This has negative implications for security. For instance, one reason why DNS resolvers might block or modify requests is to blacklist domains used for malware operation (botnet C&C domains). Other things like DNS sinkholing and poisoning are also frequently used as tools to disrupt malware communication.
In addition, collection and analysis of below-the-recursive DNS traffic is one of the primary ways in which security researchers discover the infrastructure of botnet networks.
Overall DoH is probably a net positive, but I don't see downsides like this being discussed.
Why would you _want_ 10 acres? What are you going to do with all of that space?
I like walking to the grocery store (or bar, or restaurants, etc). I like biking to work. I live within walking distance of literally 6 parks, so it's not like I'm starved for green or open space.
I don't understand your point of view to the exact same degree that you don't understand mine.
I have, and instead took the job for almost half that at a startup. It's not that tough of a decision if you properly weigh the quality of your time.
Keep in mind that you spend roughly half of your waking hours at work. It's important to do what you love during that time. I'm personally not a fan of spending my life to make tiny increases in some ad placement algorithm.
If you're asking questions related to "raw algorithmic skill" you're filtering for people who either:
1) Have had a computer science education and happen to remember the algorithm at hand. This is also a function of recency so senior engineers are less likely to remember any given algorithm.
2) Study algorithms so they can do well at job interviews.
Neither one is something you want to be selecting for. Some of the best engineers I've worked with haven't had a proper CS education. I've known extremely strong engineers with Neuroscience, Mathematics, Physics and Public Policy degrees. I've got a business degree.
Unless you're working in certain extremely hard (and extremely rare) areas you do _not_ need to filter for algorithmic skill. Most ML doesn't count. Neither does Data Science. In 99% of engineering jobs it's more important to be diligent, rigorous, and organized. (Of course, filtering for those is another issue altogether)
Spot on. The reasons are exactly right too; seniority and "ability to recall obscure minutia from college years" are inversely correlated, for obvious reasons.
Companies need to understand that not only are they mis-selecting, but they're broadcasting that they're doing so to all the candidates that go through that process.
Approaching candidates with textbook-style algo or data structure questions merely informs that they're going to be working with an educated but overall somewhat junior lot. That's not necessarily always a deal killer, but it's probably not the image that these interviews are hoping to project.
For well-qualified candidates not applying at an industry headliner like AppAmaGooBookSoft, the interview process quickly inverts itself, and it becomes more about the company selling the candidate on their offer than the candidate selling the company on their skillset. Tread carefully.
It's probably a great analogy because the best musicians all know basic music theory, whether they learned it in school or on the bandstand. As for the advanced theory that they teach in graduate programs, it isn't even applicable to most genres of music.
I bet there's scope to twist it beyond all sensible bounds, and compare the ability of the 99% to the 1%.
I suspect there's top level classical, jazz, and session musicians - who're the industry equivalent of 10x programmers. (And all the other stereotypes probably exist too, I bet there are occasional untrained but gifted musicians who can produce 10x output, but who're amazingly difficult to collaborate with compared to degree level music theory trained musicians... And I bet there are "10 year" musicians with one years experience repeated ten times over.)
The other interesting point there is that probably 99% (or more for, five, perhaps six nines) of "programming" doesn't actually require that much hard-core CS theory. You can get paid well playing covers in bars with a good ear and not being able to read a single note from a chart, just by listening to the originals and copying them over and over in your bedroom. Same as you can make a decent living building basic CRUD websites/apps without having written your own compiler that can compile itself or defended a phd that advances humanities start of the art understanding of something fundamental.
The only problem at that level of musician ship you lose the fun and can end up with some very sterile music that's only of interest to other people who have degrees in music theory.
Btw years ago I did work with a top session guitarist (top 10 hits) who after an accident taught himself to program from his hospital bed.
> If you're asking questions related to "raw algorithmic skill" you're filtering for people who either: 1) Have had a computer science education and happen to remember the algorithm at hand.
Probably true. But perhaps that could be accounted for in the assessment process. After all graduates from Neuroscience, Maths and Physics degrees have got to be some to smartest people around.
Agree. A lot of coding is simply banging your head against the wall, search SO over and over, changing things around, until it does what you want.
Raw algo quizzing skill isn't necessarily the same thing, though you'd think it was somewhat related because when you're learning to code up "find longest continuous run" you also need to change things around for a bit.
Difference is in real life there's never an end. The algo quiz leaves you at some optimum eventually due to being quite a small thing.
Coding is the easiest part. Understanding the actual problem and solving it is the hard part.
> A lot of coding is simply banging your head against the wall, search SO over and over, changing things around, until it does what you want.
It doesn't look like programming to me. Yes, sometimes we miss something, so our code doesn't do exactly what we want it to do, but when we realize it we just fix the code. This view of coding resembles an improved way to write Shakespeare with monkeys.
