twoparachute45

The built-in TOTP in Bitwarden password manager is only available to premium Bitwarden subscribers, requires you to have a Bitwarden account, and stores your TOTP codes in Bitwarden's servers.

This standalone app is available for free, can be used without an account, and the TOTP codes are only stored locally (or through your phone's native backup system).

Some people dislike the idea of storing TOTP codes in the same location as passwords, so it seems this helps provide those people with that separation, while still using Bitwarden products (which tbh is cool with me - a lot of the other TOTP apps on the appstores suck).

Nobody has yet, but if they did I'd probably be ecstatic! We specifically tell candidates they can use any language they want. A combination of awk/sort/sed/count/etc is just as effective as a Python script!

If you've been given the problem of "without using AI, answer this question", and you use an AI, you haven't solved the problem.

The ultimate question that an interview is trying to answer is not "can this person solve this equation I gave them?", it's usually something along the lines of "does this person exhibit characteristics of a trustworthy and effective employee?". Using AI when you've been asked not to is an automatic failure of trust.

This isn't new or unique to AI, either. Before AI people would sometimes try to look up answers on Google. People will write research papers by looking up information on Wikipedia. And none of those things are wrong, as long as they're done honestly and up front.

I dunno why there is always the assumption in these threads that leetcode is being used. My company has never used leetcode-style questions, and likely never will.

I work in security, and our questions are pretty basic stuff. "What is cross-site scripting, and how would you protect against it?", "You're tasked with parsing a log file to return the IP addresses that appear at least 10 times, how would you approach this?" Stuff like that. And then a follow-up or two customized to the candidate's response.

I really don't know how we could possibly make it easier for candidates to pass these interviews. We aren't trying to trick people, or weed people out. We're trying to find people that have the foundational experience required to do the job they're being hired for. Even when people do answer them incorrectly, we try to help them out and give them guidance, because it's really about trying to evaluate how a person thinks rather than making sure they get the right answer.

I mean hell, it's not like I'm spending hours interviewing people because I get my rocks off by asking people lame questions or rejecting people; I want to hire people! I will go out of my way to advocate for hiring someone that's honest and upfront about being incorrect or not knowing an answer, but wants to think through it with me.

But cheating? That's a show stopper. If you've been asked to not use ChatGPT, but you use it anyway, you're not getting the benefit of the doubt. You're getting rejected and blacklisted.

Yea, exactly.

If a candidate were up front with me and asked if they could use AI, or said they learned an answer from AI and then wanted to discuss it with me, I'd be happy with that. But attempting to hide it and pretend they aren't using it when our interview rules specifically ask you not to do it is just being dishonest, which isn't a characteristic of someone I want to hire.

My company, a very very large company, is transitioning back to only in-person interviews due to the rampant amount of cheating happening during interviews.

As an interviewer, it's wild to me how many candidates think they can get away with it, when you can very obviously hear them typing, then watching their eyes move as they read an answer from another screen. And the majority of the time the answer is incorrect anyway. I'm happy that we won't have to waste our time on those candidates anymore.

I thought it was a VH-60 given that it was callsign PAT25 (PAT is Priority Air Transport and they use the VH-60 for those flights), but if this was a training flight, they may have still used the PAT callsign while flying a UH-60.

Regarding your edit: that's a good point, but the vertical ascent rate of the chopper at those first few data points shows 400-800 feet per minute, which is consistent with a chopper taking off...'

edit: your second edit makes me think you're right though, tonight's flight track was pretty consistent with the past flight track where it looks like it both took off from and landed at Fort Belvoir.

I didn't say it took off from the old embassy. The flight track starts at the backyard of a house that is currently owned by the embassy. You can see the owner of that property by searching that address here (the site doesn't support a direct link): https://icare.fairfaxcounty.gov/ffxcare/search/commonsearch....

It wasn't a police chopper, it was a military VH-60, also known as a "White Hawk" [1]. It's a VIP transport helicopter, the same type that is used to transport the president.

~The flight track of the helicopter [2] starts at a property in McLean, VA (edited to remove likely inaccurate info)~

The chopper was based out of Fort Belvoir, and based on similar past flight tracks, looks like it probably took off from there too. CNN is reporting that there were 3 soldiers onboard, and no VIPs.

1: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_VH-60N_White_Hawk

2: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ae313d&lat=38.952&lon=-...

> I don't know whether it's going to take a second or half a minute.

