This is a hard problem to fix with UX, as evidenced by Apple's over-simplistic warnings.
e.g. Threads may collect your financial data! But only if you give it to them, usually to purchase ads or verifications, etc.. This scary warning is over-scary.
e.g. Mastodon collects less data about you, but there's no warning for "The backend is unencrypted and likely run by a handful of humans (who are probably nice but answer to nobody)."
There are a small handful of exceptions. Many were in the exactly the right place at the right time. That’s not a repeatable strategy. I wouldn’t start RedHat today.
Yeah, you pay someone to take the assignment for you. Which, by the way, there's already a market out there where people are paying others to interview in their place (deceiving the company). I think video interviews are less cheatable than unsupervised assignments but still cheatable since bad actors can hire people to impersonate them. Anyways, whether or not these would be genuine significant risks in your hiring pipeline is pretty company-dependent.
Ah but the government will enforce my claim on the house if I’m holding (rightfully) the title. And if someone steals the title, it doesn’t mean they own my house.
Two things that jumped out at me:
1. It’s 2021. You can get a remote job for a big company that pays 10-15% less in Akron, not 40%. If you don’t want to work remote, you can still use BA remote salaries as leverage for local negotiations.
2. What “ggregoire” said: Engineers vary in quality EVERYWHERE. Many people holding onto CTO-type jobs in Akron or in BA startups can’t always move laterally. The salaries for everyone are rising in 2021, but for the truly strong (or for those who can nail an interview) they are rising even faster.
>In VoltDB, all replicas for a given shard are updated synchronously by the client application. This is where VoltDB pays a significant performance penalty for write operations when compared with Raft/Paxos-powered distributed SQL databases. Distributed consensus protocols like Raft and Paxos require writes to be sent to all replicas but commit as soon as a majority of replicas have acknowledged the request. Waiting for all replicas to respond is not necessary since the consensus can be established with a majority. Additionally, VoltDB does not detect network partitions by default and requires a special network-fault-protection mode to be configured. When a node of the cluster gets partitioned, the network-fault-protection mode comes into play. It negatively impacts cluster performance by increasing cluster recovery time for not only accepting writes on the shards whose replica was lost in the node partition but also for repopulating the data on the partitioned node when it joins back the cluster.
Ya. The stuff on NuoDB is basically all untrue or misleading as well (source: I work there). I wouldn't put too much stock in this self-promotion article.