> A lot of coding is simply banging your head against the wall, search SO over and over, changing things around, until it does what you want.
I don't find myself in these situations nearly as often as I did back when I was a junior engineer. But damn, I'm sure I looked busier (and more stressed out) back then.
I was mostly through that phase of my career before any of those things were available. Toward the end of it, stack overflow had just launched. I mostly relied on printed books for help with languages and frameworks I was using.
It's not correlated at all. I can ask you questions about implementing a b-tree and then give you a job to fix CSS. Which is the case in most jobs and job interviews.
Postgres offers a variety of session-based tunings for their genetic query optimizer. See items such as geqo_effort. Note that postgres caches query plans, so the query planning cost for a well-constructed query will only be paid once(ish).
I tried to be pretty explicit about that in the README. However, the project is now 5 years old and I have yet to hear of a single case where this approach has failed to weed out the vast majority of spam submissions.
Excellent insight, Mr. "Account Created 66 Days Ago".
Reading HN is not the be-all-end-all of technical knowledge. In fact, at a certain point it most definitely becomes negatively correlated with productivity (and subsequently value/salary).
This all looks unnecessarily complicated. I had really bad posture for most of my life and I fixed it with two things: deadlifts and cable rows. After the major muscular weaknesses are corrected (and those two exercises will correct them), it's just a matter of habit correction- stand while you work, walk with your stomach tight and shoulders back, don't let yourself slouch when you sit, etc.
This ain't rocket science. You don't need to spend an hour a day with 10 different exercises. You can fix the muscular weaknesses in 30 minutes, once a week.
If your posture problem is related to too poor flexibility, deadlift will not fix the problems. On the contrary, you can potentially put your back at severe risk as your form will break down.
You don't need to spend an hour a day, but not nearly all posture issues are down to muscular weakness.
For my part, I discovered my posture problems as a result of deadlifts and squats, that eventually got to sufficient weight that I was unable to compensate or work around the underlying lack of flexibility and ended up dangerously close to properly hurting my back.
The key with deads (or any other lift) is to get the form right first.
Doing full ROM lifts will improve your flexibility. I find this holds true more for squats than deads, specifically (you're getting pressed down with the bar, and have to retain proper back/spine alignment), but it's all useful.
If your form's breaking down, you're lifting too heavy.
What causes other than muscle weakness do you identify as causing posture issues?
If you're not flexible enough, you're not able to do full ROM lifts with proper form.
Once you're flexible enough to actually do the lifts properly, I agree you will see it improving further. But if you're flexible to do the lifts properly, you don't really have a problem.
When I started was not physically able at all to get reasonable depth in my squats before I would either need to stop or curve my back, no matter the weight. I also could hardly bend over while keeping my back firm - it'd be like stretching a violin string along the back of my legs.
A couple of months of stretches from my pysiotherapist got my squats from about 60kg to about 140kg in less than 6 months, after I'd spent the previous 6 months stalled completely because any attempt to go higher led to total form breakdown, and a lot of time before that with abysmally slow progress.
Doing squats (and, if necessary, additional mobility work) will increase your flexibility.
Doing light / BW / goblet squats is very low risk, and will help iron out your form.
My point is that if your form is crap, and you're using any added load, then you're going too heavy. If your form is crap at BW (and adding a modest load, 45-95# for most trainees) doesn't iron that out (sometimes a bit of "bar discipline" does help sort out form), then, yes, work on form.
My experience is that you want to eliminate the obvious and simple stuff first (Occam's Razor), and that for most trainees I've seen, starting with simple cues and light weights addresses form issues sufficiently. KISS.
Given that poor posture seems, at least in my case, to be a lack of good habit, how did you address this part? The exercises are intentional and engage the mind actively. But bad posture is what I do when I'm not paying attention... this seems particularly important if the OP is correct in stating that exercise will improve already good posture and further degrade bad.
Why was this article suddenly de-ranked? It was on the front page, and literally 10 seconds later it is on page 3. Is there some kind of rule that this article violated? Who makes this decision? Why is there not any transparency on if an article is de-ranked and why?
There's an argument, though I don't want to put words into PG's mouth regarding his reasoning, that lack of transparency is a form of protection against voting manipulation, as it's harder to trick a system if you don't understand the system - security through obscurity really.
As it dropped only to page 3, not further, I would hazard a guess that it's more to do with timing, for example maybe a post that's <60 minutes old requires less votes to get a high position than a post that's 60+ minutes old, and it's a hard line rather than gradual? Pure speculation on my part, but if you're interested the answer may (or may not) lie within https://github.com/nex3/arc/blob/master/lib/news.arc
In addition, collection and analysis of below-the-recursive DNS traffic is one of the primary ways in which security researchers discover the infrastructure of botnet networks.
Overall DoH is probably a net positive, but I don't see downsides like this being discussed.