Lewisham

ubreakifixit is the only place that can do a glass replacement and keep it with warranty. If your screen is dead, and not just your glass cracked, I don't know. A screen replacement was $160.

I had a Pixel which literally slipped half an inch to the floor and the screen cracked. Verizon told me that it was damage that I did and thus they wouldn't replace it. I complained that no phone should just crack from such a small fall; that the phone isn't made right if that happens.

No dice. Had to replace the screen. Which I did. Then I returned it for an iPhone SE. And that iPhone has survived much harder drops with no damage whatsoever.

Because many of the base infrastructure libraries are compatible as long as they used interfaces (grumble grumble os.File). I would be very surprised if this doesn't implement net/http/ServeHTTP

This. It's actually more idiomatic to use the same name, then you can often just sub out one library for another without any hassle.

Disclaimer: I work for Google.

FWIW, having played around with Google's routers, they work pretty well, even from iOS. Chromecasts "just work" in the old Apple sense of the term: you plug it in, you find the thing you want to watch online that you want on your TV, press the button in Chrome and hey presto, you got your cat video on your OLED.

If you're OK with having Google store data on you[1], I'd say the Google hardware division has a lot of what you talk about here.

[1] Before the flood of angry HN replies come in, I get that is not everyone, but knowing what I know about Google's privacy practices, I am perfectly happy with that.

It's just an upper-bound. "At its worst peak it'll be 5x"

Look at this chart:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GLc5ve5_djc/V-ysZgW6uDI/AAAAAAAAD...

The worst case scenario was 5x, which was a factor of 10 off. If you are that far off when you do your capacity planning, you can be pretty sure you've got problems throughout your entire stack.

Where did you get the idea it drives interviewers crazy?

a) I shouldn't ask questions that are in that book, any question found in the wild is banned.

b) I want my candidates to study and show me the best of themselves, and that they want the job and are not wasting my time by throwing their resume on the pile as an afterthought.

c) Cracking the Code Interview is really good at helping you through the algorithmic questions popular on whiteboards. I find the signal:noise ratio on those questions pretty poor, so I ask more straightforward questions that more closely represent things a software engineer encounters in their everyday life. CtCI is good for getting you up to snuff at the stuff you don't do all the time (if ever) just in case you get That Interviewer.

Admittedly, I am but one interviewer and there are many others who do many things many different ways, but I've never heard anyone denounce candidates studying.

A hiring process that can be gamed by reading a book sold by the process giver is especially flawed and morally corrupt.

Hahaha, please tell me another one Mr. Trump.

A hiring process that acts as if years of experience mean nothing and which reduces your career to a score on a web page generated by a terrible constructed test is especially flawed and inhumane.

Being old is not an indicator of success.

You seriously seem to live in some wonderland where the quality of a candidate just magically appears out of thin air.

I want candidates to have studied. Studying isn't gaming. Studying is being smart. I want candidates that studied. Those that didn't I don't want. They don't want the job badly enough.

I routinely test older candidates who can't program anywhere outside of the little box they made for themselves, and freak out when they see a programming language that isn't the one they've used for the last 20 years. Is that inhumane?

Gayle is awesome. Cracking the Code Interview is a really great book, and I credit it for getting me through some of my interviews. Everyone here poking at her are people shooting the messenger for delivering the inconvenient truth.

a) Big US enterprises are under attack from state-sponsored actors on a daily basis, so it's not that weird. It's not like the NSA weren't caught with their hands in the cookie jar either.

b) If you name the state you think is behind it, you better be ready for the diplomatic repercussions between the US government and the rogue state, as well as potentially stopping doing business in that state (see Google and China)

I'm not entirely convinced that people who have a bad experience with Windows support would then assume Azure support was poor, similarly with Amazon and AWS... Why should Google [Product Area X] and Google Cloud be any different?

FWIW Google Cloud Support != Google support in general. My interactions with Cloud Support on the other side of the fence has led me to believe they are very committed and working very hard. Yes, you have to pay for it. But once you do, regardless of the tier of support, I've seen them work tirelessly and escalate tickets to engineering quickly (order hours, not days) if they couldn't figure it out.

I'm looking at the postmortem now and without wishing to jump the gun and talk about things I can't, it looks like this is being taken very seriously and a number of improvements and bug fixes are going to result. In this instance, I think it's doing the Cloud Support people a disservice to call them "disingenuous".

Disclaimer: Used to work on Google Cloud, now on Google Open Source Programs Office.

Can you point me to instructions for this setup? I'd love to try F# (having dabbled in Haskell) on macOS, but I keep getting the feeling that F# really needs Visual Studio to shine... which is a feeling which may or may not be accurate.

I'm surprised people can use Iron at all. I tried really really hard to use it and found the complete lack of documentation (or, worse, outdated blog posts) made it impossible. Is there some magic necronomicon I'm missing?

I had better luck with nickel.rs because it has an examples/ folder with quick recipes of most things you'd want to do.

