Maybe I am doing it wrong as an Engineering Director, but technical round 2's are with me for 90 minutes. I often explicitly tell the candidate that I respect their time and that is why they are getting 90 minutes of mine, and not a take home. It is exhausting, but we have gotten some excellent hires this way.
Firefox is very nice these days, and will prompt you to import all your Chrome data if you haven't opened it in a while. It's a very easy thing to do, and U-block origin works on it.
We incurred a 6 figure bill when the API an authentication token handling lambda was updating from was taken down. The lambda went into a crazy loop self invoking, as it had a retry mechanism and a CRON schedule, which piled invocations on top of retries. (over worked team, poor design, etc.)
So far we have gotten no concessions from AWS, and we have annual bills in the millions, just not for this application whose budget now has an awkward and obvious spike.
Thanks, we are trying to compose an argument with this service in mind, we didn't have any recursive invocation protections for this lambda, and the AWS services it hammered during its invocations contributed to the massive cost.
We try to do this, QA owns deployment to production and has the final say if a feature needs a re-write. The almost adversarial incentives of dev and QA are why it works. Dev wants to close ticket, QA wants the feature to work, Product wants to tick a box, all collaborate so that the closed ticket delivers a working feature and not just one of those three things.
My opinion, I am not an expert by any means, I have only read the bitcoin whitepaper and written some very trivial blockchains to further my own understanding:
Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are impressive novel technology, they suit how they are used and work as a fungible token/currency. The underlying tech is impressive, like cryptography, and cannot (backdoors excepted) be broken for its intended purpose. Smart people who understand it recognized the potential and validity of the technology, and so it grew organically and became the phenomenon it is today. There is no technical gotcha, scams are another topic.
The general public's exposure was much more surface level and occurred after the tech had grown organically among technical folks. Now you pay with your CC on a familiar looking website, to buy something everyone says has value. It seems normal, and although you don't understand the underlying tech, you trust it is valuable. Lots of people get rich, lots of people lose money, but BTC remains valuable and the market remains. My elderly mother who is not technically literate is asking me how to invest.
After that, the general public has been conditioned to expect blockchain adjacent tech to be legitimate, they are feeling like they missed the gold rush but there is a new gold rush! NFTs! This time we skip the organic growth of a novel technology, adopted by smart people who understand the underlying tech. Now it is inorganic growth exploiting the crypto hype and pushed by hustlers. There is a legitimate use case for artists but that isn't what is driving the new mania.
This time there are massive technical gotchas (you have a link to a .jpg hosted on a server or servers, you don't own the copyright to anything). People find this out after the hype and massive adoption, if BTC never worked for its purpose it wouldn't have grown organically. NFTs have skipped that. There are torrents with every NFT pulled from these servers to highlight the lack of ownership, of technical control, I can't torrent your Bitcoins but I can download your stoned apes.
This is a long opinion, but it's why I think you see people find out after the fact just how flaky NFTs are.
The use-case may be valid but the implementation doesn't necessarily facilitate it.
I'm stating in the first quote that there is an idea of artists selling their work, but that isn't what is driving the accelerated adoption.
In the second quote I point out some of the technical deficiencies, it is supposed to contrast the first. It doesn't reconcile.
The comment chain is on the topic of why these technical deficiencies are news to so many people, my opinion is that we skipped the scrutiny that BTC experienced and we experienced a gold rush.
As mentioned the SKX is no longer produced, and the replacements for it are inferior as the 5 series has increased in price beyond inflation and are not true dive watches anymore. Orient is better if you want a dive watch in the spirit of the Seiko SKX.
The best current advice for beginners is probably on the Just One More Watch youtube channel, most watches are in the price bracket that the SKX occupied, and you will learn about micro-brands that exceed Seiko in quality, beat them on price, and under the hood have Seiko movements that are easily replaced & serviced for decades to come.
My Helm Komodo reccomended by Jodi of JOMW gets as much wear as my Rolex Submariner and at a fraction of the price. It isn't the same price or quality, but I enjoy it just as much.
9) Coloured success/failure feedback, even just the words correct or wrong being coloured, it takes me a few moments to pick the result ouf of the new text being shown to me. This is why my bash scripts usually colour the output too.
