So what? I had a gigabit home network back in 2001...
Paper doesn't scale to the level required. Trust me, I've attended presentations from ex-Googlers on the topic.
Especially, when the paper weighs so much that it started deforming a building...
Usually the problem is something like, "it isn't giving me the newest driver" or simply the poor quality of the drivers in the first place. (For awhile there, if I clicked on the start button, it would cause my screen to reset!) And a lot of "your driver stopped responding so we turned it off, then back on again."
In some ways, I like that the drivers are being pushed to me automatically, but at the same time, if I'm doing multiple reinstalls in a single day, I've already downloaded the drivers... I don't need them to be downloaded YET AGAIN, every install...
At Facebook, it's memcached, with an HDD backup, eventually put onto tape...
At Google, it's a ramdisk, backed up to SSD/HDD, eventually put onto tape...
For anyone who can't afford half a petabyte of RAM with the commensurate number of computers? I have no good ideas... except maybe RAM cache of SSD, cache of HDD, backed up on tape...
Using something like HDFS to store your data in a Hadoop cluster of file requests, is likely the best F/OSS solution you're going to get for that...
Yeah, I don't normally get feed back either. But it is kind of suspicious when I do get feedback...
I think it's a lot related to the xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/385/
If I spend a bunch of time rewriting code (which everyone does), as a man they might think "oh, well, he's just refactoring, or having a bad day." But when I do it, they think "wow, women can't code..." and then reject me out of hand without attempting to rationalize an explanation for why it should be overlooked...
Not that I'm particularly complaining here... this is just life as a woman in the tech industry... that and "oh wow, what does your boyfriend do at Google?" Actually, he's a literature teacher, I'm the genius programmer troubleshooter who knows almost everything about computers...
Sticking needles in people at random locations around the body does not...
Actually, that's precisely the problem with acupuncture working better than placebo. Acupuncture works whether you're following their "rules" or just randomly sticking needles into people...
Basically, it turns out, that forcing a person to lay still for a long time has the same benefits of destressing as just laying on a sofa and chilling... or a massage, or any other relaxing activity...
Not everyone is writing with the intent of addressing an audience of pedants.
I thought this was slashdot... when did the target audience STOP being pedants.
TL;DR: THIS... IS... SLASHDOT!!!
We don't really know what the facts of the case are, but I wonder what it is about people that lead them to believe they're being discriminated against based on a particular factor, like age, race, etc?
Because I've worked for Microsoft, Amazon (as consultant, i.e. well-paid "contractor) and Google, and I have been recognized by SourceForge in a Project of the Month.
And then they return answers like "we want someone with more experience programming". To which my 7 year friend at Google laughed and said, "are they looking for someone who's on the verge of retiring?!"
Seriously, when the answer they tell you doesn't make sense... it doesn't make sense.
Grow up, idiot. Not every male hiring manager is a boob guy.
Google does not hire by a single managerial decision. They hire by committee, precisely because it reduces the chance of unconscious bias being a factor.
Google intentionally recruits people multiple times. They understand sometimes a person has a bad day, and that they grow and develop. Unless you don't utterly fail the phone screen, you're very likely to get called in a few times, just to make sure that they're not turning you down for arbitrary decisions. (Chances are good that an arbitrary situation won't show up 4 times in a hiring committee")
Which brings me to the second point. It's highly unlikely these people will win, as Google hires by committee... so everything gets documented and recorded. There is no ability for a single bias person to interfere with a hiring decision.
N.B.: I worked a Google, I was "undecided" by my first hiring committee, but the second made an offer like immediately after being presented my packet.
Google actually INTENTIONALLY recruits people multiple times. Unlike many other companies, they realise that people grow, people develop, and sometimes people are just having a bad day.
In any case, they want to ensure that they haven't passed up any arbitrary candidate just because they failed one in-person interview.
N.B.: I worked for Google. I didn't get hired by the first committee, but was hired by the second committee...
Anyway, even if they automate some parts of your job, the part of your job that isn't automated will expand to fill that time.
Indeed, compilers already automate so much of our programming job. I remember having to avoid using multiplication by a constant if speed was important, and choosing all sorts of crazy things, just because they ran faster... now, the compiler automates this for me, and I can write code that is more legible and clear.
This is just yet, another form of optimization, which computers have been doing for us for like at least 10 years already...
Hopefully this won't be like promising new battery tech that's always 5-10 years away. Assuming black phosphoros turns out to be a viable material, how long would it take until chips made with such transistors are actually mass-produced?
You need to correct behaviors and find out the underlying reasons WHY they are doing the things.
