I may never understand why some places are all about assigning titles and roles in this kind of thing. You need one, maybe two, plus a whole whack of technical skills from everyone else.
I find Comms Lead role to be super useful bc i dont want to be bogged down replying to customers in the middle of the incident + probably don’t even have all the context/access. Everything else except ICM seems like a waste of time to me especially Recorder
I see someone linked my post earlier (thanks!) but hey, I thought of a few more based on your request.
3583: BASIC bytes free on an unexpanded VIC-20.
38911: same idea for a C-64.
Those were both prominent numbers since they showed up on the screen right when you turned it on and sat there until you got cranking on something else.
In the earliest days Java was this thing that showed up in your browser and caused it to just wedge hard (blocking the UI, even) until things got started any time someone decided to embed an applet in a page. Since some people were using it to do all kinds of stupid things (animated fire, anyone?), you could run into it at any point with no warning.
It was ugly. It had terrible looking widgets that were out of place on Windows, Macs, AND Unix boxes - quite a feat at that.
One (dumb) thing JavaScript had going for it was that at least initially, you had to have it on to get CSS action on pages in Netscape. If you turned off JS, then you lost CSS too and things probably looked pretty ugly.
I want to say that some browsers forced you to keep JS on in order to parse a proxy.pac and those of us in corporate/educational environments with filtering proxies had to deal with that, too. Add it to the CSS issue and now you have multiple reasons to leave it on and try working with it. By way of comparison, you could get by with Java disabled.
I still ran with both off in the bad old days and took the lumps, but I'm just cranky that way. I still run with JS off by default.
Bizarrely, this was because CSS was implemented on top of JavaScript in Netscape. Netscape was initially not a fan of CSS and developed their own JavaScript-based style sheets. Then at some point they decided to support CSS anyway, and implemented it by transforming the CSS to JavaScript style sheets. This architecture was allegedly the reason for the incredibly buggy support for CSS in Netscape.
I think we could probably do it on 1 machine. We have multiple mostly for availability and handling spikes. There's definitely no reason we couldn't use 1 large machine to do this, just not a great reason to run a production app this way.
I suspect a lot of these extra steps are not contributing positively to the product. If two solid people could get the same result and there are two dozen people on something, where is all of that extra effort going?
If two people could get the same result then that would be strictly better, but I think the issue is that two people couldn't (or at least the two people you actually have instead of two hypothetical people who maybe were more capable). But output doesn't scale linearly with number of people involved due to various coordination/communication issues. So I think the root of the intuition we have that there is more "wasted" effort is just that people are building larger, more complex systems that need larger teams to build and the larger teams spend more effort (on a per-person basis) on coordination.
IMHO. The effort is going to added complexity. Not doing the simplest thing that could possibly work. I suspect managers and directors allow this because they are just trying to grow the own teams as much as possible thus growing their careers.
If you're allowed to call a multi-node setup a "supercomputer", then how about 3 40 machine racks of Xeons where each one is dual-socketed, has 12 DIMMs per socket, and is using 128 GB DIMMs?
3 racks * 40 boxes * 2 sockets * 12 DIMMs per socket * 128 GB = 368640 GB or 360 TB raw. Remove some of that for overhead (kernel, OS gunk, network buffers, whatever code you'd have to run to make it into a cluster), and there's your 256 TB with a bunch left over.
Stuff like this is why I sometimes say that a lot of these startups could be done with "three Xeon racks" if they actually cared about doing it right.
[Note: assumes 2nd generation Xeons (Skylakes), with 24 DIMMs. Ice Lake = more/bigger memory, fewer actual machines.]
Google hired me in 2006 (then 11 years of experience) as a 3. I didn't know any better at the time, partly because I was coming into the valley from the rest of the world.
I didn't find out just how screwed up this was until becoming part of the hiring process at Facebook... some seven or eight years later.
Wow Google tried a lot of mental gymnastics to down level me. Trying to convince me that higher levels at FB or other companies is equivalent.
That’s a whole other level though. Not surprising and it is hard when it’s a coveted company. I would’ve taken the down level if I didn’t have a better offer at another company.
If someone says they are "into the 3rd decade of" something (for example, programming experience), I would generally assume that means 30 years or more.
But what you're saying is that it could mean as little as 11 years, e.g., from 2010 to 2021 (yes, 2010 is still part of the '00 decade¹ and 2021 marks the beginning of the '20s, strange as that was to me).
To me, the natural interpretation (at least in contexts where calendar-decades don't have special importance) would be 20+ years. The first decade is the first ten, the second decade is the second ten, and the third decade begins after that.
"into the n-th decade of X" sounds like "n-th decade of X has started but not fully completed yet" meaning "n-1 full decades + something" for me (non-native speaker)
Also, conference calls are death.