Google doesn't play that way. It revels in demoralizing as a means of encouraging others to step of their game.
This is not Microsoft that got rid of their Peer Review system to make people feel good about things rather than pushing them to be individual contributors.
No, the label intern is so they can be rid of them when they are done with them, and to make sure that there is no doubts about which way trade secrets and IP flow. This is a way of saying "You can't build anything we don't own, and you can't learn anything from us that we don't authorize you to."
Having worked in a Hebrew School I get that Nimrod was a hero, but in most of the world Nimrod is an insult.
While "rust" is typically not a positive thing, it does imply 'aged' which can be a good thing in a programming language.
I understand that Nimrod is typically about as fast as Go and Rust in performance, but Google's adoption of Go does offer Go a significant advantage as a CV/Career builder.
The title of this thread is a bit misleading as the page doesn't really talk about why Nimrod is a good alternative.
The author doesn't seem to say anything accurate. This isn't going to be 5.7. My understanding is that since there is something that is not this that is 6.x and that since this would be a major rev that this is more likely to be 7.x than 5.7
Then there is the magic "100% faster" but there isn't an explanation of what makes it faster, or what types of things will be faster. Is it faster for Computation? Faster for String manipulation? Is this mostly just memory access? Will Wordpress be faster? or things build on Zend? Or Drupal? Who will see this be faster?
I want to be excited. I don't really like PHP but I support a lot of it, and speed and stability would be great things to have improved, but I want a "why" that goes beyond, "The secret to this performance increase is that nearly 60% of cpu instructions have been “retired” by more efficient code"
Why not read the wiki and notice how Dmitry is trying different ideas for performance improvements? It started with memory optimizations but there are now many other little things like JIT regex.
It is all listed in the wiki and other ideas not attempted yet that might make it even faster.
Obviously not all code is going to be twice as fast, it is an average in a large program like wordpress. Some things more than twice as fast, some not so much.
"But even if Swift remains an Apple-only thing, it’s impact could be greater than any other language that has sprung up in recent years, and it may achieve mass adoption faster than any language in modern history. "
I don't even like Node, but it is hard to imagine that Swift will get adoption faster than Node.
If 100% of Objective C users switch the adoption could be fast since you'd have a new mature-ish language as the preferred language for a large install base. But I don't see the libraries and modules being there to allow most devs to just switch right away.
> "But I don't see the libraries and modules being there to allow most devs to just switch right away."
Obj-C libraries have interfaces auto-translated to Swift, so barring some edge cases are already entirely usable.
Writing a Swift app isn't a problem right now because of lack of library support, but mostly because the compiler still likes to segfault and taunt you. Frequently.
Either way, I like the language, I've been working with it for the past month, and it's neat and brings a bunch of really nice concepts to the table.
But "remake computer programming"? Wut.
Swift will quickly become the standard for OSX and iOS code, but that is but a tiny corner of programming-dom.
Your comparison is not fair. Node is not a language, Node is a runtime environment that uses JavaScript, a language that is pretty old and was already known and used by many devs.
This is all to common. I am currently in a not an entirely dissimilar situation.
What I have learned from it I would tell anyone working at a Startup. When your grant comes due make them give it to you. Get a lawyer then if need be.
Now to the "I'm not a lawyer advice."
In most states you have 1 year to claim things not given to you under an employment agreement. As long as your year is not up you may have a case. If you are past a year your options may be limited.
Now a list of questions you need the answer to.
Were you granted Shares or Options?
An Option would have to be executed with in a given amount of time. A share is actual equity in the company, but an option is the ability to buy a share for a set price. Often you are given an options grant based on the "strike price" on the day you were hired. If the company had raised money at $5m Valuation, and sold for $25M and you had 1% of the company, you'd get 1% of $20M. Because your Buy price would be based on the valuation of the company when you were hired.
If you didn't exercise an option after termination you don't own any shares.
Did you sign anything on termination?
Most of the time the exit agreement which often includes a severance becomes the document that says, "We don't owe you nothing" and is very hard to fight.
