I had a DX4-100 (33MHz x 3) which I overclocked to DX4-120 (40MHz x 3) and it tore the other 486's some new assholes

(I left out the only 2 things I care about in coding style: consistency and structure. The former speaks for itself. The latter is stuff like avoiding stupidly deep indentations due to poor block / control structure)

(And in case that hasn't cleared things up enough, let me say that the difference between Speex on highest quality and Opus, even on its lower quality settings, is like night and day)

The key word is "even". "even to me". Implying (but obviously too subtely for some) that my opinion of the sound quality is in agreement with the opinions of others. In this case, several dozen others. Unanimously.

Furthermore, I never said how shitty my hearing was. My version of shitty is having a hard time discerning between 160kbps and 192kbps mp3s, which several of my more keenly perceptive friends are able to do.

/* Not sure if trolling, or just not good at reading */

About 9 months ago, I implemented Opus in our VoIP products, replacing G722 and Speex. It kicks a whole lot of ass. Compared to speex, It's far better coded, uses far fewer CPU cycles, and sounds vastly better (even to me, and I have shitty hearing). Similarly, we replaced all our old audio DSP pipeline, based on the Speex library (thanks Xiph.org, etc) with the low-level components from WebRTC (thanks Google!) and things have never sounded better.

Define "coverage". Function? Line? Branch? With multiple threads?

Thank you. I just spent almost 10 minutes in acute spasmodic facepalm-mode at that comment.

Mama Boucher invented electricity. Ben Franklin is the Devil!

Please refer to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UT04p5f7U

Why don't you waste a few billion on some of these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651

Oh wait, you already have? Not fucking surprising, you bunch of brainless fuckwits.

I concur wholeheartedly. I could tell you that manhole covers are round because the manhole is round. But this doesn't relate in any way to actually solving problems by developing algorithms, or to how you approach a large code base, or how rapidly you learn our particular problem domain, or how reliable you are, or how readable your code is, or if you're capable of working to specification.

I do a phone interview to make sure the candidate and I understand each other, and to filter out bullshitters. Then I give them a test which should take half an hour to complete. I make my decision to hire almost entirely on the solution they provide, although the manager-types always want to interview the candidate.

Google's hiring process stinks of shit and red herring to me. You might as well be hiring an accountant on the basis of how well they do at crosswords.

It's fucking disgusting, if you ask me.

We need to stop shoehorning the kitchen sink into HTML. For example, to do Real-Time Communications on the Web, we now have WebRTC.

Welcome to 2011, where 1981 is continuously re-invented

Like fucking for virginity