It is, but for B2C messaging, there is a solution hosted by Meta that terminates the encryption at the gateway level (i.e. Meta can see the message content).
The alternative to that is the on-premise solution.
I love your tool for trimming down interview videos from Zoom!
However, recently I updated my recording setup with a new platform. Now I have separate video tracks for each participant and recut doesn’t handle multiple videos. Will this be supported in the new release?
Multi-track support is one of the things I’m trying to bake in from the beginning this time and I’m hopeful that’ll make it into the new release.
I’ve heard it said before (I think it was on the Software Social podcast) that whenever you have a choice to support 1 or many of a thing, always err on the side of “many” (users, teams, etc.) Well it turns out that applies to video tracks and clips too! There are massively more things to consider once there’s more than one, haha.
On 1 vs many,I think its totally reasonable to start with 1 given you are a small team. If you force yourself with high standard (which takes lots of extra person-hours), then you lose the key agility compared with other bigger players.
I thought that might be the case but when I zoom in I can see the back roads in Apple Maps. I am pretty sure it is a algorithm issue. Google doesn’t have enough data about how slow those back roads are and maybe relies on that data more than Apple does.
The dilemma around open sourcing versus big (medium?) company taking advantages of such permissive licenses is more and more common these days. Look forward to a good way to resolve this.
I could, but I worry that it would drive down sales volume and reduce total profit. I've sent the product to several IT reviewers, and they all bring up the $300 price point as borderline too high, so I've been reluctant to increase it further.
That said, I've increased prices several times thinking it would drive down volume and it never does, so maybe I should just bump it up again. I just have this weird mental block about exceeding $300.
Anecdata: I found this device interesting when I first saw it announced. I kinda want one. I think I saw it at a $250 price point, and it was already out of my ballpark. If I was buying it for business use, it'd be justifiable at higher.
For personal use, you already priced me out, so who cares? For hobbyists outside of the Silicon Valley-tier of salary, you've already priced most home buyers out, I could spend $300 on TinyPilot, or I could spend $300 on an entirely new server.
There should be a reason for it. I learn things because I need them for my job or I find them interesting, hopefully with some overlap. There's a lot of things to learn in life, and it's rather pointless to learn things for an interview process if it doesn't reflect upon the actual job requirements.
Also, it's not like people know nothing. A good interview process learns both what the candidate does and does not know, how what they know could be useful, and how capable the candidate is in filling a knowledge gap if there actually is one between what they know and what is actually needed for the job. That is of course in addition to learning whether they're nice to be around or not.
It's like learning a gate code; you don't need it once you're in the house, it's pointless to learn it, except that you have to in order to get through the gate.
If you can't handle the level of theater that is reviewing basic CS concepts that we all could afford to be more aware of even if we don't need to remember them day to day, you're really not going to survive the level of theater that dealing with a large organization requires.
Ironically, the old-school hackers who made the word "hacker" famous, like the ones who built the UNIX ecosystem before Linux was even a thing, knew their CS fundamentals like the back of their hand. They'd have zero trouble with the coding aspect of these interviews.
Very few people on HN are hackers.
> "If you look at Goldman Sachs or Microsoft, BOTH are investing heavily in tuning their recruitment process to identify and hire neuro-atypical people"
That's just a publicity stunt. I'd bet money that few of the neuro-atypical they hire last long in those places.
I don't know that I'm terribly interested in gatekeeping who can call themselves a hacker.
Like I'll agree that there definition of hacker in 1983 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames is different from the one we generally buse today, but the world has changed a lot in that time.
Did white-hat exist in '83?
The definition of hacker has evolved from "one who uses computer tools to gain illicit access to protected computer systems" to "one who makes shit work and does cool stuff"
If you're going to imply that only the 1983 definition is the one anyone can use, I feel like you're going to be off on that island mostly alone.
Honest to God, I think current interview practices suck and single out leetcode as particularly corrosive and demonstrating nothing about competence.
But I honestly can’t believe people are acting like reversing a binary tree is hard. This is like something you’d expect high school students with the most basic you data structures knowledge to be able to do.
