I’ve had cases where the live coding session is collaborative and easy going. And cases where the interviewer scowls, chews on their fingers, or constantly scratches themselves.
After one particularly distracting interview, I explained to my partner that a live coding interview is like filming a porno to prove you’re good husband material.
Ive been collecting Model M and Model F keyboards from IBM off from Ebay over the last few years. I've got quite a collection now. Only the IBM manufactured keyboards, no Lexmark or third-party.
I remember typing on a Model M as a kid. My fingers pushing the empty spaces between CTRL and ALT, where on newer keyboards, an OS meta now lives.
I remember writing Basic. Then Turbo Pascal. Full of curiosity and wonder.
The IBM authentic keyboards have a badge on the back with the year and month of manufacture. Most of these keyboards are older than my co-workers. Many still function correctly.
I'm guessing you're talking about Julian. What's interesting in this case, is that Julian refused to let himself get arrested which would have brought him to court and due process.
But that's not what happened in Canada. With no due process non-violent people were unbanked, simply for protesting against the government.
Simply speaking, Visa and Mastercard debanked Wikipedia because of their journalistic activities, simply because the US government did not like them, before there was any judicial process whatsoever.
I'm specifically thinking about political protestors. Such as BLM. Or No Kings.
Their right to political protest is protected and VC/MC isn't going to un-bank them without a court order. And since their right to protest is protected, that's unlikely to happen. Unlike Canada.
The Government was unhappy with them because they were occupying the capital, blocking border crossings, and their MOU demanded that Parliament be dissolved, and that Senators and Bureaucrats who disagreed with the MOU resign; under the threat of the Governor General not allowing Parliament to sit again.
It was entirely warranted to freeze their accounts and make arrests.
And when other protests like BLM caused huge public disruption during a pandemic the government did nothing. It was entirely a political response.
In a free society people should be able to protest whatever in public without getting arrested and debanked. Otherwise you might as well be one of those authoritarian countries where protesting requires a permit.
Different country, different Government, different protests.
BLM was a nothingburger in Canada. The most similar protests to that would have been the Wet'suwet'en solidarity protests. Those lasted a few weeks and were ultimately resolved peacefully, for the most part. An important thing to consider is that the protestors weren't interested in toppling the Government; they simply wanted the Government to hear them.
Not the original poster, and I don't have very high hopes that these will be revisited, but some things I would like to see revisited are:
- ability to define anonymous functions without having to put it inside an anonymous struct. I get the argument against closures (even if I don't fully agree with it), but not having first class support for anonymous functions feels pretty regressive for a modern language
- have a way to include payload data with errors. Or at the very least, define an idiomatic pattern for handling cases where you have additional data for an error
- allow struct fields to be private
- bring back async support in some form (this one I do have some hope for)
I would like to have some kind of interfaces instead of having to always use anytype, so compiler errors will appear in the call site instead of the called function body
(That link seems to show the "unused local variable" error line twice for me; that's some kind of bug with this zigbin service and does not reproduce when running the Zig compiler normally.)
I think this should be a warning on debug builds and an error on release builds, but it's a relatively minor thing and not a deal breaker by any means.
If this is the worst thing that people would like to see revisited, Zig must be doing amazingly well.
> but it's a relatively minor thing and not a deal breaker by any means.
It totally breaks my normal workflow. I don’t use zig at all because of this misfeature. Warn in debug and error on release builds would be strange but fine.
Looks like Apple is forcing the question: Will the EU compel Apple to give away or license their software, apis, and technology at some price other than Apple sets?
If the EU takes that position, I’d have to think the US and other governments would start to look at EU IP the same way. Something to be regulated and taken at a price that local government prefers.
> give away or license their software, apis, and technology
This is a strange concept, especially in historical context. Windows, for example, was always free to develop on unless you wanted to use MS’s tooling, in which case you could buy in a la carte or subscribe to MSDN. The owner of the device had a license to the technology and MS’s stack, and the developers licensed the developer tools if they chose to do so.
Even on iOS, the dev tools are cheap, and the device owner holds an iOS license. And the charge for distributing software is $0 — there is no charge for distributing software.
So what Apple really seems to be charging for is permission to charge money for iOS apps. And I think I’m with the EU here — Apple is gatekeeping and is charging something entirely unrelated to Apple’s costs.
