Oollama.ai focuses on making it as easy as possible to run models locally. We aim to provide a seamless experience that feels the same whether you're developing locally or deploying remotely for production.
1. You misunderstood Paxos, probably confused that with RSM. For example, Paxos is just the leader election part of Raft. Superficially, it seems different from Paxos, but it what it is under the surface.
2. You implemented RSM incorrectly, probably missed some important features or optimizations. For example, log compaction, membership reconfiguration, pipeline, back pressure on execution, etc.
It is VERY important to differentiate Paxos and RSM. There are tons of optimizations you can do with RSM. But on consensus, there is ONLY Paxos today. Or you do it wrong or you invite something truly new.
I think all these kinds of papers are very confusing. Comparing RSM (replicated state machine) to Paxos is just like comparing a car to an engine. It makes very little or no sense.
In the original Paxos paper (https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/paxos-simple.pdf), the part 3 (RSM) is not extensively explained. There are countless ways to use Paxos to implement RSM. Multipaxos/Raft/Epaxos try to fill in that gap.
By any means, Paxos itself is 10x simpler than Raft or whatever. Every time I heard a "distributed system" engineer said Paxos is complicated, I know he/she does not have much experience in the field or at least has never implemented the core consensus part...
> This is solved by throwing multiple interview questions at the person that are all novel and not derived from the internet. The probability of ALL questions being seened before is very low.
This is solved by adding more questions into Leetcode. 1000+ and counting.
> So? Doesn't change the effectiveness of leetcode in passing an interview and displaying your ability to learn and solve novel problems. If you have other ways of passing those interviews outside of leetcode, that's great. Use it.
You missed the point entirely. My argument is that many interviews are not designed for problem solving but practicing and memorization. And this is exactly why Leetcode ensures you to repeat these template 100 times effectively.
I do not plan to pass this kinds of interview, before, now or the future. So why do I bother?
Good luck on your job search anyway. I have no intention on discouraging you to do the practice. I cannot fix anything here.
> Google specifically tells their interviewers to avoid "canned" problems that are already all over the internet.
They did a pretty poor job on this already. And it adds one more requirements, the ability to pretend that you have never practiced a similar question before :P.
> Leetcode isn't about memorization. Leetcode is training data used to optimize your neural net to solve problems it hasn't seen before.
Oh. Thanks. Glad that Human brain does not need that much data like today's neural net.
And there are millions of ways to improve problem solving than repeating BSF/DFS/DP templates on Leetcode questions.
I am major in computer science, and published paper in top conference. Tree traversal is trivial for me. So I guess I have decent CS background and knowledge?
Writing bug free and perfect code is not equal to simply solve the problem. If you have prepared coding interviews (especially for new grad and internship), you should understand it is less about knowledge but more about practicing and memorization for that specific purpose. The time spent on it is almost a waste in the future.
If the interview is knowledge based or problem solving oriented, I am all for it. Sadly, it is not today in many places. And that is exactly why website like Leetcode exists.
When my classmates were preparing interview coding questions, I was working on a mini TCP implementation and a toy kernel.
AWS rejected me since I failed to write prefect code to traverse a tree in level order. Google did not even give me an interview since I told the campus recruiter I have not prepared for the coding questions.
Then I ended up with an internship at CoreOS and created etcd. I am glad that they did not hire me back then.
Today, I am sure I still cannot pass the coding interview at "Giant Search and Advertising Company", but they run a lot of my code in production :P.
The original go-raft is one of the first raft implementations. At that time, the raft paper was not even officially published. Many other attempts around that time were not very successful, including go-raft.
Making a production ready consensus algorithm is not easy: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/lorenzo/corsi/cs380d/papers/.... Things like pipelining, batching, flow control, asynchronous snapshot were not extensively explored in the context of raft. And not much effort has been put into testing due to the immaturity of the applications of raft at the time.
We realized the problem a few months after etcd alpha was initially released and became popular. However, I went back to CMU to continue my master degree for 1yr, which slowed down the progress.
After I came back from school, together with Blake, Yicheng from CoreOS and later on Ben from Cockroach Labs, we built a solid raft impl as our first priority. Once we put etcd/raft inside etcd2, the stability of etcd greatly improved. That is about 1.5 yr after the initial release. Now etcd/raft powers many production level distributed systems: tikv, cockroachdb, dgraph and many others.
Over the last couples of years, the focus of etcd/raft is always stability and nothing else (although people are blaming us for usability :P).
If you never work on Unix, then you should insist on saying so. Holding integrity is much more important than getting an internship from FB. And, as an engineer working in the infrastructure space, I do not believe FB is looking for someone has UNIX experience for the internship.
The recruiter is not knowledgeable. If he/she is hiring for production engineering, he/she needs to understand the basic of the keywords they search for. No reason for you to apologize.
Right. And you still know something is not acceptable by the people, and you probably wont go across that line. Same thing in China. Many of Liu's opinions are hated by Chinese people in general, not by the central power.
Liu was not sentenced due to this <三百年殖民地。香港一百年殖民地变成今天这样，中国那么大，当然需要三百年殖民地，才会变成今天香港这样，三百年够不够，我还有怀疑。>
And, yes, what you just described is also well known. No one in this thread said Liu should be sentenced. And no one in this thread said they agree with what Chinese gov did.
What we suggest is that some of Liu's opinions are not acceptable by Chinese people. And he is not well respected as people might think. Some facts are provided in this thread.
Since that is a well known issue about him. No one thinks it is conspiracy theory. If you want to discuss about Liu, I assume you should do some homework first?
declaimer: work at Lepton AI.