Absolutely. There is so much pointless bureaucratic BS that has to be done and dealt with at large corps that studying CS concepts seems like a genuinely pleasant experience in comparison.
I have never prepped for an interview in my life. If they're asking me questions or to solve problems related to my field, I don't really need to study. If they ask me things that are irrelevant, then that's another thing entirely.
In short, I am a specialist, and am hired accordingly.
It says that I spend my time learning things that are actually useful, rather than trivia.
The best screening I ever went through was for a job where I'd be working on a Spring Boot app with a React frontend. For that screening, I was asked to add a simple feature to an example app.
It was clearly toy code, so I knew they weren't trying to get free work out of me. It was also representative of the kinds of tasks I would be doing, which let me know that I would enjoy the job, and let them know I would be good at it. I was hired on the spot.
I've written algorithms to reverse b-trees, and I could figure it out again if I had to. But I don't have to, because the standard library is a thing, and that task tells a potential employer nothing about my skill set.
For what it's worth, I don't like the CS-y interview process, but I also struggle with that very technology specific process. I don't want a job that hired me just to be a Spring Boot + React monkey. I want a job that hired me because they think I'm smart and adaptable and can tackle any problem with any technology.
Here's the thing I think you're missing when it comes to the employer's POV during these types of interviews: they don't care so much about your skillset. At the point where you're doing an in-person interview and being asked these pointless puzzle questions, they are reasonably sure you have the required skillset to do the job.
What they're actually testing for during the in-person interview is your ability to be a good worker bee. They're filtering out people like you who would question the point of doing task X. They want people who will do task X without question. They don't want workers who will ask "Why are we doing task X? Shouldn't we do task Y instead?" For most positions at these large companies, the person who questions the efficacy of task X is a different role -- the role that is instructing you to do task X.
With these trivia questions, they are in fact telling you as a prospective employee the kinds of tasks you will be doing. They are letting you know that you will be doing a lot of pointless work, you won't have any say in the work you will be doing, the work you will be doing will seem trivial to you, and you have to be okay with that. If you're not okay with that, it's not the job for you.
This might be true at places that are hiring out of a boot camp or something, but as a hiring manager myself, I can say that this is 100% not true at any company I've worked for.
The BST doesn't correlate to doing well at the job. Being willing to teach yourself the BST because you want the job does correlate to doing well at it.
I don't mean to sound rude, but I feel like your response seriously lacks empathy.
I am a father to a 2 year old, I have a mortgage and an existing full time job.
The time investment required to go through a bunch of algorithms that are almost exclusively used in passing coding interviews does not offer the same ROI as, for example, streamlining a process that you are currently facing on a day to day basis.
On top of that, something that I've learned recently about myself is that I have a tremendous fear of failing coding interviews.
You see there is an emotional component to the effort you put in to doing one of those things. You go through the work to get accepted into the interview process then you find yourself face to face with "one shot" to impress.
Maybe they've even flown you out to their location so you can go through this whole experience on site. At that point the optimistic among us might start thinking about things like what our lives would look like if we worked at "technological mecca" doing really cool shit for silicon valley dollars.
So you start allowing yourself to think about watching the ocean on a sunny day eating avacado toast while you watch your now bleach blonde son playing in the surf. Your wife is happy too. You have this beautiful life that you're providing for those that you love.
(in your fantasies you don't worry about the cascadia fault-line, the dystopian nature of US healthcare, or the fact that california seems to catch fire for a month every year nowadays)
ANYWAYS, you go in, you give it your all. Maybe you think you nailed it, or maybe you can clearly come up with 20 better solutions in the 20 seconds after you leave. Maybe you studied 50 concepts intensely, but missed the one they picked to ask you about. You didn't get the questions in advance or anything.
It doesn't matter though, you missed a semicolon on the whiteboard and your code doesn't compile when they type it in.
You get a terse reply from your original recruiter "not a good fit at this time" ... there's no insight into what you did wrong or where you could get better. That opens the company up to legal liability. Anything more than "thanks" risks exposure.
