Someone else asked this maybe a year ago. I've been prodding our exchange team to write a proper post about it but they have been ... busy. The move is also still in progress.
But a short version is pretty simple: lack of available talent, unsuitable memory model, performance. Erlang's shared-nothing model is great for concurrency; it does not work well when dealing with data structures that are subject to invasive operations. (Limit order book sees very rapid modifications.)
I'll have to nudge our exchange team again about the writeup. Maybe we'll have it at some point.
Not enough. About 1 cup a day (down from 3), but my red bull has gone up by 2 cans of 12 oz, so it's about an even thing. Alcohol, I actually have to slow down my drinking, but I would say about 10 shots a month is a decent average.
I can verify turblety's comment. I've tried multiple times to get Lazarus working on OS X, and the closest I've gotten to getting it working was the IDE to actually show up, but crash trying to get the Hello World example to compile and run.
As someone who plays pokemon a lot, this reads false. While it's true Electric is a good type because of the only one weakness (Ground attacks) and Ice is cool because it has 4 super advantages (Fly, Dragon, Grass and Ground), it's a terrible type because it also has 4 weaknesses (Fight, Rock, Steel, and Fire).
This analysis just feels wrong. In pure type advantages, sure it's correct. But Pokemon can learn other types of attack besides it's 2 typings! (Infernape, for example, has the typing Fight/Fire. It's weak to Psychic, Water, Flying and Ground. But it has access to moves to get around those weaknesses, meaning that it's typing isn't as bad as this analysis would suggest it is.)
I guess you can say, hmm, that's interesting, but in terms of game play, strategy, and how good a pokemon can be, the typing is usually one of the lesser concerns.
Also, no mention of potential types like Ghost/Normal that have no weakness, or Ghost/Fighting that have complete coverage with their STAB moves. I haven't played in ages, but surely there's more type combinations that are exceedingly OP.
Ghost/Normal does have a weakness. Dark. There is no combination that doesn't have a weakness, anymore. (It used to be Dark/Ghost, but then GameFreak came out with Fairy type, which is super-effective against Dark.)
> Which is why I’m having trouble picturing the market for this. How big is the overlapping region in the Venn diagram of “Linux users” and “people who need a hand-holding not-really-a-database”
Well, that's not really the target. It's to get another check unchecked that keeps people from switching from Windows to another platform. For now, yes, I agree with you.
I'm currently a salary negotiation coach, and most of my clients are in tech (Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, some smaller tech companies). In my previous life, I was a project manager and consultant in the HR Software industry. I live in Florida, but have worked for companies based in Florida, California, Indiana.
The reason why I ask is because in Washington, D.C, at least in tech, it's almost impossible to get a job in this area without going through a recruiter. So how would you go about dealing with them in an unable to avoid situation?
If you MUST work with a recruiter (staffing firm, for example), I think it's important to be firm that you're excited for good opportunities, but that your salary history and expectations are your private business. I also recommend going around the recruiters whenever possible by using your own network (people who work at the company or in the industry who can make phone calls to put you in touch with the company directly).
I recently interviewed someone for the new company I just started working for. This candidate was recommended by someone already in the company for a position we're trying to fill. The company reached out to their staffing firm, and contacted him through them. So, that's what I mean by D.C. tech companies, they seems to LOVE using recruiters.
Thank you for the article. To actually get to the point, I'm not sure how helpful it is to me. It seems to me like a game: if you're sure you have a strong hand, it makes sense to not disclose your salary. But if you have a weak one, disclosing early/knowing the salary range makes it worthwhile to disclose the range that you're looking for.
I think a big part of the issue is why do you need to tell them your salary? why doesn't the recruiter tell you the expected salary range. The same questions can be answered...
In D.C., the place where I've spent most of my adult career, that is the case. If your recruiter doesn't tell you the salary range, it's because they (75%) honestly don't know themselves. Either because it may be based on experience of the candidate, or because there are multiple roles which you as a candidate could fill and the company doesn't want to throw out numbers to confuse/hide things.
In fact, it's usually the opposite situation here. It's weird to NOT know the salary range, and how much wiggle room there is. (It honestly helps that salary range is usually defined in the proposal for contract companies to the government, and they've already built in profit before they even begin to hire employees.)
Why should salary history be a secret? I know my market value. I make X, I won't consider jobs less than Y. No negotiation necessary. If the company will pay me Y. I accept. I might leave a little money on the table, but not enough to make a difference, when my salary gets too far out of line with the market, I move on.
There are bidet-like sprayers for spraying poop off of cloth nappies into the toilet[1]. There are also similar actual bidet attachments for toilets for adults[2]. I was thinking you could almost do the same thing as those and just make it smaller and low pressure.