Two questions may not be a "list" but I think those two will suffice for now.
6 Billion Clicks is not the hard part, Storing analytics for those clicks is. Though this is a pittance compared to what Google, or Adobe serve with their analytics.
I don't know enough about how "realtime" Bitly is. Handling 6 Billion writes a month of "raw" data from a user as a serialized string would not be that hard.
2300 clicks and there for analytic writes per second average for the month is likely based on the 80/20 rule about 10k Clicks per second peak.
Now, if we assume that you write a Serialized Write immediately with all the data from a users, and then do a chasing analysis, so that you don't have to do all the work at Peak Price... and that each user is then 20 writes.
We end up with 10k peak Serial, and 5x that in chasing writes. So we need 60k writes per second.
On DynamoDB that would cost $90k upfront and $7.71 an hour. ($99,500 a month)
That is "a lot" but it isn't huge.
Doing this on Google AppEngine would likely be about the same since you pay fixed fee per write, not based on your throughput. Depending on the amount of indexing you would pay $1.80 - $2.40 per 100k clicks based on the above math so $108k - $144K per month.
I am not familiar enough with Azure to quote a price.
I know there would be other costs. This is just the database portion. But as I expect this to be the majority of the price, I thought it was the part most worth discussing if you were building a Bitly on a Cloud Platform.
I use to run an ad server where numbers of requests like this per month would be considered low(we would regularly do hundreds of millions of requests per day peaking at around a billion per day). We had the added fun of requiring extremely low latency and we couldn't toss 400 servers at it either.
With chasing writes you do it in slow periods between traffic bursts since you're basically just pulling them off a queue to process so you don't need to count that in with your peak burst numbers.
Your costs seem really high too. The above system was ~$10K/month on GoGrid including 2 DB servers that were on dedicated servers(not really impressive ones either I think they were ~$500/month each), a load balancer on a dedicated server, 2 dozen webservers or so, a few support servers(admin panels, client interfaces, puppet, etc), and a small hadoop cluster.
Redis would receive the raw data, the DB stored the rolled up data and the raw data/logs would be compressed and go onto a small hadoop cluster in case we needed to process it for a new type or report or look for something specific.
I agree, I was trying to keep the math simple, and give some play for bigger peaks.
An ad network is another great example of where this would be tiny numbers.
And with Ads more than Analytics you have to be aware of Race Conditions, and have to do more management of reads and writes so that you don't over or under serve a campaign.
The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful.
The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre.
The squishier means you lose more in shipping.
The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious.
The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides)
You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic. That would work well, (and is used in certain organic farms often for strawberries) but the residue would be more harmful even in lower amounts than say a Coal-Tar Pesticide (basically an artificial flavor sprayed on to mimic the smell of a predator, or the flavor of something an insect doesn't like)
Organic != Safe
Traditional != Dangerous
My biggest concern is that we cannot produce enough food via organic farming to feed everyone. If we move too much of the market to Organics, we may end up like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead of 4% that we currently enjoy in the US.
My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe. NightShade is an all natural herb. Doesn't mean I should brew tea of it and have it at bed time.
we may end up like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead of 4% that we currently enjoy in the US
Given the level of diet-related illness in the US, much of it a result of ultra cheap (through subsidies) sugars and grains, I can't help but wonder, "if people were paying 25% of their paychecks for food, would they make better choices?"
Of course, the issue there has nothing to do with organics and everything to do with subsidies.
4% is an average anyway. There are absolutely people in the US that must spend a notable portion of their income on food. I'm not in the best of situations, and I generally end up spending 20-30% on food, and I don't even eat enough.
Food is already hard enough to get for many Americans.
Well, you can call your plants organic, but you can't label them organic; at least in the US you're required to be certified to use that term in labeling.
...and actually the claim is explicitly false.
205.602 Non-synthetic substances prohibited for use in
organic crop production
This is the National List of natural, or nonsynthetic,
materials that are specifically prohibited in organic
crop production. This list includes natural—but highly
toxic—materials, *such as arsenic*
See www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101542
> My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe.