So you're left with days and weeks of effort for nothing. On top of that you have a real long flight home where you get to grieve the loss of that beautiful life you imagined.
Do you work in a place where you can tell your colleagues at work that you were interviewing? If not, you can't even talk to the people in your life who are most likely to understand the pain you're going through.
I think couple things about interviews I've come to realise is this.
1. DO NOT get emotionally involved or excited about an opportunity till the time you see an offer letter - those reeeallly sweet people that are so happy and courteous and smiley will switch in an instant, snap! throw you out faster than a used disposable cup and will not so much as give you the courtesy of a reply. They don't give flying f about you no matter how many hours they themselves invested in the process. See for them, this is paid work to talk to you, so they don't give a shit they do it for 10 hours and still drop you without even sending you an email. You are working for free during the interview process and have much more at stake in this process than the person you are talking to. You feel you're having a genuine human interaction with them? no.
You think it went well because objectively it went really well? Don't worry you'll get a 2 line generic rejection email.
2. DO NOT ever gauge your self worth as a developer to passing or failing an interview - you will destroy your own morale. Take hints and learn to be better, no doubt, but the decisions people make about you sometimes don't have anything to do with you specifically so don't take it to heart too much.
The problem is if you don't get emotionally involved you'll definitely lose at least some level of emotional boost & interest. That also could be noticed & mentioned in one of the reviews.
There is no ultimate solution, it always depends on specific person you're talking to
For me the ROI was about 40 hours of studying for (estimating) about a million dollars delta over my next best job offer over the first five years. That week I spent studying is the most return I've ever achieved per hour. I don't love it and I deeply hated it at the time and still feel dirty to think about it, but from a financial ROI perspective it is unassailable. Honestly I think the opposite of your family-man argument is the case: I couldn't afford to allow my pride to keep me from doing that, for the sake of my family's finances. When I was young and unattached I could (and did) afford to be more idealistic about not doing that kind of gross thing, just for the financial reward.
I think you should acknowledge that some people fail despite studying about 40 hours, and failing an interview takes a significant emotional toll that needs to be dealt with.
Good point, it is definitely not risk-free ROI at all, and the emotional toll can have outsized impacts. But I still think people with the skill set to succeed at other companies can learn enough in a relatively small period of time (I said 100 hours in a different comment to make the numbers round, maybe even double that is worthwhile) for it to be a worthwhile risk. I mean, the exact calculation depends on a bunch of details, like what the best alternative is in comparison. But I think for lots of people, it is worth the risk.
One thing I'd say is that essentially none of the people I know in other fields have a similar opportunity for a relatively small amount of dedicated study to pay off so well.
You're just so right! I'm expecting to take on a roughly 14 week study course to fit the work required into the time I have after I've put my son to bed and around my day job. Oh yeah ... and that podcast I started about professional development in software engineering.
(...and, and, and...)
But you're SO right.
I expect that publicly committing to internet-strangers that I'm working on the course, producing materials for them &, having a scheduled weekly discussion around the topics will help with both learning the content AND keeping us all motivated.
Your initial comment was one of the things that helped me come to those conclusions, so genuinely thank you, kind internet stranger for sharing your wisdom.
So it took a few days for what you said to sink in. And there were a few other information sources that combined together to bring me to the conclusion that you're right.
I've actually started writing a self-study course on passing the FAANG, as a trained educator with a bachelor of Education and five years experience as a high school teacher, I think I can make a fair shake at designing a series of free learning materials on the subject.
I started inviting people along and have built up a list of about 20 people who've at least SAID they'll stop by to my live streams (once a week) to discuss the problems of the week.
I don't know that the switch would have flipped in my head about the ROI of the FAANG interview.
As I said, it took a couple days to actually sink it but you have completely changed my mind. I now completely agree with you that they are worth doing for a number of reasons, many of which aren't financial at all.
I see them as equivalent to the Bar exam for Lawyers now. Would you hire a lawyer who said "I don't believe in the bar?" (I think we've seen how that played out with the Kraken lawsuit!)
Would you go to a hospital that said "We don't believe that doctors need to have done the USMLE"?
