yangman

The challenge, ironically, was convincing management that adding IPv6 was the thing worth trying. After almost a week of getting nowhere (and almost 2 weeks of outage), I forced the issue by saying "Look, I'm doing this. I need one engineer for 2 days. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work."

He got the change implemented in 2 hours. QA OKed it the next day. The topic never came up again.

At the end of the (very long) process, I just hard-coded the reference request XML given by the particularly problematic endpoints, put some regex replacements behind it, and called it a day.

We both self-host and pay for the service. There is ample engagement from the development team with the larger community. There are also a myriad of open source projects without the same licence restrictions that Sentry-the-company publishes or maintains which make up key functionalities in Sentry-the-product.

It took the group several years to narrow in on.

https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/inline...

Especially useful if the script has dependencies on packages in private repos.

In general, Canadian labour laws prohibit what are typically considered unpaid internships, although it varies slightly by province.[1][2] My understanding is that this is not the case across most of the United States.

[1]: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/internships.php [2]: https://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/igm/esa-part-1/igm-esa-s1-w...

The study of Linguistics, explicitly, does not deal with orthography, or the written system of languages. There are of course exceptions with good reasons, but orthography systems are rarely, if ever, good representations of the systems of auditory communication that are formally considered languages. An orthography system can be heavily influenced by geopolitics (Chinese), have severe ambiguities (Arabic, the various Latin alphabet systems), or have been created retroactively (many languages of indigenous peoples). While it is convenient to map a spoken language to its related orthography when discussing topics such as syllables, inflection, and morphology, it is rarely appropriate when studying linguistics formally.

As for Japanese, while it is true that its alphabet system has a relatively straightforward mapping to its phonology, the mapping itself is, unfortunately, not unambiguous. Japanese has a tonal system[1] that is not explicit in its orthography. There are examples of phonemically distinct words that are identical when written in hiragana/katakana.

Finally, there exists a moraic system[2] which sits between the phonemic and syllabic abstractions. Japanese, especially, have many phenomenons that cannot be adequately modelled unless working in this in-between system.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_pitch_accent

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mora_%28linguistics%29

Strange, perhaps, but present. To a native Chinese and Japanese speaker like myself, the list of collective nouns for animals in English is staggering, almost mindblowing, and appears absolutely arbitrary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collective_nouns_by_sub...

Whether a change comes in the form of code fixes, documentation improvement, refactoring, design changes, or infrastructural modifications, the burden of understanding the potential scope of damage and doing the actual work is always, always on the contributor. Convincing another to take on the work on their behalf is always a possibility, but it should not be hard to see why design changes proposed through such a channel will often be pushed to the back of the queue, unless for some dire need.

Designer or coder, there is no excuse for not doing due diligence in making sure a contribution is a good contribution.

Looking at the discussion so far, there appears to be at least some consensus that non-trivial effort above and beyond the (hopefully) expected hand-holding must be dedicated to designers in order for them to become good contributors. And, in corollary, the natural conclusion is that it's unrealistic to expect designers to put in the necessary effort to become good contributors on their own.

Following from the above, the more crucial questions, I think, are "How do we convince projects that they should go out of their way to attract designers", and, "Do you really need designers? Really, really, need them?"

Phoronix can pretend to be a reliable primary source all it wants, but it's questionable stuff like this that makes its reporting a complete joke amongst the X and DRI/Mesa development community.

Actually, the study of semantics, which is highly logical, will often fail at describing the "true meaning" of an utterance. This is where pragmatics come in, and, frankly, a far more interesting area of study and occasionally even applicable in every day life.

The most useful thing I got out of my semantics course was that I never, ever, want to take that stream ever again.

Structurally, Japanese and Korean is almost identical. The morphology system are similar, they have the same word order, are both tonal in a similar way, and there are even parallels that can be drawn in terms of their phonology; some words are even phonemically identical. However, their core inventory of phonemes is quite different: there are sounds in Korean that just do not occur in Japanese. Like Japanese, the categorization of Korean is debated; Wikipedia is helpful here if you want to know more.

Now, Mandarin Chinese is entirely different. The tonal system is different, it lacks an overt inflection system, word order is different, and the phoneme inventory is, again, different. While there is vocabulary sharing going on, it's hard to see any technical relationships between them.

I've heard a number of different stories on how the Korean peninsula and Japanese archipelago were settled by the Chinese, from the Chinese, but it just doesn't seem plausible considering the linguistics of the regions. What history I did study in Japan simply never mentioned it. And, to be honest, that is the extent of my historical knowledge of the languages.

Now, let me clarify upfront that my minor (technically a "joint-degree", but effectively a minor) is in Linguistics, so this may get wordy and technical.

What you are mostly describing is a not a restriction of the language itself, but of social conventions. You can certainly say "いいえ、できません". While it is true that Japanese has a relatively substantial honorific structure when compared to English, there are other languages with even richer systems, such as Malay.

One thing that makes Japanese stand out amongst the ones you have listed is the fact that it is a language isolate, meaning there are no other languages that are "linguistically related". (While technically in the Japonic family, there is some controversy around the categorization of Japanese dialects, which muddies the family categorization as well). Korean is another isolate, and, as far as I know, the only language that is remotely like Japanese in terms of grammar and morphology. German, Dutch and Spanish all belong in the Indo-European family, and there are some obvious structural similarities. Mandarin Chinese is certainly not Indo-European, but it also lacks a non-trivial inflection system, and has a basic word order that is not unlike Germanic languages.

Japanese, on the other hand, does not share this trait. Consequently, there are certain grammar constructs in English that are essentially impossible to transform into Japanese; it takes a speaker sufficient in both to first completely comprehend an utterance and then re-express it. Add to this the many subtle semantic differences in words, and it's not surprising that you will get a lot of "that's hard to say"s. However, this doesn't mean that something is untranslatable. Speaking from experience, us polyglots do occasionally use it as an excuse that more precisely means "the exchange which must take place for me to extract more context out of you to effectively perform your request is something I don't want to spend energy on at the moment." ;)

Care to elaborate? As a English/Mandarin/Japanese speaker, I am certainly acutely aware of the limitations of translating from one language in to another, but find such an assertion hard to accept without concrete examples.

http://yangman.ca/blog/2009/08/06/website-management-with-gi...

I never wanted to make this about myself, but I thought it appropriate to point out that I just received and accepted an offer from a place I interviewed with last week (one of the few fantastic interview experiences I've had). Much thanks to all the encouragements and good lucks, and even queries.

Now, please ignore this message, and return to our regularly scheduled discussion. :)

The second point, I think, deserves some more discussion.

There's no denying it: I consistently fail at coming up with questions to ask when an interview nears its end. Although I do try and ask small questions along the way, after the whole thing is done, there's just nothing else I care to know about that's appropriate at this stage in the process. In terms of work environment, if it was interesting enough to talk about, the interviewer would have already given me a spiel or the topic comes up naturally. The actual work gets discussed in some detail regardless, so there's not much else there without actually working on it. Having some opinions about the product in question would be nice, but no such luck there either: they've all been doesn't-exist-yet, enterprise apps, and generally things the general public doesn't have enough access to to be able to have an informed opinion about. That said, if the other side cooperates, I generally try and make the interview into more of a conversation, and seem to leave a very positive impression on the interviewer. Doesn't really help with the having-a-question-to-ask at the end, though.

What sort of questions do you really hope a keener would ask?

And the provider implementation is my own, running on a server I have physical access to, with a self-signed certificate.

Google uses a singular URL for all identities that OpenID consumers use to discover the true user identity, which is unique per user per consumer domain.

Shared portage tree over NFS, distcc cluster, etc.