HN user

darose

61 karma
Posts0
Comments46
View on HN
No posts found.
  Location:  NYC
  Remote:  Yes
  Willing to relocate:  No
  Technologies:  Linux, Cloud (AWS, Azure, and GCP), Kubernetes, Terraform, Python, Java (among many others)
  Résumé/CV:  upon request
  Email:  darose@darose.net

Strong, NYC-based technologist with extensive skills in Linux system administration, DevOps, Cloud operations, scalable systems, and large scale data processing seeking new senior-level Cloud Eng / Infra / DevOps role, ideally with a trading/fintech related company. My primary area of specialty recently is in DevOps and Cloud Computing, but I've also been a software engineer (Python and Java strongest), a team lead, and a VP of engineering. My experience ranges from several start-ups (including two with successful exits), to a quant hedge fund, as well as other trading/financial services firms. If interested, please email with details about role.

Git has no such problem. There’s nothing it can’t do.

It can't display me the branch I'm working on, starting from the commit that began the branch, until the last commit. (Or if it can, I have no idea how to do it.)

This isn't a functionality issue, but rather a conceptual one. Git just fundamentally thinks of branches differently than I do. (And, maybe most humans?) To me, a branch begins ... when I branch it. To git, a branch begins ... at the very first commit ever in the repo, since they consider commits that were made before the branch point to still be part of the branch. The branch point then is just another commit to git - and not even one that they think is important enough to highlight. But without any ability to clearly identify the branch point, you can often find yourself looking through a forest of commits that are irrelevant to what you're really searching for.

I spent the better part of an hour the other day trying to figure out how to identify my branch point. (For the record, the best solution I eventually found was: cat .git/refs/heads/<branch name>.) Just my $0.02, of course, but IMO this is absurd - and a big feature gap / user friendliness issue with git compared to other VCS's.

IMO git is just another step in the evolution of VCS's, and not necessarily even one of the better ones. Its concepts, functionality, and feature set are focused primarily on distributed development and multiple people maintaining different source trees ... which is fine for the Linux kernel and other projects that heavily use that use case. But many/most projects don't work that way, and for them a centralized VCS is sufficient. I have no doubt that a better VCS will come along and replace git one day.

This really strikes me as more of a marketing piece by Snowflake than a well-researched piece of reporting. The article mostly just quotes one person - Bob Muglia - who is, as they say on Wall Street, "talking his book" - i.e. giving an opinion that is not coincidentally in line with his own financial interests. Sure, Hadoop is getting old, and is quickly becoming replaced by spark. But loads of organizations have used, and continue to use hadoop /spark successfully. And the part about Kafka replacing Hadoop /Spark is just silly. They're completely different technologies, used for very different purposes, and many organizations use both side by side.

Dailymotion | Multiple roles | NY, NY | Full-time, on-site | Visa | http://jobs.dailymotion.com/en/offers#departments=1#loc=Unit...

Dailymotion, the global video-hosting company, is looking to fill multiple roles to help us staff up a green-field project, building out a new ad-tech platform from the ground up. Hiring for multiple tech positions, including Front-end Engineer, Data Science, and Big Data Engineer, as well as more senior roles.

From the Vanity Fair article, it sounds like Goldman is in fact violating the terms of the license, but not in the way you're describing. (I.e., not by refusing to release changes.)

According to the article Goldman would routinely strip off the license/copyright from off of the open source code file and replace it with their own copyright. And that is a violation of many open source licenses.

+1.

Paul Krugman of the NY Times wrote extensively both during the crisis and since about the correct way to handle this situation:

1. Put the failing bank into "receivership". I.e., a "receiver" (temporary managerment) appointed by the government takes over the company and tries to salvage it.

2. Fire the original management team. I.e., the ones that got them into this mess with their excessive risktaking. Good. They should suffer the consequences of their bad management decisions. That's capitalism.

3. Take on whatever additional debt or equity financing is necessary to turn the company around - without paying any regard to the positions or desires of the current stockholders. The current stockholders' positions' will likely get diluted to nearly worthless. Good. They should suffer the consequences of their bad investing decisions. That's capitalism.

4. After the company is turned around, take it out from under government receivership, hire a new management, and (if needed/appropriate) launch it public again via an IPO.

There's a long, established history for handling failed banks this way (read up on the S&L Crisis), and it's the proper way to keep an institution alive and out of bankruptcy, without rewarding the management and stockholders who brought it to bankruptcy in the first place.

Krugman often pointed out, though, that the Obama administration was too scared to go this route - perhaps because they were worried about the absurd accusations of "socialism" that the Psychotic Right would undoubtably have started screaming about.

So instead, they chose to reward the management and shareholders that caused the problem, by using government money to help prop up the value in their worthless company. Moral hazard indeed! Privatize all the profits, but give all the losses to the public. And socialism is the evil here?!?!?!?

"My opinion on an Ideal password ... Memorize it once, use it forever."

Just about the worst password advice someone could possibly give. Hack someone's password once, and you've got access to all their accounts everywhere.

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. Man, people just get so focused on their own narrow ideological view that they can't see the big picture.

He downplays the most important phrase in the whole essay: "investors are afraid of a prolonged depression". And damn well they should be. As should the rest of us - very afraid!

He (and the investors he refers to) toss off that prospect like, oh, yeah, boo hoo hoo - we should all just let the market play itself out, if a depression comes so be it, and we'll all be better off for it on the other side. But a) I doubt very highly that we'd come out of it on the other side anywhere near to as good as we are now, and b) they never give any thought to the actual social consequences of that kind of policy.

Let me tell you, if the government does nothing, lets foreclosures just run their course, and lets the banking system collapse it will destroy this country. Tens of millions of jobs will disappear, tens of millions of people will be homeless and/or in poverty. Crime will skyrocket. And the risks of the country descending into either anarchy, revolution, or embracing right-wing totalitarianism in a misguided effort to restore "safety" will be tremendous.

Duh. Use your head, people! God I'm so tired of jaded rich people dishing out their out-of-touch laissez faire B.S. It's primarily the fault of laissez faire government policies that we're in this situation in the first place!

Step 8: Get some sleep! You're much more productive as a programmer - and much more able to solve tough problems - when you're well rested.

Step 9: Get some exercise! Ditto for exercise: -you're much more clear-headed, confident, and productive when your body feels in good shape.

No. He's trying to say that the solution to this situation is to move back to an economy that actually grows from organic growth of businesses, and not just from the unsustainable expansion of asset bubbles - whether those assets be stocks or real estate. And it's a well-known fact that small business is responsible for the lion's share of organic business growth in the US - and always has been.

Or something that saves them money.

Or saves them time.

And people will always spend on entertainment too - although, less pricey choices at times like this. And - let's face it - net-based entertainment is pretty much a bargain compared to movies, concerts, Broadway shows, etc.

That's especially critical in times of market downturn. If your product isn't making (or saving) a company a sizable amount of $, it's going to be hard for them to justify a purchase.