I disagree.

That's the reasonable, but minority scenario. A lot of times they want you to solve their relatively arbitrary and ridiculous problem in a very short timescale.

I give very very simple problems and hope the candidate makes small mistakes that I can watch them figure out. Sometimes they just ace them and I don't learn much but I can ask another.

A coworker asks candidates to implement the 8 queens solution using an actual computer. He doesn't care about the difference between someone who knows the answer and someone who has never considered the problem before, but expects in 90 minutes that a programmer should be able to get it working even if he has to give a few hints.

Those are what I consider somewhat reasonable questions.

However, most of my peers ask code golf questions bout C++ minutiae, or baroque algorithms questions for unusual application domains and seems to think candidates who can't rattle of answers don't know how to program. That's been the majority case at other companies I've worked at as well.

Expletives aren't "dirty". Using them doesn't make you "bad". Removing them from your vocabulary is a choice that you're free to make, but the better choice is to do better editing.

You have to show that the information is intended to cause harm as the intent, and it generally has to be false. This means that a lot of things that get called libel in the UK aren't in the US (typically things that are true!).

It also means the burden of demonstration in the US is quite high. Demonstrating intent is in some cases quite difficult.

In this sort of case, the intent is fairly easy to show, and the reckless disregard for the veracity along with the falseness is easy to show. However the cost of prosecution to the individual is prohibitive, and the actors are frequently legion by the time the problem becomes big.

As always, troubleshooting capacity comes, primarily, from personality type, not from training. Training can help, but it can't substitute.

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing, only commenting on how bad the current state of affairs is.

Oakland is so redlined that my local loop is over 3 miles long. AT&T one day fucked up the loop. They've never fixed it. DSL speeds went from 1MB to 300Kbps.

Only the FCC dismantled any requirement that infrastructure owners be required to sell access to their lines at all, and certainly not at any kind of fair rate back in the mid-2000s, so the other providers over AT&T's fiber or copper will never be real competitors. They only exist at the whim of the wire owners.

Take that overshoot to 11!

I'm a medical minimalist, but refusing to sterilize cuts is kind of stupid.

Your immune system doesn't need a significant exposure to antigens to trigger the normal hypothalamus reactions and induce immune-system learning and memory reactions. Meanwhile your immune system isn't guaranteed to win arbitrary scale battles and you don't really know what was on whatever cut you. It's not like really unfortunate bacteria are all that rare.

You should also realize that you get away with this because you live in a relatively low-bacteria environment, such as an arid or temperate one. By your logic you should move to the tropics because you'll get far more exposure to diseases. Only there refusing to sterelize cuts will lead to some really bad situations.

Maybe google can find a way to make the video streaming less awful. They can hardly make it worse!

If you don't see the usefulnes, I have to challenge your reading or thinking skills.

This is in a discussion inspired by a plaything endangering many human lives, in a subdiscussion about regulation of those things.

Obviously a good line like this allows for reasonable regulation of playthings that are frequently used in dangerous ways vs those that are not and thus should not need regulation.

You're simply underinformed.

it's possible to have service level agreements about things like uptime of a service that is wholly managed by a provider that are sane. Things like how much is guaranteed before payment is reduced or no longer expected.

However that's not what IT departments deal in. No IT department starts losing funding if they fuck up the DNS infastructure for 2 weeks. No IT department loses its funding if they fuck up the spanning tree for the 5th time in a single year.

SLAs in this context are about "we promise to write a pointless reply email within 1 day" and such, which are the VAST MAJORITY of SLAs in the overall computing and IT industries. And if you had any breadth of experience you would know that.

Toys don't need cameras or autonomous flight features. Seems like a good line to draw.

There have already been rulings that decided that headers that define a public api are not under copyright if they represent the only way that that public api can be declared.

In other words, this judge did not follow precedent, or they're in different jurisdictions (I don't actually know).

More briefly: Service Level Agreements are accepting failure and then trying to limit it.

Service Level Agreements get demanded for communication paths or trust relationships that have already failed, and now someone is demanding a limit to the amount of failure.

Far from it.

IT Departments fail from the inside over time, and are replaced by mindless outsourcers, contract buyers, and CIO magazine readers. Productivity decreases drastically as the employees are blocked from effectively doing their jobs by infrastructure problems, and no one at the top even understands the problem enough to be upset about it.

That's the usual pattern.