What is an example of these absurd hoops you talk of, w.r.t the google interview process specifically? I just went through the process and had a much more positive experience, so i’m interested to know.
The fact that you are meant to specifically study for the interview unlike 99% of all other companies, so the interview to a large extent evaluates how much time you've spent willingly studying the Google interview - i.e. how much you really, really want to work specifically at Google.
It's not exactly a recipe for hiring people that are going to push back on corporate decisions.
>> If a bird shits on your hand will you use paper or water to clean it ?
>That's a misleading analogy. Do you eat off your butt? If I got bird poo on my bare foot, I'd wipe it off in the dirt and move on. Most people shower every few days anyway. I don't care how clean my butt is, just as long as it doesn't smell and it doesn't itch.
I think this hits at the root of the disagreement. If I get bird poo on my bare foot, I am totally washing that off with water - i am not comfortable wiping it off with paper and then tracking that onto my hand/clothes. To each their own. I believe it is harder to get your butt not to stink or itch when just using paper. I use water/soap when possible, and fallback to paper when not, usually public washrooms - so I’m familiar with both, if that needs saying.
> (FYI, in English, a space is only used after end-of-sentence punctuation, not before. I've never understood why Indians consistently get this wrong.)
Interesting generalization. I haven’t seen too many Indians do that. But as long as you get the point the OP was trying to make.
> Some people criticized anesthesia as a “needless luxury”; clergymen deplored its use to reduce pain during childbirth as a frustration of the Almighty’s designs.
It’s become fashionable to take potshots at Christianity, justified or otherwise.
From a post on internationalskeptics.com[1]
> British science historian Colin A. Russell, in "The Conflict of Science and Religion" (published in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia), refers to "the alleged opposition to James Young Simpson (1811-70) for his introduction of chloroform anesthesia in midwifery":
Quote:
Despite repeated claims of clerical harassment, the evidence is almost nonexistent. Insofar as there was any conflict, it was between the London and Edinburgh medical establishments or between obstetricians and surgeons. The origins of that myth may be located in an inadequately documented footnote in White[.]”
Around query pricing, my understanding is BigQuery charges by bytes scanned uncompressed. Redshift Spectrum/Athena charges by bytes scanned compressed. That makes Athena/Spectrum cheaper as well.
They have the same rate. BigQuery and Athena are $5/TB scanned. Unless you store everything in raw JSON text, Athena will be cheaper even with most basic compression.
I’m not the author of the post. Your comment assumes a well known schema. My understanding from the post is that this solution can join and filter on “custom” datasets of arbitrary schema that each of their customers upload.
I've never played with this, but couldn't you create a table based on the dataset that the customers upload, and let your database engine handle filtering those queries? From the looks of it, even if they were doing full table scans for each query, it'd still be faster than all those unions...
It's a double edged sword. When you don't limit connections and customers push their servers beyond their limits, some of them then ask why Google didn't do anything to prevent the situation from happening. Ideally, this would be solved by having better failure modes but that's not really the case today.
Most product decisions are not set in stone and can be changed if there's sufficient evidence to suggest that they do more harm than good. There's a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes to keep the service running smoothly and unfortunately/fortunately customers are not exposed to them. Some things that may appear to be simple on the surface are not when you take things like supportability into consideration.
There's no excuse, it's about a different philosophy.
AWS gives you lots of tuning controls and complexity while GCP tends to hide most of it with easier scaling and performance. It'll vary with individual products themselves but it looks like Cloud SQL is designed with that general outlook.
None of the clouds are perfect, the only viable strategy is to use the best parts of them all that fit your needs.
Slowloris is HTTP-based, right? In this case I'm not sure they didn't even have to go up to that layer 7, it seems they had some generous time-outs for TCP and SSL idle (or incomplete) sessions
> because that is who America has designated as their community support system.
This seems unjustified. Your statement assumes (a) Support systems in the community are run only by religious people. This implies (b) Non-religious people do not run any community programs.
Assuming (b) is true (which it may very well not be), the question that needs to be asked is, why do non-religious people and institutions not run more community programs.
Not rail against the religious people who do.
This explains it. You probably live somewhere with a reasonable social safety net. Our government safety net is full of holes, and religious people build webs to catch people who fall through.
Not all of them are bad. Some of them will just help people and not make it conditional on joining their religion. In my experience and from accounts by other LGBTQ+ people, these are the outliers.
> Why do we no longer have Renaissance men/women today, contributing to the sciences, philosophy and the arts? What did we lose?
A lot of the low-hanging fruit has already been claimed, and it's very difficult now for amateurs to make discoveries in mathematics and physics. There are people today doing amazing research, it just takes a career and a team (and in many cases expensive equipment) to do so.
If by "Renaissance men/women" you mean "well-versed/engaged in many topics", well, you just need to open your eyes. There are many folks like this now, likely millions. It was a bit more of a rarity a few hundred years ago, so it was much easier for these individuals to be documented/preserved.
The more complex (advanced) a society becomes, the more specialized its individual members have to become so the longer it takes to produce a unit for a specific function (basic education of people now takes 18 years of their life). With the exponential increase in scientific output (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/turchFigs/IMG.FIG14.1.GIF) it becomes ever harder for an individual to keep up with multiple fields (in fact, I suspect that as soon as a field becomes _too_ big it automatically branches into new fields because of this).
It would have been possible to read every book in existence on mathematics in a lifetime in the 17th century, but not in the 21st century.
I'd wager that there weren't all that many renaissance men/women back in the day either, but some of the ones that were there are now well known.
In any case, there are plenty of people contributing in a wide array of fields who are alive today. How about Franklin Story Musgraves, who has academic degrees in six different fields, including medicine, computer programming and literature. He also went into space for NASA no less than six times, served in numerous conflicts while he was in the air force, was briefly employed as a mathematician for Kodak, practiced and taught clinical medicine and is/was a consultant for Disney. I found him with the briefest of google searches for "modern renaissance men" :)
