It won't last long but yes. Recent anecdote, we purchases 1 or 2 years of licenses for the oracle JVM across thousands of hosts to give us time to migrate "properly and safely" to openJDK. Migration has very high man power and risks costs, Oracle knew it very well before their purchase of Sun.
I still can't decide. I am wanting to get into ios development after 10 years. which computer should I go for.
What is opinion on these m1 machines longevity. Some tech people are comparing it to first gen iPad.Like they will be sunset after a couple of years vs 2nd gen which are supported much longer. but I am not so sure most of the issues with these first gen m1 machines are software so in theory they should be supported for long time.
Apple still plans on releasing new Intel macs. I don't even think buying one of those is out of the question for some people.
If you look back at the Intel transition, if I remember correctly they released the MacBook Pro with a Core Duo in January of 2006 and Core 2 Duo in October. The latter being 64-bit. Sure, the latter ones were better, but the former ones worked fine. OS support seems to go with architecture generations. The early 2006 laptops supported Snow Leopard which had its last release in 2011. The next laptops supported Lion which had its last release in 2012 (but with hacks could get updated until 2018).
I think the major question is if you want to wait to see what the "pro" machines look like or if Apple has tweaks in 6 months to the current line up. The Mac Pro has some big questions about what may need to change if they're looking for parity with the current Mac Pro (improved multi-monitor support, more RAM options, upgradable GPUs). Those changes may show up in the high end Macbook Pros (likely not upgradable GPUs).
You will be inside of Xcode for most of your time - I just upgraded to a 13" Air (maxed out configuration) from my 2012 11" Macbook Air which was still fine with Xcode. I think any Mac will run Xcode well enough.
I have the new MBP and I can tell you its a remarkable machine. Of course you need to check which SW you need to run and if it works (I assume it will). I guess everything else, native versions, will come with time.
Not really. It was well known that passwords were being cracked, and the guy in question was even warned already that his password had been cracked the week before.
Wait, how is it a common / weak password if it has some oddly sexual phrase regarding a specific person? Sounds like its literally just brute-forcing, in which case you're just going to hit random user's passwords.
A string of dictionary words and a very common name. And yeah, JohnTheRipper was a brute forcing dictionary attack that was very common. If anyone had access to the password file they could run the same cracker. The idea was to crack the passwords before an advisary could using the same tools.
Next time you can push for explicit password quality requirements and something like 2FA instead of violating people's privacy and weakening their security at the same time. (Can you imagine anyone reused personal passwords?) This eagerness to apply fun tools in the workplace is in large part what built the heinous surveillance apparatus that's probably going to kill a lot of people as soon as a sufficiently strong-willed fascist takes control again. Richard Stallman has called this "Stalin's dream", but ironically he was also recently Cancelled for ridiculous allegations of sexual misconduct and wrong-think, so perhaps this allusion is not sufficiently powerful for this audience anymore. A shame if so.
The questionable behavior in this case is getting a guy fired for selecting a politically-incorrect secret passphrase. This is merely one step removed from reading his brain and figuring out he fantasizes about spanking coworkers while having sex with them. (I've done this, and yet we are good friends!)
We don't know all the details, maybe that guy actually harassed people, but scrutinizing someone's private thoughts without prior suspicion for offensive-but-noncriminal behavior that can be pivoted into larger accusations is how police states work.
In the best case, this encourages people to filter their private thoughts and actions by the standards of what is acceptable to advertise publicly, which is incredibly unhealthy and oppressive.
> The questionable behavior in this case is getting a guy fired for selecting a politically-incorrect secret passphrase.
I think you're being disingenuous. The guy got fired for sexual harassment. The password merely tipped people off as to what was going on. Don't use a weasel word like "politically incorrect" to re-frame the discussion in a way that's both incorrect and more favorable to an emotional reaction in your favor.
It's stated that he was fired for "being creepy", which is a highly underspecified complaint that can be used against someone you find disagreeable for any reason, only some of which warrant termination-of-livelihood. I was being charitable assuming that the real accusation involved actually harassing someone.
Like what? I have an ex-girlfriend whom I dumped when she (among other things) called my family and lied about me getting into a horrible accident because we were arguing about her [several hard street drugs] addiction. I cared about her enough to stick around until after the drug problems started. She tells people I'm a "creep" when she explains why we didn't work out, because we had been together for a while and I seemed like a decent guy. I literally moved to a different state because she'd show up at my home and work frenzied, and I knew a restraining order would land her in jail (and cause her to lose her surprisingly good job, which I was sure was the last remaining foothold of stability in her life; at this point I was literally worried about indirectly killing her by protecting myself). She still doesn't know where I live, some of my throwaway accounts have the phrase "FUCK [her name]" in their password, and (old, because I can't share contact anymore) mutual friends have told me she tells everyone that I developed hardcore schizophrenia and generally behaved like Satan. The shorthand for this is "creep".
I'm sorry that happened, that sounds like a terrible situation.