"Putting all this nice stuff into practice" is the kicker. I'd really like to do FP work, but I'm not willing to leave my current employer to do it. I think there's basically a skunk works deal of Haskell at Facebook, and F# for n programmers where n is basically unknown externally... and that's it. Am I missing someone that's a) in Silicon Valley b) mature enough that the benefits are there (such as always being paid on time, good health insurance etc etc)

Bad programmers are always going to be bad programmers, no matter what their age. Bad programmers are inflexible and unadaptable; unable to keep up with new languages or idioms. Ken Thompson is about as old school as they come and he wrote much of Go.

Santa Cruz hates building housing. It's worse than SF in that regard.

Source: Lived here 10 years.

Fair enough; some more noodling over the signature made it a bit more obvious than it seemed banged out at the back of an OSCON presentation.

I think the point still holds. Maybe just not for that one.

Yeah, once you actually get to the text, it's really good and clearly improved from 12 months ago when I last got the free time to play around significantly.

Thanks for the bug ticket :)

Specific thought: Trait implementation pages like http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/std/collections/hash_... should output the first paragraph of the documentation text. That way you can easily scan/Ctrl+F through the documentation that's right next to the struct you're interested in. Reduce the number of clicks and context switches.

It's just a pretty terrifying way to output right now.

I'd say rustdoc is pretty rough. It's very hard to navigate the rust stdlib vs, say, Go, and when you do find what you want, it's often specified in some very cryptic manner that seems to require a PL PhD.

It is a really big barrier to adoption because it's very hard to find out what functionality is or is not offered. Here's an example: I want to iterate over a set. Easy, right?

No.

http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/std/collections/hash_...

Look at the signature for Cycle. It's really hard to know what this does even though it's trivial:

fn cycle(self) -> Cycle<Self> where Self: Clone

When you click through to the real documentation, it describes a useful use case for this. But that's not how programmers think. They think "I need to do X right now so I'll find something that looks right" not "I'm going to click through the documentation... oh X looks interesting I'll remember that later". There's no way to infer what Cycle really does without having actually clicked through or used it.

I was really excited, then very disappointed to see the code I type is sent to your servers. This immediately prevents it from being used by many businesses, including my employers.

Super bummer :(

Please get the on-prem sorted out pronto!

Disclaimer: I work at El Goog.

I recently moved teams so that I could use Go exclusively. It's often been said that Go solves the problems Google developers have, and it's 110% true. It's much easier to get things working, and it's much easier to write things like Protocol Buffers. But the key for me is that Go isn't fun in the sense of "wow, I'm so smart that I managed to one line this thing", it's fun in the "wow I read this code and I can understand what's happening and hack on it to do something else."

I've worked on teams with monolithic Java code, and it's nigh-on impossible to understand what's happening and where you are in the logic flow. I don't have that problem in Go. I even delve into the standard libraries to see how the original Go devs did something, and I both understand it and think it looks like code I would have written too. I never get that feeling from any other language, where I feel like the standard libs are written by hyper-intelligent aliens.

When I exclaimed this internally, I got the sarky comment "It's almost as if the things Go leaves out makes it easier". And that's the core of it. Would I like generics? Sure; I do miss map(). But that's it.

Go is opinionated. People that don't like Go don't share the opinion. That's OK. It's taken me a long time to realize there is no One True Language that can do everything (it was soon after steveklabnik said something along the lines of "I don't know why you'd want to write a web app in Rust"). Once you get there, you won't hate Go anymore, nor indeed any other language.

Apart from C++. Screw that ;)

Imma guess the Monterey Tesla store is your best bet. But that's probably a long way from you, given what you've already written :)

Yeah, I am not a Vim shortcut aficionado at all, but not having . be repeat command was such a deal breaker for me.

Do some Googling around the idea of "procedural literacy".

Coding is like reading, maths, other sciences, in that while you don't need to be very good at it, you really do need to know what computers are and are not capable of and how they solve problems. You need to be able to do this to do all sorts of things; be a judge in a courtroom and not fall to the CSI effect, to not worry about "hackers stealing your credit card" over SSL, etc. etc. It's simply not OK in this day and age to look at a computer like a magic box.

Everyone should learn to code. Not everyone should be a coder.

This is the rub that I never understand with right-wing politicians who prize the free market, but then enable things that actively hamper it: tying health care to having a job, tying startups to people who could somehow afford college or just didn't go.

If you want to enable the free market, you have to remove the barriers.

IIRC that was when reported earnings from mobile were higher than Wall Street expected. WS was expecting doom and gloom from mobile for a long time.

...or Google is just getting better at serving the right advertisement at the right time?

I think Google thought that the software patent issue was going to go the other way, where some sort of unwritten agreement of "Let's not screw this up for everyone" would be reached. So the idea of paying $4B just for patents wasn't something that would have been done. AFAICT Google had a slim patent portfolio because Google didn't think software patents were the right thing to do, either ethically or from a business perspective. Nokia [1] pressed the button on the mutually assured destruction after the sale of Sun to Oracle.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars

Disclaimer: My opinions, not necessarily my employers. I wasn't with the company at the time.