int main() {
long long d;
std::cout << "Enter a Julian Day Number: ";
std::cin >> d;
if (d < 0) {
std::cerr << "Error: Invalid Julian Day Number (must be non-negative)." << std::endl;
return 1; // Indicate an error to the system
}
const int DAYS_PER_YEAR = 365;
const int DAYS_PER_LEAP_YEAR = 366;
const int DAYS_PER_LEAP_CYCLE = 1461; // 4 years
const int JULIAN_TO_GREGORIAN_THRESHOLD = 2299161; // Oct 15, 1582
// Adjust for Julian-to-Gregorian transition
if (d >= JULIAN_TO_GREGORIAN_THRESHOLD) {
d += 10; // Account for dropped days
}
int a = d + 32044;
int b = (4 * a + 3) / DAYS_PER_LEAP_CYCLE;
int c = (4 * a + 3) % DAYS_PER_LEAP_CYCLE;
int y = (b / 1460) + 1970;
d = (c / 4) - 365;
if (d < 0) {
y--;
d += DAYS_PER_YEAR + (y % 4 == 0);
}
std::cout << "Gregorian Year: " << y << std::endl;
std::cout << "Day of Year: " << d + 1 << std::endl; // Add 1 as days are typically 1-indexed
return 0;
}
Recently, my company acquired some engineers, and while I cannot evaluate their "percentile", I have been low-key flabbergasted at some of their suggestions for using LLMs in place of scripts. (For example, to modify or move nested data in a non-public JSON representation of a program.)
> As a rule of thumb, leap days come around every four years. But there are exceptions to this rule. For example, at the turn of every century we miss a leap year. Even though the year is divisible by four, we don't add a leap day in the years that end in 00. But there's an exception to this rule too. If the year is a multiple of 400 then we do add in an extra leap day again. At the turn of the millennium, despite being divisible by 100, the year 2000 did, in fact, have a 29 February because it was also divisible by 400.
That reminds me of this program, which calculates the month and day given the year and the day of the year [0]. There's a version that abuses goto, and one that stores state in variables and only uses structured statements. You probably won't see people similarly abuse goto today, though. I think it was translated from Fortran.
Compact Linux distribution tailored for low-spec x86 computers. It packs a lot of applications into a small package. All the applications are chosen for their functionality, small size, and low dependencies.
A peer of mine got invited to become a manager and was concerned about being ready so she scheduled a meeting with me and these are her notes cleaned up.
The first thing I told her was that if she thought she was truly ready--this will be no-big-deal kinda ready--to be a manager that would have been the first indication that she might not be ready.
This was a need reassurance and she is doing wonderfully.
Disclosure: I work at Google too and my opinions are also my own.
We are told internally that when we discuss Google related matters online that we should be cognizant of the what/where/how/why of our communication. Disclosing is—for me—both a reminder for myself and an attempt at a hedge against accidentally representing Google.
This seems really off to me. Mentioning that you work for Google only seems to introduce the risk that your words would be taken to represent Google. There’s a post in this thread where someone mentions they work for Google but fails to include the “opinions are my own” disclaimer.
The net of what you should be cognizant of when providing insider information on a product from your company or commenting on a topic it is heavily involved in is wider than the single issue you eagerly dredge up.
E.g. the last thing you want from your comment about using <new product> early internally are news articles about "What Google plans on doing with <new product>" when you were just trying to give your personal opinion on where the technology might go.
To echo this comment, zamadatix is exactly right; I need someone quoting me about a Google project as an official representative about as much as I need another hole in my head.
As to the greater point, I want to emphasize that as a human being I want to be careful with how I communicate with others because I care about them not feeling judged, dismissed, othered, or otherwise insulted. The charge that the rules keep changing is overblown; it’s always about respecting people even if you don’t understand or enjoy them.
I know that some might still equate that with “cancel culture” but I can’t help that (and tbh that’s a discussion that we should have over beers and not on the internet).
I never worked at Google and I probably never will. Still, if a boss tried to censor/alter my speech I do in my spare time using my own equipment and connectivity, I wouldn't like it.
This is literally every company in the entire world. How you talk about your own company is something you have to be mindful of because you are an agent of that company; the words you use and the way you react to things can tip investors off on how things are going internally. Do you think anyone wouldn't be mad at you if your company released a brand new product and you hopped onto Twitter to say it is complete garbage or something?
People often take statements from employees of companies as more authoritative than they are intended. If you are going to comment on something people are likely to make incorrect assumptions about and you know that, it makes sense to clarify that. In the case we're talking about here, it's better for both the employee and the employer.
L4 to L5 is no cakewalk. you have to be rock solid in the core SWE disciplines and have excellent communication, organization skills, and very good leadership skills too. looking at the stats, promoted as a % of total for L4 to L5 just makes it into the double digits and only a little over a quarter of all SWEs are L5.
the SWE ladder requires/expects for an L3 to get to L4 by makes no such requirement to ever get to L5.
That is why you don't play the promo game and get promoted via interviews at other companies. When you reach staff, that is usually when you have to practically start playing promo games. Not everywhere is google with their slow promo processes.
Also career and personal skill wise, it's good to see how other companies work. Pay is in many ways determined by your negotiation skills, and that is empowered by creating better BATNAs via interview skill.
“Interscholastic sports spread rapidly from the 1930s through the 1950s, at a time when the medical and physical education communities were opposed to competitive sports for elementary and junior high, and occasionally high school, students.” — https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2443/Sports-Scho...
