This 100.0%. If you can't use AI on your code, there is something wrong with your code or your process, fix it quick.

...but not for Patrick Stewart. This one hits home. One of the few unifying figures that everyone could look up to. A cultural lodestone.

For how far it goes, I agree with you mainly. My interviews are two-parts. Part one I explain how a data structure works with diagrams, and answer any questions they have about it, including the algorithm, etc... Part two they have to implement the data structure. The implementation is not trivial, but with good decomposition and structuring, e.g., there is a lot of overlap between the lookup and insert path where the traversal can be reused, the choice of data structure can trade off space for simplicity (which is OK if they ask), etc.., the problem can easily be implemented within the allotted time. I let candidates continue to code and bleed over the time slot if they are making forward progress. I look for signs like frankly, giving up, asking to be spoon fed the implementation, etc... I have found this interview does not favor junior engineers, and allows for "variation in speed" while still giving me the signal I need to see if this person can implement well defined requirements.

Absolutely right. Freedom is a fundamental human right, and freedom of speech and assembly is the most important check on those with power. Regulating the internet in anyway whatsoever will only handicap and limit us permanently, which is why they love the idea in China, all this in exchange for a brief jolt of schadenfreude. All of us have to recognize that freedom is a human right, vital for our protection, and push back on anything challenging, regulating, or "throttling" it with extreme prejudice and skepticism and fear.

Coding interviews test for fluency. You don't give coding interviews to someone to see how good they are, i.e., variation in speed is fine, you are looking instead for how well they decompose problems, abstract and structure things to make them tractable, and yes, whether coding is second nature to them. People who do extremely well in coding interviews are also going to do extremely well coding with AI. Is the converse true? This is where AI has made things tricky. If the engineer is supposedly experienced and senior, then yes, i.e., if they have not become a good coder by now, something is wrong, and you don't want to bring whatever that is into your project. However, if the engineer is very junior, than not necessarily, they may have chosen to spend their time on more important things than "learning assembly". Therefore, ironically, it is the senior engineers and more experienced folks who you get the best read on by doing coding interviews, but you do still get a good read on them this way.

This feature looks like a bolt-on instead of Apple's typical carefully thought through hardware releases. Nobody is going to spend significant time to draw or gesture on a vertical surface that sits below eye level, forced to use a bent wrist, like shown in all their advertising videos. It looks like they want to milk this for money while they develop an actual "revolutionary" solution which they will release a year or two later.

It is not a phishing test if the mark wasn't tricked into revealing or providing sensitive information. If mereley clicking a link is enough to warrant training, then they should also send the CSO and IT admins to training so they can learn how to properly upgrade their employees' browsers and operating systems, and keep them current.

You should read his sermons, e.g., Strength to Love. They all are in line with the principals of non-violent protest, and even explain the undergirding principle: hatred is a sickness and harms the hater almost as much as the hated. Specific to violent protests going on now, he also wrote several moving sermons which spoke out against communism specifically, e.g. "Communism exploits the dreadful philosophy that the end justifies the means. It enunciates movingly the theory of a classless society, but alas! its methods for achieving this noble end are all too often ignoble. Lying, violence, murder, and torture are considered to be justifiable means to achieve the millennial end. Is this an unfair indictment? Listen to the words of Lenin, the real tactician of Communist theory: 'We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, lawbreaking, withholding and concealing truth.'". --Strength to Love: How Should a Christian View Communism?. MLK Jr. was far more in line with "When they go low, we go high." which is indeed the right road to take.

Any "protest" where antagonists are jump kicking shop owners in the back, throwing stones through windows, burning things or buildings, or tearing down statues, are not using speech, they are attacking the public and the community, and hurting people, and wearing masks while doing it. This is not what Martin Luther King Jr. taught, and he would be very sad to see anyone carrying on this way.

Sanity.

Who talks about "abolishing" things in a democracy? MBA schools are academic institutions, and even if one disagrees with the skills they are teaching, it is their free speech to teach it, and for others to learn it. Professor Christopher Marquis sounds like a tyrant.

People complain about restrictive licenses, but that is exactly what powers open source software, and has protected it for years. It is also what allows open core companies (monetizing open source), virtualization (limiting benchmarking), OEM (separating OS/hardware markets), and much more to exist. If you don't want to "lease/rent" a game, then don't, play a different game. Making contracts where you lease/rent a game illegal just removes choices/products for everyone on the market, increases the cost of running a video game business, and thus the cost of video games, and laves us all with more expensive options, or simply games that could have been, but never were, because the risk of making them (perpetually maintaining game servers, or giving away massive amounts of IP) were too intimidating to embark upon the project. The announcement of this idea at the dawn of AI is also particularly tone deaf and silly. What a bad idea.

People in the west indeed have access to cheaper and more superior necessities than ever before. However, they are not content to work for these things at just any job, they want more meaningful work now as well. The trick is continuing to invest in the same forces that brought us lower prices and superior products and better technology in the first place to provide more options for meaningful work as well.

For at least several years now enterprise "note taking" apps have been skirting ethical and legal grey areas. Sales people use them to record other zoom/google-meet participants without having to ask the other participants' permission because the recording app is outside zoom, explicitly because they know it would raise questions and freak them out. Many states make it clear this is illegal and all these apps simply say "it is the ethical and legal responsibility of the recording party to inform other participants as required" etc... In other words the companies selling this software are absolutely aware this is being done and are turning a blind eye intentionally. Now Amazon is going to make the same thing available to consumers, taking it from enterprise to the consumer space. However, the two are subtly different: nobody wants to be recorded, but at least in enterprise settings we have our "shields up", but consumer/personal settings are when we are most vulnerable, so this level of violation is way above what had been foisted on us in the enterprise space. It is much worse than Meta's glasses.

Since you asked in good faith (sort of) the honest answer is Trump enforces the law, uses our trade and military leverage to get better deals for the US, does everything he can to bolster election anonymity and security, and has worked harder than any president in my lifetime to cut government size, power, influence, and spending, so that more money can be invested in enterprise, which lowers prices and brings prosperity for all. I love Democrats, because they love democracy. Most of my friends are Democrats (I'm in tech). I do not think ill of them, and believe they want to fundamentally prevent large corporations from creating Noam Chomsky style manufactured consent, and abuse our freedoms in other ways. Their concerns are legitimate, but ultimately it can go too far the other way as well when power is overly centralized in the government as well. Our job as voting citizens is to keep power from consolidating so much that power can't swing back the other way in the next election, that's basically job number one. I only have policy disagreements with Democrats, I don't question their good faith or patriotism. At least, that's just me.