Back when I was on usenet, it was a common joke that all real programmers used emacs - and at the time I was a vi guy. It took me so long to get the muscle memory to do what I needed in vi that I thought I'd never change. But sure enough, I'm a nerd, and just like when I tried to learn the Dvorak keyboard layout, I decided to spend two weeks learning emacs. Absolutely frustrating for a few days. But I've been on emacs ever since. Some years I didn't update my emacs config or install any updates at all. Some years, that's MOST of what I did.
No shade at all to VIM or any other community of evangelists who have taken the time to get all the power they can out of their toolset. What works for you works.
But between org-mode and the 70 other features that I've come to know and love (like projectile, flycheck, ivy, m-x butterfly, yasnippet, etc.), I'm never looking back. I will occasionally use another tool for a specific purpose, and sometimes those tools have features and niceness that is hard to beat, but most of what I do professionally is just plain typing and I'm way more productive in emacs than any other typing tool.
Pretty cool that after all these years I can see an article like this and learn a thing or two as well. Thanks OP!
Wow gitlab. Right when everyone was looking to see if you could lead with all the fails at github, you basically said "We're going to throw our source at ChatGPT and see what happens"
The title of the article and the content of the article are not the same. Zuck has been accused, according to the article, but then the article itself basically says that Meta was pursuing licensing and then at some point the business unit responsible for pursuing that licensing was told not to, presumably because there was a fair-use strategy of some sort in place so licensing would not be required.
Not popular. Core. It was the trusted place for open source software. Then it was ads. Then the day they bundled there was a MASS exodus. And the 14 people who ran their own source code interfaces scoffed and said "see. I told you." And we all said "yup" - we knew something would happen one day, but that was a worst-case-scenario that few thought was even a remote possibility.
I wrote a whole project in pascal around that time. Analyzing two datasets. It was running out of memory the night before it was due, so I decided to have it run twice, once for each dataset.
That's when I learned a very important principal. "When something needs doing quickly, don't force artificial constraints on yourself"
I could have spent three days figuring out how to deal with the memory constraints. But instead I just cut the data in half and gave it two runs. The quick solution was the one that was needed. Kind of an important memory for me that I have thought about quite a bit in the last 30+ years.
> Assembly isn't that hard, those of us that grown around 8 bit home computers were writing Z80 and 6502 Assembly aged 10 - 12 years old, while having fun cracking games and setting the roots of Demoscene.
It's funny to me that this is news to anyone. This has been going on for quite some time - at least the length of my career. For the longest time it was wide open for anyone to access who had an inkling of knowledge about how mobile devices worked.
Did this _never_ come up at defcon or in an issue of 2600? Are people really _that_ focused on web security?
I suppose I phrased things a bit harshly. I see value in LinkedIn from a candidate/networking perspective. From a validation/reference perspective is where I see the issue.
This isn't the first I've heard of using it for back-channel references. I think that is pretty common in the bay area.
It's strange to me how much linkedin is valued in silicon valley because to me it's like the ugly stepsister of social networking. Expecting someone to have a fully built out profile and expecting that person to actively seek out contacts in their own company is strange. I typically seek out contacts either when I first meet them or not at all. The only rhyme or reason to when I do it is when I happen to have a reason to be on linkedin. People are very haphazard about what their contacts look like. Some people have 50% recruiters, some people it's all friends, some people it's work colleagues, some people it's potential clients. Just because you know somebody doesn't mean that you are linkedin friends, and just because you aren't linkedin friends, doesn't mean that that person knows much about you at all.
I wouldn't trust social profile hunting as a real gauge for anyone's abilities. I know plenty of good coders that don't have github accounts because they aren't involved in open source at all. There are plenty of recruiters that don't know linkedin because they have other sources that fill their pipelines. There are people that build out their profiles specifically for job searches. There are others that won't build out a profile at all.
As far as back-channel references go, I'm not a fan. I expect references to be minimal because giving a reference is odd territory. A bad reference can result in a lawsuit, so why would anyone ever give a bad one? A TMI good reference can result in a lawsuit. People should stick to the basics.
The danger territory as far as I'm concerned is hiring someone at the tail end of a long group of rejects. You peel back your instincts in order to get to the finish line.