Productivity is certainly very high in go compared to rust; however, I've found that confidence about how the code executes is much easier to acquire in rust if it compiles.
Regarding the type system, it's definitely a sharp learning curve; there are certain patterns that are trivial in C++ that I still don't quite understand how to best translate. I suspect non-lexically-bound lifetimes will help a lot here iff they are viable.
However, debugging is a complete breeze compared to C++ because of a) the borrow tracker and b) the errors are much more readable because of a general lack of template soup.
Is any of the news content on snapchat worth watching? Scrolling through their entire offering seems to offer less information than a casual glance at the front page of a newspaper.
There is nothing competitive about the wages in Denver when you're comparing to CA. Cost of living is lower than SV, but still one of the highest in the country.
Have any numbers you'd care to furnish? Cost of living may be one of the highest, but you can easily get a 2 bedroom or a house in the burbs for $1500. It's quite easy to allocated less than a third of your take home to rent, unlike SV, Seattle, NYC, Boston, etc.
I agree with you, here are some numbers to back up Denver is great COL vs salary wise. I work remotely as a mid-level DevOps guy for about $115k and no equity. I bought a 3 br house with a yard next to a light rail station 10 min drive 20 min train ride to downtown. I bought during the recession for ~220k ($350k ish now) but rent in our neighborhood for a similar house would be $1800 total. If I were moving here today and renting, we'd rent a 1 br apartment nearby for about $1100.
You're either new to Colorado or ignorant of your (adopted?) state's history: this phenomenon is as old as Colorado itself, dating back to the Colorado Gold Rush of 1859. You're welcome to complain about the people who followed you, of course (a phenomenon that's also as old as Colorado), but please do not pretend that you have an exclusive concession on a state that its inhabitants have been redefining since before you were born.
Sorry, but no. CS is uber conservative, but not remotely libertarian. They're fine with using the government to enforce morality, the antithesis of libertarian ideals. And the weed was definitely NOT driven by CS. The conservatives there think it's ruining their state.
I live in Austin. It's really not that bad. Sure there are many people coming from CA (like I did 3 years ago) but Texas in general and also Austin in particular have distinct enough cultures that they haven't become just another CA. Just my personal opinion of course.
My near 40 years in Texas says otherwise. Yes, Texas culture is strong but the West Coast invasion has been felt. Less so in Austin because it was already a liberal place. Politics aside, the ethos was more similar to the West Coast.
We're used to waves of people moving in though and that's probably also what makes it somewhat less felt from the newcomers. We call ourselves the friendly state because of our welcoming attitude. However, I think if we ever flip from red to blue the pre-recession Texans are going to freak out.
> You don't say, "I am learning mathematic", unless you are a cretin.
So why is "maths" plural? It's sure as hell not countable. What is "a math"?
At least "mathematic" makes sense—you can deconstruct the morphology to understand this is "a lesson", i.e. the gerund of "to learn". It's also the natural english adjectival form of the greek word.
"maths" is just weird. You might as well use "magicks".
Why is configuring displays so damn difficult? It was never clear to me why there needed to be so many tools (xrandr, xorg, X, startx, xinit, xanorama) to just get a basic display working at the max resolution when other operating systems manage to have some sane plug-and-play behavior.
All of this seems to render linux pretty useless for hot-pluggable displays. I'm sure ubuntu has some sort of solution (I never use the desktop version); why can't this be integrated at the level of the X server (or hell, the graphics driver) itself? Is X too firmly baked to adjust to the needs of its users? Will wayland address this?
I dunno; I'm still trying to figure out whether it's a great idea or the worst idea. I don't want to have to do a code review on my investments; at large enough scale, lawyers are way cheaper than losing money.
Lawyers perform code review on contracts. Sadly, they don't have debuggers or reference compilers, just written language definitions and consultable output collections.
> Sadly, they don't have debuggers or reference compilers, just written language definitions and consultable output collections.
Why on earth would you want this? That's tantamount to replacing the court system itself, and I definitely prefer juries and judges to compilers and debuggers.
> What separates a traditional company from a tech company these days really just revolves around how much the company values tech.
I dunno; netflix has nice tech, but it's hardly without competition. I don't think you could even consider their tech a differentiator for customers; they could switch onto whatever tech HBO uses and leverage their existing content without subscribers even noticing.
Every large company has a tech component. Why do you think outsourcing data analysis vs doing it in house changes how an outsider should evaluate the business? What matters are why people pay them.
They value tech, but Netflix without their proprietary content is just a dumb pipe. In comparison to, say, a telco it's not very different -- nothing more than a commodity.
The tech stack in itself can be cool for an engineer to work on, but business wise it has little value. The only way to progress in this market is to focus on content. That's what makes (or breaks) a service.
>Why do you think outsourcing data analysis vs doing it in house changes how an outsider should evaluate the business?
This is the crux of the matter. Why roll your own tech when you can buy off the shelf?
Off the shelf tech is, by definition, old tech. If you roll your own you can have a new feature, optimisation or bug fix in production the same day it comes out of QA. The lead time for vendor tech can be months, or even years. If you prioritise a new feature likewise you can have your devs working on it the same day it gets green lit. Try that with a vendor. Controlling your own technology stack, sometimes even developing your own dev tooling internally, can be a decisive competitive advantage.
I wouldn't expect any major studio (which is what most of these companies basically are at this point) to handle their streaming by calling IBM and write a check. On the other hand, implementing a reliable streaming platform--while requiring a lot of developers, ops people, and money--is a fairly well-understood problem at this point.
I expect that a branded streaming-as-a-service platform will absolutely exist at some point relatively soon. But I'm not aware of examples today.
That said, I'll bet on the company with the content rather than the company with an incrementally whiz-bangier streaming platform.
But surely you can perceive a difference between MLB, which developed in-house tech that gave them a competitive advantage versus other sports groups and enabled them to build a successful business providing that service to other companies, and the ones that buy in that tech. MLBs investment put them years ahead of their competition in that area.
I'm not sure how much was the tech. It wasn't all developed in-house anyway; they were a big reference for at least EMC ages ago. But certainly, like a number of the more successful media/entertainment companies, they recognized that technology was important at a time when you couldn't just get it off the shelf.
Today it's less clear that the tech is still as compelling a differentiator relative to the content.
I think it does. If you substantially develop your own technology stack, you're a tech company. It can be a small or large part of your business, but it's still a fact.
they could switch onto whatever tech HBO uses and leverage their existing content without subscribers even noticing.
I disagree; subscribers would definitively notice if Netflix lost its global ISP-hosted dynamically-allocated caching network, for example: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
There's more tech than what's visible on the surface.
Well, I agree their data center technology is impressive, but—again—it's hardly unique. HBO and MLB both serve similar levels of peak traffic with similar quality, though netflix manages to deliver some bitrate at almost all times whereas HBO sometimes hiccups.
I'd be interested if you could demonstrate there's a strong correlation between that and peak traffic—but I suspect things like GOT premiers will be highly competitive with netflix.
Furthermore, this is highly cacheable content. Again, netflix's tech is impressive, but at its core caching is a problem that has been solved and solved again. You aren't going to differentiate yourself by being a dumb pipe.
I highly, highly, highly doubt that netflix's tech is going to be a differentiating factor when people choose them so they can watch Kimmy Schmidt.
Going by the engineering salaries they seem to value tech quite a bit. I haven't heard that Netflix hired a bunch of IT vendors to deliver next-gen delivery platform, the way Sony / Warner Bros etc do.