In both cases hell no!
You're right. This is not arbitrary or cruel, it's just a professional qualification. Sure there's some luck involved, there's the chance of personality conflict. There's all sorts of potential downsides... but there's also the upside.
Being better at my craft overall is the ultimate reward. If I'm a better developer overall, the money will follow regardless of whether I get in to a FAANG
I have always felt the desire to work at FAANG was diametrically opposed to having a family life.
Its seems to be an extremely competitive, eat or die type lifestyle that would require many more hours than a normal job. In essence its its own marriage of sorts, or at least in competition for non-work relationships/marriages.
And there's nothing wrong with the people that choose to do that. But it seems obvious even in the success stories.
I'm extremely competitive, however I also value family over all else. I would much rather spends dinners with my kids, and weekends with my family enjoying the fruits of my labor over having a line on my resume. I know that if i ever went that route, it would absolutely come at a cost, most likely my marriage at least, and probably some level of relationship with my children. Its frankly not worth it for me.
Generally, amongst my peers over time I’ve found that to not be as true. Though of course it depends on a number of factors, including leadership and company culture.
I could easily take some time if needed. My senior admin is taking a month of paternity here in a few weeks, as he did with his first. I have a first line guy that has been in and out for months for various reasons. It is a strain on others in small places but like any place if you document and cross train a bit it’s not terrible.frankly it’s a stated goal for my teams and something I have implemented across several roles and sectors in my career (even if I didn’t get to reap the benefits)
Colleagues of mine that went FAANG stated similar. Amazon notoriously has an unlimited time off policy. That buddy hasn’t made the family vacation tradition since he started. The first year he tried it he basically worked in the condo.
So from what I’ve seen, at least with Amazon, it’s de facto cutthroat and not so much a benefit.
Though I understand I’m possibly attributing that same experience, which may even be localized to his team, to a much broader set, based on the similarities of their culture/workplace.
Many of these places have showers and lounges and free food etc. and frankly I don’t want to work at a place that there’s a culture that encourages eating and sleeping there. Again I prefer to do those things at home or break from work during breaks.
By the same token, I think your post lacks empathy for OP.
OP perhaps doesn't have the constraints you have.
As an aside--
Do you really expect A. someone who has never met you and who has B. written a comment online before you arrived to reply... to know your life conditions or to tailor it to every possible human life outcome?
That is, because you've had children, does every comment online now need to ensure its content is in alignment with your perspective? That sounds like a failure to empathize, on your part.
For example, if I write something... do I need to make sure it's prepared in a way that 100% of people can relate to it, throughout time & space? Such as fathers of children, amputees, astronauts, etc?
I don't know that you and I should get into a discussion here.
It sounds like we're so diametrically opposed that it could get pretty heated. At least from my end. You do have a right to your opinion, but I don't want to play in the space where I could get emotionally dysregulated by some dude on the internet.
I'd rather not bring a flame war to the HN community.
I'm also not entirely sure that your argument is in good faith and i'm really not in the sort of place where I want to tease out the things you say which are hyperbole versus the things you really believe.
Do you really think that I said all interviews should be tailored to all people throughout all time and space? I can't believe that you really think that, so you can't be arguing in good faith.
Are you really saying that you think it is unreasonable that we expect accommodations be made "for amputees"? Like their role or position in society is somehow a burden on you, or god forbid employers?
Honestly, maybe you do. Maybe you're super into eugenics. I don't want to find out really. It is best that we go our separate ways.
Ok, before you read this, I need you to sit down and take some deep breaths. If nothing else, just remember:
1. It's going to be okay.
2. One day, you will recover from this comment and move on
with your life. It will take time, but just take it day by day for now. Every day you're able to regulate your emotions after this comment is an achievement.
___________
Now for the comment:
0. Intro
Thanks amigo. I think you've taken it in the wrong direction, intentionally. (Given the current politics of hyperbolic outrage bait, I typically assume overly sensitive people prefer to [i.e. at least pretend to be] outraged over strawmen, because that's the current trend I see in western society.)