Except that parents have plenty of incentive not to find out, because it's their responsibility and probably their fault.
That only increases the urgency of finding out, if the person is really serious about being a parent. Children are supposed to have a life that's better than ours was; they are not supposed to inherit severe character flaws because we were too cowardly to deal with them.
I do agree, though, that there are lots of self-centered (and often emotionally immature) people who really do fit the description you gave. That something might be uncomfortable, or require some effort, or *gasp* involve admitting that they were wrong and need to change, these things are enough to stop such people from doing the right thing no matter how important it may be, no matter how lasting the consequences are. It's even harder to raise a child and help them become an adult when the parent is not really an adult themselves.
I'll tell you up-front that I do believe in a God and that this God is the uncaused cause that set everything else into motion. As this is a personal belief, it won't have much to do with my response to you, but I thought I'd mention it to add some perspective. By "personal belief", I mean "go form your own". I for one cannot stand the mindless group-think experience of most churches I've visited and the "security" of being surrounded by the like-minded is worthless. I think Big Questions like "is there a God?" are things you have to decide for yourself.
OK. I find the belief in unfounded god/s is one of the leading causes of murder, rape and mutilation etc throughout history. It has also repeatedly held humanity's progress back and tend to be non-democratic and unreasonable in nature having no place in schools or modern life in general.
The massive mainstream religions have become like a corrupt government. They served a purpose and provided people something they felt they needed, but various control freaks long ago realized they can also be used to control people. Like Jim Marrs says, religion and the monetary system are the two major methods of controlling people. This doesn't mean that currency of some kind has no legitimate use (barter has lots of problems) and it likewise doesn't mean that religion can only control people.
I mean, I've read the Bible. I'm not an expert, but I can say that I'm well familiar with it, specifically the words of Jesus Christ. When I read the words attributed to him, I see exhortations to be humble, to love your neighbor as you love yourself, the importance of forgiveness, turn the other cheek, etc. I've read multiple translations and they all agree on this point. I just can't find any teaching of Jesus that can be construed as "murder, rape, torture, etc are all perfectly acceptable". Those calling themselves Christian and claiming to have read the same Bible should have observed the same.
I argue that if there was a god he/she/it would not need any believers nor would he need them to be offended to defend his/her/its name or honour.
The actual concern for this comes from the idea that the Creator wants to have a relationship with the created, rather than just watch us like an aquarium or snow globe. It's also believed that people have an inherent longing for such a connection and don't have a full life without it.
The perversion used to control people is this idea that you must behave a certain way and become a certain typecast sort of person or else you're faulty in some serious way. It's just a way to enforce conformity, not in a "top-down" way but in such a way that the conformists themselves would feel ashamed to appear otherwise.
I've also argued to more than one religious person, that I doubt a term like "god dammit" would actually offend any serious God-concept. It seems like a childish position to me, to envision God as some sort of scolding parent. I know human beings who wouldn't actually be offended by terms they dislike; why should Almighty God be more petty than they? It just makes no sense to me.
If I believe, wholly and deeply in divine pink unicorns a legislation demanding that others respect such an unfounded belief would be an insult.
If you also had multiple witnesses providing written accounts of this, and said unicorns performed what appeared to be miracles in front of large crowds, and many people found this convincing and credible, well then you might be onto something.
The very questioning of belief is repeatedly a cause to offend some. After all, the only unforgivable sin is to deny the holy spirit, should such a spirit exist in the unlikely event that spirits become factual.
My own concept of God includes a desire for us to question everything worthwhile, and this certainly qualifies. Einstein said "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". I personally wouldn't want to create mindless robots with no sense of awe or mystery, no genuinely satisfying curiosity; they would never reach their full potential. If I can see what would be direly wrong with that, I assume a being infinitely more advanced than myself can also see this.
If by "unforgivable sin" you refer to Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32, this refers to permanently rejecting the Holy Spirit. In the context of Mark 3:22-30 the Pharisees tried to falsely attribute Jesus's powers to Satan ("ruler of the demons"). This represents a conscious rejection, a misunderstanding so profound that its bearer actively resists truth, even when it happens in front of them. It's the idea of someone seeing an act of God and calling it evil. In many matters not involving religion, this is how psychotic people operate: they've convinced themselves that the wrong thing to do is expedient, justified, expected, etc and therefore good ("greater good" is a common one).
Like Bill Hicks mentioned, I personally suspect that we are God's way of experiencing Itself subjectively. That would make questioning, reasoning, and personal refinement all the more important.
Not exactly a front-page story anymore, but when I read your post, it got me thinking.