of upward movement. You're talking about explicitly telling management that you are actively looking. They'd have to be idiots to promote you under those circumstances.
Not a PuTTY fan. I generally install Fedora or Linux vms on personal Windows systems (where they are mandatory/heavily advantageous and where security policies permit) in large part to have openssh-client, and then use vmhgfs shares to move files between them as necessary. Among other reasons.
Test driven development usually refers to unit testing or integration testing. It would be interesting to know if you went beyond that and the nature of contract work you were doing (testing for an internal service with a RESTful API being very different from a mobile app, or a website).
1) Experts in all fields are always wrong sometimes. The nonexperts are wrong more frequently on average and people are less interested in proving them wrong.
2) Saying that implementing your own cryptography usually implies a production environment. I think it's generally assumed that nobody cares what people do with their own time/personal projects.
3) Trite sounds bites don't work in science either, and expert -/-> celebrity.
Maybe you could suggest what might be "more helpful" but I personally could not think of anything more useful that than telling people to not do something that puts their customers' and their own critical information at risk.
Good crypto algorithms don't get stale or anything. The point is they're fundamentally difficult.
Perhaps you could give a single decent reason for rolling your own crypto algorithm, vs something as easy as 4096 bit RSA or something.
It will turn into a cloud of asteroids surrounding the earth intended to prevent the human race from unleashing whatever hell we create with those autonomous mining robots on the ISS (would be my guess, at least). Feel like the agent/patient distinction is pretty blunt foreshadowing against it being a survival/resilience story against and abstract antagonist like a random natural disaster.
edit: @jaquesm - i'm allowing for creative license, and was making guess explaining what would happened based on my gut feel for the plot direction. you're probably correct on the physics.
Typical process might be - and this is at a very hight/crude level - 1) job that checks out & runs unit tests triggering 2) a job that creates a build triggering 3) a job deploying to an integration/staging environment and possibly even triggering (or with an air gap, requiring manually running) 4) a job to promote to a production environment.
Testing can/should be added between various steps there depending on the type of product you are working with. Automated functional tests be integrated into a process like that at several points (qa ownership of portions of unit/integration testing framework and automated tests that smoke test new deployments to a staging environment) and knowing those points/tools that integrate well with your CI system/ability to implement those integrations is probably something you want a qa manager to be familiar with.
This is a pretty good list. It's a bit self-serving on the technology questions as well as the general line of questioning for TestMunk (understandably).
If you are really hiring a QA Manager, also consider asking them about their team structure/building philosophy, elaborate on the technical requirements for those roles, if they have experience developing a testing process that works with your company/group's development process. What experience they have with problem hires and how they've dealt with them.
This is really a list of questions of a principal test engineer. A good manager should be able to answer them, too, but it's far more important that they can make a group of QA engineers perform well (otherwise you should be hiring a QA lead).
You should talk to a CPA [edit: sorry, Canada - CGA], not an attorney, first.
You are upset about something that might not be an issue. You haven't mentioned what type of stock options you have (in the US there are ISO and NQSO, and - upon a quick check - it appears there are different types in Canada as well, with differing tax treatment). Omitting that detail in addition to the ... unusual way in which you exercised them makes me think you may have more of an academic familiarity with the process.
It would have been nice if the founders told you about the investment, but your reaction is completely out of proportion with what happened. Lawyering up [edit: distinct from a consultation] will be the equivalent of ending your career track with them and burning your bridges entirely.
And really, if the market value of your options has increased, consider the positive side of that news if you own 3%.
I like your analogy of the site being forked. I don't believe for a 2nd that the companies scraping the CL data and putting a pretty UX on it were doing it out of any sense of altruism.