Hey that's me! I was being a little too cute and flippant when I said that (I forgot I was in interview mode and not talk to colleague mode) but I stand by the idea that from a regular user perspective the security difference between a kernel driver and any other piece of software is minimal!
You're not wrong about GC becoming more common in games, as you say Unreal has a GC and so does Unity.
Unreal Engine's GC at least is pretty custom. A lot of effort has been put into it to allow developers to control he worst case run time. It has a system that allows incremental sweeps (and multi-threaded parallel sweeping) and will pause its sweeps as it approaches its allotted time limits.
That said, in my experience with Unreal most large projects choose to turn off the per-frame GC checks and manually control it. For example one project I've seen only invoked the GC when the player dies, a level transition happens or once every 10 minutes (as a fallback).
In 2014 Riot released numbers of 7.5MM peak concurrent players for League of Legends (off a MAU 67MM) and in 2016 reported a MAU of 100MM (but no new concurrency figures). Those are old stats but still useful for comparison.
Disclaimer: I work at Riot but don't have any internal numbers to share.
It looks like autocorrect wasn't sent in the clear at least according to one report.
This[1] report on this incident (commissioned by the wallet creators) makes me skeptical that autocorrect or Google was involved at all. I think some sort of malware or phishing to steal the seed was a much more likely attack.
Some podcasts do algorithmic auction style ad sales with targeting based off geolocation on the downloading ip address. This works by generating a new audio file for each download. I think the industry calls it "dyanmic ad insertion".
I'm in a similar position. I was thinking about finding a new smaller place in the west side perhaps one with an in unit laundry or better air-conditioning.
Looking around I've realized that rent control has me paying significantly less than market and that even if I downsized I'd probably end up paying $1000/month extra if I moved. After realizing this I'm unlikely to move until/unless I decide to leave LA.
I'm happy I'm getting a good deal but it doesn't feel very efficient for the housing market over all.
I wonder if this could be more easily adopted by Silicon Valley style startups if this ownership was of what would normally be the employee option pool rather than the whole company.
That way you'd still be compatible with venture capital, quarantine the hours worked dilution to the pool and you can treat founders differently to employees if you want by having founders shares outside the option pool.
It's the same in Australia, New Zealand, UK and probably other places too. 30 year fixed rate mortgages are probably the exception rather than the rule in most places.
At the game studios that I'm familiar with the term "game developer" refers to anyone working on the game and not just the programmers. So an artist or writer would generally be considered a game developer but the studio's accountant and CEO would probably not be considered game developers.
I don't think it's a problem at all except for the small issue that PUBG is an Unreal Engine game and there's a possibility that Epic's inside information about PUBG benefited their development of Fortnite. It's all just speculation (and a settled lawsuit?) but it's an awkward piece of the genre's history.
This is both for people using tools and people accessing servers and databases directly.
Logging into production servers is audited and triggers alarms. There's basically no-one who has "root" level access to a large number of boxes (when I left in 2013 there were only a handful of people who could login to arbitrary boxes and systems were being built so that their access would no longer be necessary). Logging into a server that holds live data would be investigated and so would running a custom query against a production database. The goal was to have it basically impossible for an engineer or admin to directly access data on boxes to force people to use the tools.
The tools themselves had a great permission system as well as a way for users to elevate their permissions in emergency (triggering an investigation). It worked well because it was also easy to create dummy databases to develop on (for example by requesting a database extract of your own location data).
In my career to date I have yet to see a more privacy conscious / secure approach to handling customer data.
Google has amazing controls and audit capabilities around access to customer data. When I worked on the security team there the number of people who could access a specific person's data without an audit record and an alert being triggered was zero.
Proposal Number 6 Stockholder Proposal Regarding a Report on Gender Pay
Proposal Number 9 Stockholder Proposal Regarding Board Diversity and Qualifications
Proposal Number 10 Stockholder Proposal Regarding a Report on Content Governance
I'm not that familiar with corporate motions so I might be misinterpreting what I'm reading but it looks like the motions are for Alphabet to produce a report about gender pay discrimination, to disclose the qualifications of the board (including ideological leanings and biographical data), and to produce a report on the efficacy of Alphabet's terms of service enforcement (in particular around user uploaded content).
Alphabet's disagreeing statements on the first one is largely of the form "we think gender pay is an important issue (see existing published reports) but we don't think this is motion is a good idea". The second one they actually support saying "sure, a diverse board is a good idea". For the third one their response is along the lines of "We take this seriously to the tune of hiring thousands of people to enforce our terms of service".
My biggest surprise after seeing the article and reading the materials myself was that the second proposal (board diversity) claims that Alphabet is known to "operate in ideological hegemony that eschews conservative people" which is not the impression I took away from the article.
I don't think that the officers did anything wrong.
I didn't like that the officers only decided to search my vehicle after they knew I wasn't a US citizen and then abandoned the search once they saw my visa but I don't think that these decisions exceeded the discretion that the offices are authorized to use during a stop.
I also didn't like that the officers made me uncomfortable and nervous during the stop but again I don't think the officers were acting inappropriately. It's on me that even with my government background I get nervous interacting with officials in situations like this.
I guess if anything my complaint is that I would prefer that border patrol checkpoints only stop people who are in the process of crossing a border rather than random highway checkpoints (in this case I was probably an hour away from the border) and if you are stopping people without reasonable suspicion or probable cause I'd prefer that the same stop procedures be applied to everyone.