Too many? I have yet to meet a local-grown organic all-natural afficionado who wasn't convinced this means they are automagically eating healthy and safe produce [and possibly saving small underdog farmers' lives] to boot.
Very few people realise that most (or at least a lot) of the time organic and all-natural is just a marketing ploy.
There are three types of people in the world: those that aren't convinced that organic is safer and eat traditional, those that are convinced but don't care/can't afford organic and eat traditional, and those that eat organic -- and are convinced.
That is, nobody eats organic that isn't convinced of its benefits -- why else would they opt for the more costly of the two?
While Marijuana may have uses for medicine. As a recreational drug, I think the in ability to easily check when you consumed it, or to have a high as a result of just burning off fat. (it is fat soluble, and you can end up high even years later if you burn enough calories) Makes it harder to enforce responsible use than say alcohol.
I don't think we want pilots, surgeons, or police doing their jobs while high, and since the buzz could come quite a long time after consumption that would always be a risk.
Hemp is often promised to be this miracle product that will solve all of our problems, but visiting places where hemp is legal we don't see massive quantities of it.
We import cotton, and bamboo, but you don't see many hemp t-shirts.
We even import paper, which is one of the things Hemp is pretty decent at. But we don't see much Hemp paper. Turns out ink doesn't stick to it as well as it does to Wood pulp and cotton blends.
The real reason Pot is still illegal is that it is dangerous to those who aren't consuming it. A stoned Doctor might not smell of it, might not have any real outwards signs, and then could get the giggles when he nicked an artery.
Remember, these are adults, not little kids. If I can't trust them to be professional and cautious of risks, I wouldn't bother with their services, and likely neither would their employer.
Personally, i think sleep deprivation is a much bigger issue for pilots and doctors than weed. Please, do leave careless speculation and personal vendettas by the door.
Do you have any links to actual studies that find you can get high by burning fat "even years later"? Everything I've read has said that some of the metabolites of THC can be stored in fat--and those are the actual compounds tested by "marijuana" tests, but THC itself isn't stored in the human body after the initial processing even if it is fat soluble itself.
Lengths of high vary, but so do lengths of being drunk. And lengths of undergoing caffeine or nicotine withdrawal or being high on them.
This is completely ridiculous and written by someone with absolutely no experience with marijuana. The idea that you "could end up high years later" is laughable, and has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.
"A stoned Doctor might not smell of it, might not have any real outwards signs, and then could get the giggles when he nicked an artery."
Marijuana does not cause a significant impairment in regular users. Even if that were not the case, if a doctor chooses to be intoxicated when they are responsible for someone else's life, they are already making a terrible choice, regardless of the legality of the substance in question.
You're going to have to post some citation on the whole "getting high from burning THC-laden fat" point. Just because it's fat soluble doesn't mean you can get high enough concentrations in your bloodstream from exercise alone to cause impairment, or even be noticeable.
I'll preface by saying that I used to smoke a lot of weed, but I haven't in quite some time.
> it is fat soluble, and you can end up high even years later if you burn enough calories
Please cite this extensively. Many bioactive molecules are fat-soluble. Just because a substance is fat-soluble doesn't mean it can be stored indefinitely and readily metabolized.
> The real reason Pot is still illegal is that it is dangerous to those who aren't consuming it. A stoned Doctor might not smell of it, might not have any real outwards signs, and then could get the giggles when he nicked an artery.
I disagree with you 100% here. I can tell when someone is stoned, regardless of physical side-effects, changes in mentality or demeanor, etc.
Regardless, in my opinion, your argument crumbles if we clarify stoned to be under the influence of well-concealed alcohol, benzodiazepines, opiates, barbiturates, excessive stimulants, or, hell, maybe even ketamine, methaqualone, etc.
I (unfortunately, I suppose) have had experiences with pretty much every drug and RC under the sun, and I personally think it's very easy to detect when someone is under the influence of marijuana compared to any of the substances thereof (well, maybe except the dissociatives or excessive alcohol).
