No, but it’s basically a “I can use it to build my billion-dollar business and keep the profits if I want” license. The only real catch is that if I decide to modify the code and distribute it, I’m required by the license to share those changes with whoever gets the modified version. There’s nothing in the GPL that stops me from being a downstream freeloader, and I can stay on whatever version I like—no one’s forcing me to update to newer ones with terms I don’t agree with. Forking and modifying for my own needs is totally fine, as long as I slap the same GPL on the changes if I hand them out.

1:0

Ugly bags.

The article I posted pointed out that they’re trying to not waste the candidate’s time, as well. They used to do 12 fucking rounds of interviews—and because it’s Google, people tolerated that crap. One of my best friends is an old-school Googler that got in through that gauntlet.

Keep that in mind when you claim it’s an employer’s power play—in this case, it’s really not. More than four interviews, twelve, sure I can believe that. You should read about what some of the elite tier government special ops groups go through.

At this point we’re quibbling over a delta of one interview—I think we’re probably pretty close, or close enough to say “agree to disagree on the rest.”

Cheers.

You can scan before the encryption step. It defeats the purpose of the encryption such that only the privileged actor gets plaintext while everyone downstream gets encrypted bytes, but technically it’s possible.

It’s only a matter of time until a vulnerability in the privilege is found and silently exploited by a nefarious monkey, and that’s precisely why adding backdoors should never be done.

Google has done way more research on this topic than both you and I collectively and they settled in on 4 interviews being the sweet spot to get enough signal to be 86% confident, while not wasting any more of anyone’s time than needed chasing after single-point confidence improvements. In my experience, I agree with this. I’ve been through 6-round and 3-round (both to offer). Even as a candidate I guess I feel like i wanted that fourth round. Kinda hard to tell what a company culture is from just three meets. And after six rounds I was just freaking exhausted and didn’t really have a high opinion of that company-they couldn’t seem to figure out a clear mission/vision for their product and I thought their overly complicated and drawn-out interview process was a reflection of that.

Google goes into more depth as to why the three-tech + 1 behavioral/cultural model works for them. They call it a work-sample test.

The best predictor of how someone will perform in a job is a work sample test (29 percent). This entails giving candidates a sample piece of work, similar to that which they would do in the job, and assessing their performance at it.

Both articles linked are well worth the time to read. Hiring is a messy and inconvenient process for both companies and employees.

I’d say it actually goes further. We have plenty of evidence leading to the realization of fact that simply measuring a phenomenon changes the phenomenon. From a quantum mechanics perspective we say things like “measuring the phenomenon collapses its wave function to a single state.”

When a quantum system is measured, its wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential outcomes, collapses to a single definite state corresponding to the result of the measurement.

All macroscopic phenomena comprise nanoscopic quantum phenomena.

Super fucking weird to think about. The classic undergrad physics experiment is the double-slit experiment— particles like electrons create an interference pattern when unobserved, acting like waves and passing through both slits at once. However, when we measure which slit a particle goes through, this wave-like behavior disappears, and the particle behaves as if it went through only one slit. This shows that measurement collapses the particle’s wave function from multiple possibilities into a single, definite state.

Similarly, despite being depicted as such in early exposures to chemistry, electrons don’t “orbit” the nucleus like planets do their stars—rather they have regions around the nucleus in which they are more probably found. These misleadingly named “orbitals” vary in shape.

Finally, we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; which states that we can measure either a particle’s speed (kinetic energy) or its location, but not both, because the act of measuring (observing) that particle irrevocably changes it.

Here’s a macroscopic example of how measuring/observing things changes the thing. When you measure the temperature of an object using a thermometer, the object is either transmitting or receiving thermal energy to/from the thermometer, because the thermometer needs to be in contact and thermal equilibrium with the object. The object’s total energy level has now changed—even if it’s a trivial change it’s also non-zero. Measuring/observing the object in this way has changed it.

omg it goes deeper. I love physics. Classical mechanics models work well when we want to explain and predict macroscopic and limited chain-of-events phenomena. We can predict with high confidence that a 2000 kg car traveling at 100 km/h will impulse this much force and energy to a stationary object when they collide, assuming a perfectly inelastic collision, spherical cows, etc. We can’t model with any confidence with any classical model how the displaced air molecules from this collision in Nuremberg, Germany will create tornadoes in six months in Wichita, Kansas, USA. That’s the butterfly effect.

Ultimately, this interplay between measurement and outcome highlights a fundamental truth in both quantum mechanics and chaos theory: the universe is inherently unpredictable at every scale. Just as the behavior of subatomic particles is influenced by the act of observation, the butterfly effect shows us that small changes can lead to significant consequences in complex systems. This intertwining of uncertainty and complexity underscores the limitations of our predictive models, whether they pertain to the quantum realm or the macroscopic world.

I’m not a political scientist or at all a political expert, so I lack the background to make a supported or definitive statement to that effect. So this is my opinion based on what I’ve seen and read but is otherwise unprofessionally qualified.

