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: [email protected]
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.
Also, that you'll need to pretty much completely reinvent yourself every 5 years or so if you want to stay employable. (I.e., need to keep becoming expert in some new tech specialty.)
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, 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.
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 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.
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.