No, but easily defined rules about how long between a drink and the surgery is.
Just like pilots. You can drink and be a pilot, just not 8 hours before. How long you have a high varies wildly, and under stress old highs can come back.
Edit:
And if you think you can come up with a combination where you didn't die an hour after your drinks and are still drunk 8 hours later, here is a calculator
The rules are --very specifically-- exactly as easily defined for marijuana.
There is no test that can determine when someone last had a drink. The results of a blood alcohol test for someone who had a beer 7 hours and 30 minutes ago will be wildly different than those of someone who skipped dinner and crushed a fifth of whiskey 7 hours and 30 minutes ago...
Marijuana is the easiest drug to test for. The metabolites (READ: the byproduct of use, not the active chemical that gets you high) can stay in your system for up to 90 days in chronic use cases. While heroin is out in 4. Alcohol is out in 2. So if anything, Marijuana is the easiest drug to enforce.
That said, I don't want to continue feeding the troll, or the chronically misinformed.
You reiterate the point. It stays in the system longer.
Also, length of time and ease of test is not the same. Breathalyzer's are under $5 to produce and use just breath. No test for THC exists that doesn't require a more substantial "contribution" to the test. (hair, urine, blood)
Drug tests look for 11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC, not Tetrahydrocannabinol. The amount in your system days after use is so minimal so that it has no effect. I'd like to see a case study of someone getting measurably impaired days after use.
Wow. I had no idea people believed stuff like this. Cannabis appears not to have a large negative effect on people in at least some elite performance situations, like musical performance and freestyle snowboarding. What's particularly hilarious is the debate of whether cannabis might be categorized as a performance enhancing drug.
While I love python, I feel like Java has more application for beginners. While I am a backend guy, Java is better right now for split front end backend sorts as you can build a client Nd server for an Android app in Java. This lets you learn front and backend without having to know two languages.
I say this knowing I hate a lot about Java, but thinking about how I would teach concepts and techniques while making a student employable and fostering the ability to experiment on their own.
I think the idea that the simplicity, lax compiler and readability of python will serve as a easier introduction to programming and keep more students from dropping out early. Java certainly has its place in enforcing verbosity, OO, coding standards, etc.
I think the mission here is to ease people into coding so if they don't want to progress any further up maybe they'll just manage a companies small PHP website or something and have the knowledge to do that.
Very few do. The difference in age of those receiving capital has to do with pitch ratios. When I was 18 I would have pitched for $100K that seemed like a huge sum of money then. That was a years salary back in 1997.
Now if you want 25% of what ever I think is the next big thing you had better pony up $5M.
Why? Because I could work a 9-5 Make $250k a year and live on $100k paying 2 devs $75k. Find a Partner to do the same, and we could have 4 devs, a CEO and a CTO that both worked 25 hours a week and have a company that did just fine. Until the partner and I were needed 40 hours a week, and we jumped ship knowing we had revenue to support us.
The big thing that youth brings is optimism. The big thing that age brings is experience. When you are 18 you think that if you had $50k you could change the world, so you ask for it. When you are 35 you think if you could have 5 years and $5m you could change the world.
It is harder to get $5m than $50k so fewer do. 35 year olds are also less likely to think that a 6 month old start up is worth $1B so they are less likely to get that kind of offer.
I don't think it is about age it is about Risk vs Reward, and the way people at different stages of their lives will run a company.
If I invest in to the business as a business expense, I don't have to pay taxes on their income. They have to pay taxes on their income. 75k is less than a good dev should cost, but the advantage of being old and experienced in product management is that you can offshore a great deal more than you can when you are young. $75k will get a you lot of dev in Russia, or Israel.
This is not Microsoft that got rid of their Peer Review system to make people feel good about things rather than pushing them to be individual contributors.
No, the label intern is so they can be rid of them when they are done with them, and to make sure that there is no doubts about which way trade secrets and IP flow. This is a way of saying "You can't build anything we don't own, and you can't learn anything from us that we don't authorize you to."