Most people probably already know how they would vote if polling day was today. The issue as I see it is not so much about chasing after the undecided voters as much as it driving engagement and enthusiasm upwards such that people actually will go vote. It’s hard to drive that enthusiasm and engagement without facetime, without being on stage giving speeches about the issues, without debating about policies and implementation. With the win/loss margins being so razor thin right now in some of the key battleground states (so-called “swing states”) anything that gets her away from the voters is a distraction that can’t be allowed to manifest.

If she wins the election being the key operative word. The race is far from won right now; her attention needs to be on her race. Ukraine does not benefit in the long run if she loses it now.

Calzones are just folded pizzas.

I don’t know dude. I took multivariable calculus, ODEs, linear algebra, modern physics; and a numerical methods for engineers class— all in the same semester. I was a fucking mess and swimming in integrals and derivatives and matrices and systems of equations (both differential and ordinary algebraic) 177% of the time. I honestly don’t remember anything of that five months of my life. 11/10 would not recommend.

I don’t know that any one book was a savior. I was reading from like three books per topic all at once to try to make heads and tails of anything and spending every minute I could in my prof’s and TA’s office hours.

Those two books were some of the only ones I kept, and just donated everything else. Maybe it’s just nostalgia.

My Dover Ordinary Differential Equations book is my second favorite math book.

My first favorite is Spivak’s Calculus.

They’re both just so beautiful. Wish I had time to relearn it all again. :)

The notion that our universe is perfectly causal to the point that you can predict exactly when and where that specific atom will decay is pretty much bunked at this point. Not that living in a probabilistic, quantum physics universe is any fucking easier to comprehend but them’s be the cards we were dealt.

Might be the only job that’s left after StarNet takes over.

Can’t wait for Nintendo to sue Microsoft because VS Code can be used to edit save files.

I’ve rejected someone on their 4th round before—1st round with me. That candidate had managed to convince the recruiter that they had the chops for a staff engineer (>$200k/yr!) and passed two coding rounds before mine, testing knowledge of relevant techs on our stack—at this level of role, you have to know this coming in; table stakes.

I was giving the systems design round. Asked them to design something that was on their resume—they couldn’t. They’d grossly misrepresented their role/involvement in that project and since they were interviewing for a staff level role, high-level design is going to be a big part of it and will impact the product and development team in significant ways. No doubt they’d been involved in implementing, and can code—but it was very clear that they didn’t understand the design decisions that were made and I had no confidence that they would contribute positively in our team.

Sucks for them to be rejected, but one criteria we look for is someone who will be honest when they don’t know—and we do push to find the frontiers of their knowledge. We even instruct them to just say it when they don’t know and we can problem-solve together. But a lot of people have too much ego to accept that, but we don’t have time for people like that on the team either.

Look, I get what you’re saying and clearly I’ve been on the wrong end of it too, but if we make a bad hiring decision, it costs not just the candidate their job but also the team and company they work on can get into a bad place too. What would you do in that situation? Just hire them anyway and risk the livelihood of everyone else on the team? That’s a non-starter; try to see a bigger picture.

You can find The Truth^TM at TRUTH SOCIAL. See, it’s right there, in The Name. The Bigliest Truth you’ll find anywhere it’s great!

I don’t know if I agree with that. Having been on the hiring side of the table more than a few times.

Hiring a new employee is a risk; especially when you’re hiring at a senior enough level where the wrong decisions are amplified as the complexity of the software grows—and it becomes far more expensive to un/redo bad architectural decisions.

And the amount of time it takes for even an experienced engineer to learn their way around your existing stack, understand the reasons for certain design decisions, and contribute in a way that’s not disruptive—that’s like 6 months minimum for some code bases. More if there’s crazy data flows and weird ML stuff. And if they’re “full stack (backend and frontend) then it’s gonna be even longer before you see how good of a hiring decision you really made. For a $160k+/yr senior dev role, that’s $80k (before benefits and other onboarding costs) before you really expect to see anything really significant.

So you schedule as many interviews as you need to get a feel for what they can do, because false negatives are way less expensive than false positives.

Sometimes people can be cunning: charm, wow annd woo their way past even the savviest of recruiters with the right combinations of jargon patterns.

Sometimes they can even fool a technical round interviewer.

4-5 interviews (esp. if the last is an onsite in which you’ll meet many) seems to be about the norm in my field. Even if it kinda sucks for the person looking for the job.

… come to think of it now, I would have played ball with them if they’d just been transparent about the situation upfront. It was good interview practice and in retrospect prepared me well for the interviews at my current role. And I’m way happier with this company than I would’ve been there.

The Universe does funny things.

I took an interview like this before. I checked the vast majority of the boxes of technologies used, and experience in a specific type of processing models prior to deployment. Thought it was bagged and tagged mine. 4 rounds of interviews, two technical rounds and a system design.

Asked me some hyper-specific question about X and wanted a hyper-specific implementation of Z technology to solve the problem. The way I solved it would have worked, but it wasn’t the X they were looking for.

Turns out the guy interviewing me at the second tech interview round was the manager of the guy he wanted in the role—and the guy working for him already was the founder of the startup that commercialized X, and they just needed to check a box for corporate saying they’d done their diligence looking for a relevant senior engineer.

That fucking company put me through the wringer for that bullshit. 4 rounds of interviews.

Never again.