Do you see how I took you at your word and extended sympathy, rather than questioning whether you're misrepresenting the situation? Is there something you know about the facts of jedberg's situation that lead you not to do the same?
He has not presented any facts that are under contention, only normative estimations that rely on facts that are deliberately unspecified.
The politically and economically safe option in the workplace is always to discard people who fall under scrutiny that exposes an employer to liability. This raises the reasonable standard of complaint for these types of issues beyond "his password, which I cracked despite design and goal to remain private to one human soul ever, was weirdly suggestive, and none of the people ostensibly involved have voiced any concerns but I must Report This to The Authorities and Start the Hammer Falling."
Suspicion and doubt are very powerful weapons, and sometimes they're used against good people in the name of heroism, saying nothing of bad motives. They also have the feature of being incredibly hard to dispel entirely once raised, regardless of the quality or scale of the evidence. If someone looked at my F-word password with the wrong prior or coaching, I'd have to break out volumes of psychotic voicemails, videos, pictures, testimony by family and close former friends, etc, to prove I shouldn't be Cancelled.
Can you think of a crackable-length passphrase that would make a normal, level-headed person suspicious enough to make efforts that almost guarantee someone is going to get fired in the worst way possible?
> The politically and economically safe option in the workplace is always to discard people who fall under scrutiny that exposes an employer to liability.
What leads you to believe this? You are aware, I assume, of the existence of "wrongful termination" lawsuits, many of which have cost companies millions of dollars?
> Can you think of a crackable-length passphrase that would make a normal, level-headed person suspicious
"rape Karen fun"
> fired in the worst way possible
What about this sounds to you like the worst way possible to get fired? Here are some ways to get fired that sound way worse to me:
"several frightening, anonymous calls that came into his work phone. One caller told him that [...] he wouldn’t live to see the weekend. Another said that the “fancy blue tie” he was wearing that day might wind up turning red. [...] an effort by the [company's] attorney to discredit him by falsely claiming he’d had a romantic relationship with [coworker he was standing up for]. Shortly afterward, [his employer] fired him."
"only two weeks after her hire, while she was in the passenger’s seat of [male employee]'s car returning from a business meeting, he exited the 101 freeway, stopped his car on a side street, and pulled his erect penis from his trousers. With the doors and windows locked from the driver’s side, he reached over “and pushed her head on his erect penis in an attempt to force her to orally copulate with him,” according to her complaint. He then ejaculated.
[her] horrifying depiction of sexual assault went on for pages. There was the ride back to the office after a client visit two days later, when [male employee] again tried to force her to touch his penis and “almost careened into a commercial eighteen-wheel vehicle.” Another time in the car, this time in standstill traffic, he took his erect penis out of his trousers and shoved her left hand back and forth on it, again ejaculating. In the complaint, she says she tried to free her hand but “was unable to overcome his strength.” In another incident, he called her into his office, locked the door behind her, and tried to force her to have sex. That time, the complaint says, she “managed to escape his grasp.”
A month after that frightening incident, [she] was fired by [him], purportedly for “an attitude problem, aversion to directions, resistance and resentfulness.” She told the office supervisor about [his] assaults and suggested that the “attitude problem” [he] had referred to was her resistance to his assaults. The supervisor told her that sort of workplace conduct was considered “normal”"
1. The courts are profoundly unfair. Are you comfortable forcing harassment victims to go through the courts for what are literally criminal allegations?
2. This example seems too contrived and implausible, as is anything else I could think of. The whole story just seems too magical. Maybe I'm just being hard-headed and arguing with a hero.
3. I will concede that is a more unpleasant series of events without care for semantics.
1. I have no idea what you're talking about. You suggested the liability risk for employers is extremely one-sided such that the "safe option ... is always to discard people". I asked if you were aware of the enormous, court-tested liability risk employers face when they discard people. What leads you to believe the liability risk is nevertheless extremely one-sided?
2. Someone sexually harassing his coworker and saying something sexual about her in his password seems magical and unlikely to you? You don't believe the hundreds of corroborated stories about men saying stuff like that openly? Or you think people are less likely to do that in something semi-private like a password than openly?
1. It's difficult to safely discard people on the basis of their belonging to a certain set of protected classes, which does not include those accused of sexual misconduct. As soon as you have someone willing to issue a complaint you can't disprove, you're prepared to safely remove your enemies. There's a reason savvy managers never have private meetings with women.
2. It's magical that some guy exposed a "creep" Doing Very Bad Things by looking at his password he cracked. No witnesses complained, the victim had never complained, just from a distant computer we catch this faint whiff of something wrong in the strangest (invasive, aside) way and turn out to be a hero. Or maybe we just sent a weird password to HR, and they did the default thing and fired the guy for nuisance and liability, and years later we remember the justification that he must have deserved it because he's gone. (Details? Sorry, can't!) It's easier on the conscience, too.
1. If that's what you believe, then you're acknowledging that the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, not just going to management about the password. So you're agreeing that going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired".
