sandywaffles
If your stance is assuming we have an existing implementation of something in the training set, and we have a robust test harness already, and we have thousands of dollars to throw at tokens, and we're not at all concerned with "works" THEN this is viable then sure? But that doesn't seem to be what most boosters are saying.
I don't think I share that opinion. The best jobs I've had were after 7+ rounds of actual interviews: code challenge, several peer panels, systems design, hiring manager, Senior manager, Cutler fit, etc.
That of course doesn't mean there aren't companies out there abusing the system or who have less than genuine tactics. But my point is mere number of rounds isn't a good indicator of anything in isolation. I've also worked at places with less than 3 rounds that were absolutely terrible.
it sounds the opposite of optimized to me. Unless we're optimizing for something other than developer experience and efficiency?
And it's not a cut and dry issue to add. Function effects would add a lot of cognitive load to the developer along with more implicit bounds which increases accidental API break changes. You talk about the compiler implicitly adding the bounds to functions, but what happens when I now add a line in my function that allocates when before it didn't? I just broke my API unless I was also defensively testing all implicit bounds. And if I was testing all implicit bounds, can the language no longer add new bounds? Reversing that and requiring the callee to defensively declare all bounds is a borderline non-starter because it'd such a huge burden to write any function or refactor anything.
Oh, excellent the altitudes that 99% of aircraft fly at, unaffecting the ultra rich who fly private jets at 40,000k-50,000k+.
Except very, very few companies are actually doing this. Instead, they're all just incorporating chat bots into their products that no one wants or asked for. No, I don't want to chat with my microwave about the weather and receive drawn out answers I can't tell if they're made up or not. I get enough of that from my five year old.
I'd rather work on a team that did their best to make sure there were no duds even at the expense of missing a genius, so long as everyone that did make it was on right side of the bell curve.
- information shown to the user should be able to be consumed; if it's too fast to read and not displayed in perpetuity (e.g. logged once complete) it's essentially just unnecessary movement akin to a really noisy "spinner"
- no new "movement" (e.g. spinnner/progress esque) within ~200ms will result in the user thinking something is hung
- every permanent line away from input command prompt is sacred; e.g. too much movement vertically (e.g. spamming logs) should be reserved for "verbose" output where the user explicitly asks for it. The effort by the user to scroll the buffer afterwards should be worth it.
The new zig progress IMO breaks a these rules and I'm not a huge fan of it except out of novelty in design.
Cargo's current output essentially only breaks the vertical scrolling rule; if I were BDFL I'd probably just use a single line indicatif spinner ephemerally instead of displaying all "downloading" and "compiling" lines unless someone asked for a "verbose" output and wanted to actually see those lines logged. It could be argued that using a tree of indicatif spinners for long running parallel tasks might be interesting? But determining what is "long running" would be extremely difficult to know ahead of time, and accidentally making an 8-frame spinner would just appear like useless noise. Add to that the max parallelization with Rust, especially in debug builds can be quite high which would end up looking much like the this zig output where 99% of the lines only last for a few frames.
Using randomized or rolling addresses avoids detection to an extent, depending on how many randomized addresses one uses and how often they're rotated.
However, it's also trivial to detect randomized (or rolling) addresses due to the address being utilized for more than a single locality. Although, I'm not sure that either Apple or Google is actually doing the randomized detection even with this new patch.