________________
1. The strawman
Your strawman implication: "You don't think accomodations should be made for amputees?!?!"
My actual quote: "For example, if I write something... do I need to make sure it's prepared for" ... <examples of various potential peoples' widely divergent qualities>
Good lord. Way to take things out of context, and then get outraged over your own strawman.
Look... I literally said "if I write something".
and you literally implied "you think it is unreasonable that we expect accommodations be made"
Where did I say anything about "accomodations"... my comment is essentially that you fail to see that no one can predict what stranger (and the qualities of their life) could possibly happen upon their comment.
Our interaction went something like this:
A. Random father arrives to see a comment wasn't tailored to his needs and claims the comment doesnt empathize with him
B. I tell the father that it is he who lacks empathy for expecting internet strangers who arrived in a discussion before he did, to somehow prospectively predict his life qualities/needs for empathy as a father, and tailor their comment specifically for him.
C. The father doesn't appreciate the exposure of his hypocrisy. Decides to paint a strawman involving employer accomodations for amputees, eugenics, and emotional dysregulation due to online commentary (while also assuming my gender, for bonus points of course)
________________
2. The strange & unrealistic
... Also, regarding: "the space where I could get emotionally dysregulated by some dude on the internet."
Uhh... yeah, First of all, you just assumed my gender... something tells me you're not very consistent in your political pretense.
That said-- welcome to Earth. It could get a little rough for ya... <sarcasm> Maybe you should avoid everything that could possible evoke stress, rather than adapting to inevitable stress</sarcasm>
___________________
3. Left field
Am I into eugenics? (Firstly... What part of left field did that come from?) We all are, whether we like it or not.
Are you attracted to attractive people? Guess what-- you're a eugenicist.
All organisms are designed by evolution to seek the best quality genetics for their offspring, so again, welcome to Earth.
"Just like adults, newborn babies prefer to look at an attractive face, according to new research carried out at the University of Exeter."
"Beeper has two ways of enabling Android, Windows and Linux users to use iMessage: we send each user a Jailbroken iPhone with the Beeper app installed which bridges to iMessage, or if they have a Mac that is always connected to the internet, they can install the Beeper Mac app which acts as a bridge."
This answers my question! One iPhone for each Beeper user, no wonder the $10 monthly fee!
It's true, though. iMessage requires an Apple device, and Apple simply doesn't have a lot of market share in Europe (around 30% for iOS, less for macOS). So most people don't have access to iMessage.
Yeah that's what I meant, they don't have the critical mass to really put it on the map here. It falls back to SMS for Android recipients of course, but group chats and pictures/video are out of the question.
So in practice nobody in my circle uses it whereas Whatsapp is huge (still). I don't have iOS but I would notice if I got SMSes. The only ones I still get are insecure 2FA and spam.
1. Background check companies usually only contact the positions you list to verify your dates of employment and title. They probably won't contact a job you don't let them know about.
2. If it helps you sleep at night, you can still fill out the background check form accurately, but leave stuff off your resume / not talk about it in the interview. Again, there is no rule that you need to talk about every job you have ever had in chronological order on your resume or in the interviews. As long as there is nothing untrue, or some sort of strange conflicts of interest, you are totally welcome to omit things that aren't relevant.
3. In the rare, extremely unlikely chance that you have to explain yourself, it seems perfectly acceptable to say "I've only been at this job for a few weeks. I am not sure I am going to stay longer, so I didn't think it was relevant".
If you are interviewing for the CIA, then definitely list every job. If it's a normal tech job, people simply don't care. Fill your precious chance to impress your interviewer with things that are actually impressive.
i’ve actually done this. my tact was to leave off resume and disclose in background check.
i got an email asking why the job i left out wasn’t that n my resume. i simply said having it on there always drives the conversation to why i’m morally opposed to that business after working there. that’s apparently a fine answer and i was given the offer.
going forward i’m just gonna leave it off the resume and the background check. i simply updated my other job dates to 2/2002 - 3/2003 && 5/2003 - 8/2005. if asked i say i took a long break. been fine since
