Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Exchange in precious metals (Score 1) 122

They can stop printing cash, that is fine, but that does not mean you have to be part of this experiment in oppression a and slavery, defy this crap, exchange in something tangible, use precious metals or just barter, tell the government to fuck off, or don't tell it but act that way.

That all sounds good, until you try to go to the supermarket and pay for your groceries with gold bars. Ditto for just about anything else you buy.

Comment Re: MapReduce is great (Score 1) 131

Quite possibly these people are vastly overestimating their own skills because they "work at Google". Fortunately, I did not run into socially inept interviewers, but as to the questions asked, they did not have more than surface knowledge. That is not how you interview somebody with advanced skills and experience, because people on that level rarely run into things they have not seen before in some form and that they need to solve on an elementary level. I think this happened to me once in the last 5 years, and there likely is a next case upcoming in the next few months. Both are in research projects.

The really funny thing is that I do know Google would have needed people like me desperately, because on architecture-level (where you need the real experience and insights), they still suck badly and may even be getting worse.

Comment Re:MapReduce is great (Score 1) 131

No offense, but "I'd rather just use a library" seriously brings into question what you bring to the table.

Except that's the right answer. It's arrogant pricks who think that they're hot shit who reinvent the wheel, do it badly and then charge headlong into their next coding disaster, energy drink in hand and earbuds in ears. Meanwhile, a more responsible engineer has to come along afterwards and clean up the hot mess so that the users can actually have a working system that isn't chock full of silly bugs.

Oh yes. Of course the answer is not to use "any library", but to carefully select a good algorithm and then use a library for that. I cannot count the times some "Rockstar"-wannabe has reinvented the wheel and did it really, really badly because they were not even aware of the basics.

They want to test if you have the intellect, knowledge and creativity to sketch a solution yourself.

The best way to determine that is to ask an abstract hypothetical question, where there is no existing implementation and no risk of getting it wrong. Bringing in real world concerns that you want the candidate to ignore because "it's an interview question" is stupid because it clouds the issue and prevents the type of answer that you're looking for. Maybe the candidate is an honest guy and prefers to give you the "don't write your own encryption algorithms" answer because in reality that is the right answer. Then you pass up an otherwise excellent candidate because your interview question was poor. Is that really what you want?

While I know that this is not what Google wanted, it is what they did. And on the hash-question, I do know that I do not have what it takes to come up with a good solution (you need to be a cryptographer for that these days and I am only a competent user of crypto) and so I have stopped bothering to even look at it. This is something that everybody competent selects from a catalog. Of course the real problem is that the Google folks vastly overestimate their own skills, or they would have been able to evaluate what the actual quality level for the selection I proposed is and then could have asked why exactly I proposed this one. That question never came, which is an utter fail.

Comment Re:MapReduce is great (Score 1) 131

No offense, but you miss the point entirely. What I answered is very far from "use a library". First, it is an algorithm, not a library. That difference is very important. Second, it is a carefully selected algorithm that performs much better than what you commonly find in "libraries" in almost all situations. And third, the hash-functions by Bob Jenkins (and the newer ones bu DJB, for example) are inspired by crypto, but much faster in exchange for reduced security assurances. In fact so fast that they can compete directly with the far worse things commonly in use. "Do not roll your own crypto" _does_ apply_ though.

So while I think you meant to be patronizing, you just come across as incompetent. A bit like the folks at Google, come to think of it...

Comment Re: Uh, why? (Score 1) 166

What was the software running on it? Or did it crash without any non-IBM supplied hardware or software?

I'm trying to think of any Windows software I actually bothered to run. It was on a Novell network, I was sitting at it. I was in IT and we didn't have any fruity groupware or anything (this was before that crap was popular) so I really just ran ordinary applications, and tried to stick with the utilities and accessories that came with the OS. We didn't have budget for a bunch of OS/2 apps, though.

Did Mossad break into your home and steal your shoes, as well?

No. They didn't even steal my Casio terrist watch.

Comment Re: Uh, why? (Score 1, Interesting) 166

Let me put it this way: if I had to use systemd/Linux or OS/2, I'd choose OS/2. Being able to boot properly is an important trait for any OS. OS/2 has this ability. Systemd/Linux often does not.

As much as I hate systemd, it really has no place in this conversation. You can get Linux without systemd, so you're presenting a false dichotomy in any case.

I've also had OS/2 corrupt itself on an unclean shutdown and fail to boot. I haven't had this with Linux since the early days of xfs.

Comment Re:Uh, why? (Score -1) 166

OS/2 was a very stable and reliable operating system

What? Who told you that? I ran 2.1, 3.0 and 4.0 and they were all unremittingly unreliable pieces of shit. Not just that but I ran them on a fucking PS/Valuepoint 486, so there was absolutely no excuse for incompatibility. Linux makes OS/2 look like Windows 3.1. The system was especially likely to explode when you ran Windows programs, too, and Windows compatibility was absolutely the only reason many people bought it.

I was actually running OS/2 for evaluation at a site that was ALL IBM, every single PC, every single piece of networking equipment, and OS/2 was still a horrible pain in the asshole. People remembering it fondly have memory problems.

Comment Re:Battlestar Galactica Quote (Score 1) 249

My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army.

Your quote fails to recognize that it doesn't matter who's policing you if their goal is not to do the will of the people, because the people have thrown up their hands and said fuck it and given up even trying to keep them in check.

The police behave just like the military, except with shittier muzzle and trigger discipline.

Comment Re:Hire Actual Human Reviewers Maybe? (Score 2) 249

Seem to recall articles here on /. about Google's reviewers having to look at so much shit, they basically broke down mentally within a year

There must be a subset of the 4chan-esque crowd which will do the job they are paid to do faithfully in spite of being shitlords. Hire them, their eyeballs can withstand anything.

Comment Re:But Dissent is Now HATE (Score 2) 249

Right, watching and listening to 150 hours of new content uploaded every hour should be easy peasy.

If your argument is that Google cannot afford to hire 150-200 additional employees, it's a pretty lousy argument.

And how does one police/supervise the "reviewers"? Why, you need another person to listen to the same stuff to make sure, right?

Your failure is of imagination. No, no you don't. You let the community flag your misses. Just getting the vast majority of them would do the job.

Sounds like an impossible assignment to me.

That's because you're being disingenuous. Or dumb.

Slashdot Top Deals

Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought.