Well in the same vain that we discuss "points" and talk about the merits, its useful to discuss and understand their counter points. I for one did not know about this and thought it was insightful when building a product that hasn't fully been scoped out and is more greenfield
I mean it wouldn't make sense for it to be more profitable for google if there were no search deals, since otherwise they would just cancel the deal themselves. Clearly they see long term value in blocking out competition even at that high of a price
I don't have exact numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if 80-90% of google ad revenue comes from the ad prices they can charge for US users. I would be shocked if the percentage was less than 50-60% of revenue from US alone, which would put the value extraction per user for google at ~10$/month/user
Funny that I am seeing this now, because last Fall I had Daniel Genkin as my Intro to Cyber Security Professor (co-author of this result). Interesting class, but I remember him mentioning that they were working on a speculative attack for Apple CPUs after seeing the results of spectre and meltdown on Intel CPUs. I remember how he seemed almost paranoid about security, and I suppose I see why now (security is almost never guaranteed).
I am a little concerned with letting an AI agent that routinely hallucinates control my browser. I can't not watch it do the task, in case it messes up. So I am not sure what the value is versus me doing it myself.
See after just having through 3 rounds of recruiting over the past three years, I don't think the ghosting is intentional from most companies. I would say 60% of companies give a "not continuing" response after 1-2 months from application, while ~25% seem like they have a configuration/software mistake that causes it to send the rejection 6 months - a year later, which people in the meantime think was just ghosting. Not sure why this is so common
See this is tricky in my mind, because it doesn't seem like this was just a move to stop AWS/GCP cloud hosting Scylla. That was already solved with the AGPL license. This seems like they are just trying to stop any usage of ScyllaDB that isn't paid (outside of a relatively small free tier). I suppose its not a big deal, since you can always migrate to cassandra for open source forever, but definitely unfortunate for any individuals/organizations that can't afford this upgrade.
I am not well versed with mathematics publishing, but has this proof been already been peer reviewed by other mathematicians, or is it still awaiting confirmation/proof replication?
I got this formula as well. I viewed it as an expanding binary tree where you end up cutting branches early, similar to a alpha beta pruning search tree
I wrote some python code which should give the right answer
def formula(total_qs, terminating):
total = 1 << (total_qs - len(terminating))
for i, num in enumerate(terminating):
total += 1 << (num - i)
return total
print(formula(10, [1, 5]))```
I got nerd sniped by this question, and I think I have a closed form formula. Obviously it needs a summation since the order/placement of the numbers matters.
The formula is 2^(# of questions - # terminating questions) + SUM[2^(terminiating question number - idx in terminating question list] where the SUM is over all the terms in the list given as input to the question_paths function
for example: we take the example of question_paths(10,[1,5]), where the answer is 274. From the formula, we take 2^(10-2) + 2^(1-0) + 2^(5-1) which equals 274.
similarly for question_paths(10,[6,8]), where the answer is 448. From the formula, we take 2^(10-2) + 2^(6-0) + 2^(8-1) which equals 448.
honestly, I see this as a sign of Google bureaucracy/cost-cutting taking over the company's culture. Considering how much innovation in tech is happening right now, blowing cash on a dividend rather than internal projects that could make big returns seems like its completed its journey to becoming the next IBM
I totally agree with what you are saying, My point was that this policy just seems to be another one of those policies to get them to not be promoted. More hoops you may call it
Having talked to many friends at Dell (interns and full time), I have a few observations about this:
1. I know many people on HN hate the idea of RTO, and for good reasons, but one downside I saw of remote was that junior engineers struggled to get mentorship and guidance as well as an in person setting. A lot of the learning junior engineers get is through water cooler talk, informal suggestions, and off the cuff comments, rather than stuff brought up in stand-ups or asynchronous slack messaging
2. Dell already seems to have a culture of trying to avoid promoting junior engineers quickly/for multiple years, through avenues such as the rotation program which ensure you don't get promoted for at least 2 years.