> I have been tracking junior software-engineering listings on LinkedIn and Indeed since late 2024.
I don't think such a short timeframe is indicative of anything at all. This data could be interesting if comparing to say before Covid or even before 2008, but as is, this is far too short of a timeframe to draw any actual conclusions. How would you know whether we're currently under hiring juniors or we were previously just over hiring and are now returning to the norm?
To be fair, personally I wouldn't think much of the law enforcement ones. We used to have a department for that at one of my previous gigs and it's mostly just uploading files and making sure the contacts line up with official contacts.
Yeah, it’s a good sign if anything. Any operation as big as GitHub and open to the public will need to have a way to verify and track requests from law enforcement agencies. There are going to be legitimate LE requests. The illegitimate requests (whatever happens with them) are not going through this portal, I guarantee.
Because the production environment might be a completely different architecture, these details matter a lot. Works on my machine is not useful if your actual target is a small embedded system on top of a cell tower in the middle of nowhere. Granted, most people don't work on stuff like that, I imagine the vast majority of devs here are web developers, but even still it's an interesting discussion even if you haven't run into it yourself. Maybe even more so in that case.
Um, as an embedded developer, you don't develop the code to run on your machine, you develop it to run on the same target as you expect to deploy to, sitting on your desk next to you.
I have lots of my code running day-in, day-out on literally hundreds of millions of machines. The approach to "getting it working" is exactly OP's.
I'll admit to being pretty defensive and anal in checking values and return-codes (more so than most, I suspect), and I'm a firm believer in KISS principles in software engineering ("solving hard problems with complicated code is easy, solving them with simple, understandable algorithms is the hard bit") but generally there's no real difference in approach to the code I write to work on my workstation, and the code I write to work in the field.
Embedded developers often suffer under archaic toolchains. There's plenty of reasons for that, but one of them is UB: a newer version of the compiler can completely change an embedded program's behaviour.
Where I was it was quite the opposite. The bloody compiler guys kept on updating the compiler, and we were required to use the OS-delivered one. Since we were often using pre-release OS's, the toolchain could change every week.
It did make you write robust and defensive code, though...
Was the sense of wackiness wrong though? Nearly all UFO claims went away once high quality cameras in smartphones became ubiquitous. It's useful to play around with ideas, yes, but it's also important to acknowledge that some ideas simply are wishful thinking.
>Nearly all UFO claims went away once high quality cameras in smartphones became ubiquitous.
If only, but no. Thanks to equally ubiquitous video and image editing and now AI and the profit potential of social media there are more such claims than anyone can count.
The sitting president of the US is even intentionally stirring the pot releasing obvious AI photos of himself walking with aliens while the government is releasing "evidence" that isn't any more credible than the stuff you find on Reddit and Youtube. A significant number of Americans already believe the government has confirmed the existence of aliens and UFOs on Earth thanks to "whistleblowers" like Grusch and the Tic-Tac stuff, even though the government's official position has never changed, and most of that "evidence" has been debunked, and Grusch et.al have yet to provide anything conclusive.
Far from going away, the whole thing has become normalized and I feel like we're going to reach the point where more people believe in interdimensional space elves than believe humans ever landed on the moon by the end of the decade.
> If only, but no. Thanks to equally ubiquitous video and image editing and now AI and the profit potential of social media there are more such claims than anyone can count.
That's a more recent development. UFO sightings surge when the technology aligns with them: when the camera is blurry or you're not expected to carry one, or when faking with editing or AI is trivial. But there was a long middle when everyone had access to phone cameras yet editing/faking was hard, and UFO sightings by civilians became rare.
Same with the Loch Ness monster, the Yeti, Big Foot, etc. These monsters were apparently very shy during the phone camera era, but I bet you with AI image editing they will overcome their shyness!
Most common video seems to be a balloon filmed sideways from a fast flying aircraft, with parallax giving the illusion that the balloon moves very fast.