I think its fair to say that Microsoft Windows is a different product entirely. Microsoft's business model literally a monopoly (100% install base) and they were willing to make different trade offs to get there. Interestingly though, the OS cost money--not free. So to run that "free" software, you had to pay MS money for the privilege.
iOS dev tools may be cheap. But that's not point. Apple has invested billions into that ecosystem. And to foster adoption, Apple's licensing model allowed for "free" software. But that was funded by the revenue collected from non-free iOS apps.
1990s-era Windows was a sort-of monopoly -- MS had a monopoly on Windows, and Windows ran on the substantial majority of PCs, and PCs were much of the market. But users could also get a Mac or one of several Unix-ish machines or an OS/2 machine or a BeOS machine, etc. So MS's actual monopoly was on platform that developers needed to target to make software to run on Windows machines.
Right now, Apple has a monopoly on the software running on iPhones and iPads and a near-but-not-complete monopoly on software running on laptops and desktops and Mac Minis. And there are plenty of users of various Android phones and even a handful of devices that are neither iOS nor Android.
So what's the difference? Apple wants to take a cut of gross sales of software targeting iOS, even in cases where Apple is uninvolved in the distribution of that software, and even when that software actually targets a platform-agnostic system and that system knows how to target iOS. Microsoft did not.
Consumer pays for the hardware, or are you suggesting the software updates should be paid again?
This is a genuine question - Google pays for android updates to be free because the android business model is spyware to support Google’s ad business. Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation, etc where the developers for those platforms are paying MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc
Apple isn’t even charging high rates: their commissions match or are lower than other stores, when those other stores are literally only providing payment services.
> Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation
This would be closer to reality if Apple didn't drive hardware margins that are quite literally orders-of-magnitude larger than any comparable games console. When the Nintendo Switch launched it was shipping below-cost after accounting for shipping, whereas there has never been a modern Apple product that didn't ship with profitable hardware.
So when you scrutinize the two no, they really aren't similar. Apple cannot use the same excuse that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo use.
Well, unless there's a regulation against it, they're allowed to both 1) charge for the device and 2) charge for additional software / upgrades you want to set on the device.
If Apple is banned from collecting revenues from the software side, then I guess they'd be stuck with either accepting the new substantially lower margin structure. Or raising the price of the phones to compensate for the missing software margin.
Lower revenue isn't "giving away". Under Apple's logic here it's a tiny leap that they should be entitled to 20% of all online purchases. They developed the web browser the customer used to navigate there after all. But it's not clear how an app is really different and some how acceptable to tithe. It's just obscene.
You could argue that the purchase of the device should cover the OS delivered with the device. But you certainly can’t demand that it must cover OS updates, at least not updates that add new features.
There was a time when major OS updates was something you got charged for.
The reason Apple develops free OS updates for fairly old devices now is that they still get App Store revenues from the users of those old devices.
Not really related to this argument, but for a while in that era Apple was under the impression that Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules demanded that they charge for software enabling new features of existing products. So various software upgrades came with more or less trivial price tags.
It didn’t last long; I guess some combination of lawyers, accountants, and regulators clarified the matter.
The paid upgrade to be able to add events to the calendar in iOS was something like 20-25€ IIRC for my ipod touch first generation. I did not get it. I thought it was a rip off. It was free for iphones though.
You do know that iPhone updates were free prior to the App Store right? And that OS X still had paid updates even after the introduction Mac App Store? And that macOS didn't start being used until 10.12 well after upgrades went free?
Commission revenue doesn't explain Apple's free updates nor is a requirement for them. Software updates were free for many Windows Mobile handsets despite there being no central MS owned and tithed Windows Mobile software store.
EDIT: And early Mac OS releases prior to System 7 were free too!
Windows updates has always been free too. Microsoft still made quite a bit money from new sales of Windows and corporate subscriptions until they switched to ad-infested model. Why Apple cannot? They have the biggest margins in hardware sales alone compared to other hardware vendors.
Standing up can work but the stakes are different in war vs fighting back on a school bus.
Human loss is an absolute tragedy. Often [always?] times those who command the war have the least to lose. They protect their children but the white/black/brown “trash” kids they are quick to deploy. This fact is shown multiple times in every conflict in living memory.
Just search “Russian drone soldier” on Twitter. This is tragedy. Imagine if it was you or your dad or your brother or your son. Then all the fricking Israeli and Palestinian kids. Horror.
I’m not a peacenik, there are reasons for war. They should not be taken lightly. It’s like chemotherapy, use it if you have to but if you have ANY other option, consider that.