2. "maybe we just sent a weird password to HR, and they did the default thing and fired the guy"
You just acknowledged in the prior paragraph that an actual complaint was necessary.
"years later we remember the justification that he must have deserved it because he's gone. (Details? Sorry, can't!)"
To be clear, you have already said you have no basis whatsoever to believe that he made up the details that justified the firing.
Just like I could suggest, with no basis, that you actually dumped your ex-girlfriend in a mean and nasty way over her struggles with addiction, and while distraught over the breakup she expressed her displeasure with you in conversations with mutual friends. You weren't actually present at any of these conversations, but you're sure she called you schizophrenic, satanic, and a creep, details you made up because it's easier on your conscience. You were the only person who ever perceived her as "frenzied", her job never did and neither would the cops, but it's easier on your conscience to say the only reason you didn't get a restraining order was to keep her out of jail.
All that would be entirely consistent with the facts you've told us, if I wanted to view you in the worst possible light with no basis whatsoever. Just like you're doing to jedberg.
1. You misunderstand. Going to HR with an unsavory password is a complaint that cannot be disproven.
2. I'm willing to divulge the massive amount of evidence that exists in my favor, and there's nothing self-serving about my story. In fact, it's a huge embarrassment. I shared it in the interest of getting things a little more straight in the world, not to feel good or look like a great guy. That's the difference. If anything I've said concerns you and you'd like to know more, my email is in my profile.
1. I continue not to understand. Which one of these things do you believe to be true?
a) The company's reason for firing the guy was the content of the password, not the behavior of harassment, and jedberg was outright lying in claiming otherwise. If so, what basis do you have to believe this? What do you know about the company or the guy that jedberg is talking about other than what jedberg has told us?
b) The company's reason for firing was the harassment, but somehow the unsavory password is a complaint of harassment that cannot be disproven. This makes no sense. The content of the password cannot be disproven, of course, because it's in the computer system and so is a plain fact to all observers, but the existence or nonexistence of harassment can of course be disproven, which they checked by asking the officemate (unless you believe jedberg outright lied to us). Hence the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, and going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired".
2. The only way in which jedberg's story is self-serving is gaining imaginary points on the Internet, unless you have reason to believe jedberg stands to gain money or something else from writing his story the way he did. If your story is not self-serving because it merely helps you gain sympathy and anecdotally substantiate your argument about how the term "creep" can be used, then neither is jedberg's.
Sorry to hear about an unpleasant situation. However, I think it's safe to assume this is unrelated to the story about the dude's password and HR issues.
Well it's none of my business and after the story you've shared I can't say I am very concerned. But in the story about HR, they looked into it and there was "other stuff", I guess they concluded something else about that situation.
We don't know what that "other stuff" is and if it's right or wrong, but it's also likely not the exact same situation as your very detailed and specific story, is my point.
There's at least another similarity, and that's that neither of us had been accused of misconduct in our workplace. If anything, he was looking sharp relative to my vindictive smear campaign.
Day 2 :next day market crashes. Acme is very low volume so price crashes to 1$ .
what happens next ? do all the EFT that follow S&P have to sell all ACME for 1$ because it is
not in the S&P 500 anymore.
Day 5 : ACME jump back to 200 $ and is back in the S&P 500.
So my question is what would have happen to a passive investor. if he bought 1000$ worth of ETF right before the crash. Will he still have a 1000$ dollars at the end of it .
The S&P reconstitutes itself four times a year. But, imagine that your scenario worked anyways -- the investor would have less than $1000 since the S&P index missed the recovery of Acme Inc. But considering the largest constituent of the S&P (MSFT) is only around 4% of the index total weight, the impact of Acme Inc's price decline would not be great.
There is no market rule that prevents a single stock from dropping 99% in a day. LULD only halts trading for a few minutes, then there's an auction that could result in any price.
If it were a straight drop of 99% - say it is trading at $100 at tick_1 and at tick_2, it is trading at $1, trading will be halted at point which happens to be after a 99% drop. In reality, stocks gap downwards in a series of shallow steps which are unlikely to be 99% in one tick.
but you splitting your developer base.
* There will be people better at kotlin
* There will be people better at java.
This is a problem when you are looking at hiring new people etc . This fragmentation is going cause issues just because people are hedging against Oracle future decisions.
In a perfect world Google should have bought Sun and the current version of Java would look at lot like Kotlin.
Kotlin is a light syntax for a coding style. It's as easy for a Java dev to learn Kotlin as it is to learn Spring or Hibernate or whatever library or framework the team at your new job uses
Cause and effect are simple to discern with one variable (like pushing a ball), with multiple variables everything becomes increasingly complicated.
Kind of why drugs don't work in the same way with everyone. Too many subtle differences (blood type, chromosomes, dna, age, hormone levels, deficiencies etc.)
Honest Question. What is breakdown of market share angular versions market share? does anyone have these stats? I know not a lot of new projects are being done in angular 1 but I am under the impression that majority of jobs are still for angular 1.