Each EU member state has their own stock market and you often can't trade the stocks from one country through the stock exchange in another. This means that if you want to offer EU-wide stock options, you either have to convince everyone to fly to your country and register at your country's stock exchange (which few will bother doing), or go through the process of filing and managing stocks of your company at 20+ different stock exchanges.
It's one of the things that have been recently brought up again in the EU parliament, but getting everyone to agree on a common stock market is not going to be easy.
this is some next level cope the amount of wasted effort to get to the same result in the EU when compared to the US or China is insane, a major drag, and is taking hardworking people down the drain
Isn't the answer to both questions straightforward? Real life is complex and has nearly infinite degrees of freedom. This means it's hard to approximate in software. Over time, real life, your understanding of it and your approximation (the software) all change. Keeping the approximation accurate enough that it's useful takes considerable effort since now you need to understand both the real life and the previously existing approximation of it.
My wife and I got our engagement and wedding rings from Krikawa[1]. The stones on her ring were synthetic, extremely affordable given the size, and visually flawless.
(Not quite as related, but the process was also really easy; we were able to communicate everything over email, get sizing kits mailed to us rather than having to go in person, and they sent us visual mock-ups and procedurally generated 3D videos of what the results would look like, which was helpful because the rings my wife picked out had been temporarily delisted as they found an issue with it that they wanted to fix, so they went ahead and figured it out so they could make them for us without us having to wait for them to appear on the site again).
Synthetic gem-quality diamonds are old news by now. Since the 2010s, you have been able to make essentially flawless diamonds by vacuum deposition, of higher quality than anything found in nature, weighing up to a hundred karats or so.
They’re also vastly more ethically produced than most natural diamonds, and don’t have prices inflated by the artificial scarcity imposed by the De Beers monopoly.
And in China and India they're roughly 3x cheaper than that, i.e. a 3ct lab-grown stone is somewhere under $1500. (I posted a link to one absolutely typical example in a previous comment.)
It's amusing that the price of gold has skyrocketed just as the price of diamonds has nosedived. Some old rings, which were valued for the small diamonds they carried, are now more valuable for their weight in gold.
James Allen, Brilliant Earth, Jared, Blue Nile, all of these vendors sell lab created diamonds openly and let you compare side by side. A diamond that’s $10k natural can be had for $1500 lab created without any scarcity.
I worked in the FOSS space for roughly half a decade. Comments like this are easy to make and also add absolutely no value whatsoever. If you actually feel strongly about it, do the work yourself, no one is stopping you.
If you see complaining on forums and maintaining software as contributing the same kind of value, then oh boy do I have an enterprise-grade comment thread to sell you.
We'll have an LLM process the complains as proof of complaint and use that as the basis for our new cryptocurrency called CurmudgeonCoin and have an ICO. We'll make atto dollars!
It's easy to advocate for what you believe in by posting comments on HN. It's harder to advocate for what you believe in by taking a low-paying job in a FOSS company, which they presumably didn't do.
I have no qualms with him deciding to step away from developing Zulip or setting up a foundation. My qualms are with his choice to work for an AI company when someone of his experience could easily have found a job working somewhere else. Public figures should be subject to criticism of their ethical choices when they make bad ones.
Not sure I agree. The correct thing is to not mess with the URL at all if you're unsure about what to be doing to it. Doing nothing is the easiest thing of them all, why not do that?
URL normalization is defined and it doesn't include collapsing slashes.
Not that you can include custom normalization rules (like collapsing slashes, tolower()ing the entire path, removing the query part of the URL), but that's not part of the standard. If you're doing anything extra, the risk of breaking stuff is on you.
I don't think such a short timeframe is indicative of anything at all. This data could be interesting if comparing to say before Covid or even before 2008, but as is, this is far too short of a timeframe to draw any actual conclusions. How would you know whether we're currently under hiring juniors or we were previously just over hiring and are now returning to the norm?
reply