You know how you could find out how long it's going to take? By clicking the button. It's free. It's easy. Hell, it would've taken you less time to click that single button and read the first sentence than it would have taken you to post this comment.

You didn't even bother to spend half a second actually opening the documentation page and then you come here complaining about how you don't know whats in the documentation. This is entirely a problem of your own creation. What gives?

The feedback provided wasn't helpful. You're absolutely correct in that shallow dismissals aren't kind, but you're wrong about who was shallow and who was not. OP didn't dismiss anyone, nor was their comment shallow. And they don't owe you or anyone else anything as far as "explanation" goes, and they can filter out whoever the hell they want. Click the link and look further, or don't.

Meanwhile, dr_ketyn's comment was both rude and not constructive in the slightest (here's a tip: starting feedback with "I hate this" isn't constructive or kind).

USB4 is required to support Thunderbolt, and USB4 cables are similar to Thunderbolt in their price and thickness, so this problem already exists, just with shittier naming conventions.

Basically for any cheap use cases, you just have to buy a random "USB-C" cable with unknown capabilities, while for specific data use cases you have to buy a "USB-C" cable that also supports a specific data rate, either USB 3.1, USB 3.2, USB4 v1.0, USB4 v2.0, or Thunderbolt 3/4/5 (and most cables will support multiple of these, for example USB 3.2 Gen2x2 is the same speed as USB4 v1.0 and TB3).

There's no mandatory price hike required. Thunderbolt is royalty-free as of several years ago, and at this point USB4 pretty much _is_, at minimum, Thunderbolt 3. For example USB4 hubs are, per spec, required to be TB3 compatible, so I don't know why we would bother marketing them as "USB4 v1.0 / USB4 SuperSpeed++ / USB4 20 Gbps / USB 3.1 Gen2x2" when instead they can just be marketed as Thunderbolt 3 or 4.

> There’s a lot of diversity under that “3D TLC” umbrella.

There really isn't. Apple is reported to use SanDisk 3D TLC NAND chips. SanDisk is owned by Western Digital, and the WD SSDs use SanDisk chips. They're literally the same chips.

The other product lines would be WD Blues (marketed at "creative professionals working with large files") and WD Reds (marketed specifically for use in NAS's), but neither of these really support the argument that the SN850x isn't a good comparison, because both the Blue and Red lines are cheaper and less performant (and the Blues are even rated for less longevity), and just make it seem like Apple is price gouging even more.

The point I was trying to make by pointing out that the SN850x isn't a "gaming part" is that the SN850x is literally the top-of-the-line, most expensive consumer SSD sold by WD, and has practically the same specs as other top-of-the-line, most expensive competing parts like the Samsung 990 Pro. Being one of the most expensive SSDs on the market means that saying that the SN850x is a bad comparison because it's supposedly "lower price" is just false on its face.

The SN850x isn't a "gaming part", it's a top-of-the-line consumer SSD that uses the exact same type of NAND chips (3D TLC) that Apple uses in its products.

It would be comical if it weren't so ridiculous. The standards group is surely aware of how ridiculous it is, yet they keep coming up with these idiotic names, and then try to defend it by saying "its only the technical name, not the marketing name", as if that matters.

They honestly just need to kill off USB at this point and just let Thunderbolt supersede it. Thunderbolt 4 and 5 are literally just implementations of USB4, except the Thunderbolt standards group is doing a hell of a lot better job at naming things and certifying cables than the USB group is.

Not all docks need DisplayLink. Thunderbolt-powered ones like this [0] or this [1] can support multiple displays for Macbook Pros without it, so if you want to avoid having to use DisplayLink, they're solid picks. The one thing you need to watch out for is that if you go with the second one, there are no HDMI ports, so you need a USB-C to HDMI converter, which in my experience can be flaky at higher refresh rates. If on the other hand your monitors support DisplayPort, then USB-C to DisplayPort is native, doesn't need a converter (just an adapter), and works better.

1: https://plugable.com/products/tbt4-ud5

2: https://www.caldigit.com/thunderbolt-4-element-hub/

>What's particularly fascinating to me, though, is how some people are so pro-cloud that they'd argue with a writeup like this with silly cloud talking points. They don't seem to care much about data or facts, just that they love cloud and want everyone else to be in cloud, too.

The irony is absolutely dripping off this comment, wow.

Commenter makes emotionally charge comment with no data or facts and decries anyone who disagrees with them as "silly talking points" for not caring about data and facts.

Your comment is entirely talking about itself.