I want more than anything to use Firefox, but the fact remains that they have internal issues that prevent them from creating a quality product. Slow startup times, constant hangs, memory leaks, crashes, and general sluggishness prevent even people who care from using Firefox.
Firefox will never match Chrome head-to-head, and is a dying browser. Then only way Chrome doesn't win is if a new competitor appears.
Those four role models don't look like me, and I think they're all awful examples of people someone should look up to. But you need to acknowledge both sides. Stop being so stubborn and look at it objectively. We do need more diversity in role models, however by saying you want less of the current role models you are initiating a direct attack. It's tricky business either way. But perhaps it would be better to say that you wish four great role models that look like you also held such prominent mindshare.
What's telling to me is that while the list of investors if full of famous names (politicians, founders), there isn't what I would consider a single reputable silicon valley investor anywhere in the list.
I know companies do this, but I don't understand how it works. Given the competitive nature of hiring good engineers what type of candidate would accept a contract position when they probably have five other offers?
I think there's two different complaints at play in this thread. Surely you're not suggesting that candidates be exempt from proving themselves. The number of developers who become incompetent over time is high. I think the question is whether they should prove themselves through algorithmic questions. I'll never higher anyone just because they have credentials. A Computer Science degree is a credential, yet so many with that credential cannot write the simplest of programs.
UI Design or a Frontend Software Engineer? I'd expect people working on the frontend to just as proficient in time complexity, space complexity, and performance analysis as a backend engineer. I don't particularly gravitate towards companies working in CRUD apps, but single page applications with complex UI flows and data collection can certainly need those abilities. For one, it's not particularly uncommon to have an actual tree in the UI. How would you represent that tree? How are you going to handle it as it grows to thousands of nodes?
I think few frontend developers would consider the work they do to be "UI design".
So you want a company to hire somebody after talking them for 30 minutes? Based off of what? You honestly can't imagine talking about technical software problems for more than 30 minutes? That's a pretty big red flag to me.
There's irony. Asking for GitHub is 10x worse than algorithmic questions. I just went through the interview process at big companies, with all the resources out there it's easy to get good at these types of questions.
During my professional time I write software to make money. During my free time I write software to make money. As an aging software engineer algorithmic questions just screen for how much time you're willing to put into an interviewing. GitHub screens for how much of a sucker you are.
I somewhat agree with you. The US does have a great system in place, and I believe that in the US we're most likely to catch bribery when it occurs, if not close. However, the fact that catching bribery is common means that bribery is even more common than that. You just can't get around the fact that politicians are people and people are vulnerable to bribery.
If Google's human inputs have racial bias that is certainly something that should be fixed. DuckDuckGo has safe search on by default.
> That a query for an innocent term such as 'black girls' even with 'safe search off' should not result in a bunch of porn.
I don't know what results the search term 'black girls' should return. If you just search for it, it doesn't return any porn for me. If you're seeing porn, your search results make reflect your search history since Google will customize your results based on your search history. Interesting.
That being said, it should return whatever people are searching for. We must be careful not to cross the line from fixing mistakes to politically correct moral censorship.
You act as though seeing it in an independent cinema is an advantage? Isn't a month of Netflix's subscription cheaper than going to the cinema? That's the real problem. Trying to charge that much for a single viewing of a single movie. Consumers will cheer for whoever is not trying to screw them over at any given time. Cinemas have taken advantage of consumers for decades, and continue to try to do so by banning content from their festivals.
The idea that real users will only be slightly inconvenienced is something I see often. However, that imposes real costs. A significant percentage of those users will not be determined enough to solve a captcha every time they login, and their usage will drop off.
It's the reason I will never use CloudFlare for any product I build. Their DDOS and spam protection does protect you, but it also literally drives away users.
The question Twitter should be asking is not, "Which accounts are bots?". That would just be bad business. Instead, they should be asking at what point does the presence of bots hurt the user experience more than imposing barriers on usage.
I'm not saying Amazon will switch to passenger transport, but you can imagine that their strategy would be to dominate the market by subsidizing ticket prices, then once they have the proper penetration, to raise ticket prices and be the first airline to increase margins in some time.
Am I missing something? Virtually the entire open source ecosystem resides on GitHub, an unprofitable walled corporation. Not having searchable logs could be an issue, but how that different than an irc channel?