No, not particularly. What I find amusing about Katsu is it reminds of the 1970s curry in a packet type of meal for example https://nostalgiacentral.com/pop-culture/food-drink/vesta-cu.... Also school dinners where a curry sauce would have a random sultana and a bit of carrot in it. Wonderfully disgusting.
Certainly chicken is increasingly popular, fish and chips is almost a boutique food these days since fish is expensive and also very easy to make badly. Whereas chicken is cheaper and easier https://archive.is/Mu1DL
Wouldn't it be a problem for Nest devices running on Fuchsia OS to get the hardware support they need? Most companies building consumer electronics products rely on hardware vendors to provide working kernels, drivers, etc. Speculatively, if you were able to leverage Android/Linux hardware support without the overhead of the rest of the Android OS, that would free up Nest from having to handle that problem.
If you're new to this area, I would first start by understanding which profiling tools you can use depending on the OS, languages and systems involved.
Even if your system is not C++, I've always enjoyed this talk and the subsequent discussion which tackles some of the problems associated with some programming practices and the impact on performance.
If it helps I think you're right to take this approach.
In my experience defining error as 'handled' or handleable in code can often not be particularly helpful. Are the values from errno(3) always considered as handled?
EINVAL is almost always in "your" terms a fault, ENOSPC or EPIPE likely could only be handled as complete failures.
What I see too often is code which which propagates
I might push for a different set of divisions there tbh.
errno(3) is handle-able because the information exists and it is possible to use. It's the same as any other "a problem occured" signaling mechanism in that sense. Its main sin is being out-of-band of the trigger, so it's extremely easy to forget.
Whether it is handled (checked) in code is a subdivision of handle-able. Some signaling mechanisms are better about preventing not-handled than others, depending on context.
Whether you can recover from it (do something else, try again until success, etc) is also a subdivision of handle-able, and is completely unrelated to whether it was handled or not. And I think I can claim that in literally all cases the "recover-ability" is also completely unrelated to the kind of problem (ENOSPC vs EINVAL) - it only depends on what you are trying to do right now, which depends on the rest of the program and the user intent. If it was inherently unrecoverable, it wouldn't be errno(3), it'd just never return (e.g. kill your process, infinite loop, etc).
Under that framework, ENOSPC is just a normal handle-able error. It's frequently a fatal failure that is easy to forget, but it's easy to come up with something that expects and recovers from it, e.g. a lossy caching tool. Similarly, EINVAL is an unrecoverable error if you are a tool that fails on bad input, like a compiler, despite being easily recoverable in some cases (probing for feature support and gracefully degrading, perhaps).
The best product manager I worked with was just an exceptionally bright person, they were able to understand complexity of implementation (and even have a reasonable chance of doing it themselves) vs understanding the business need. Just basically a value add to the company without being an engineering manager.
Unfortunately most product managers are just people who sit in the role. They are just gatekeepers who take either credit or blame. They often have little skin in the game.
Overall, if you have a product management organisation, you're doing it wrong.
> Overall, if you have a product management organisation, you're doing it wrong.
Agreed, the best (and most successful) products I've worked on have all had product ownership by actual implementers (engineers, designers, customer success, etc). I loved being on the support rotation as an engineer because it closed the gap of abstraction between my work and the real humans who were using it every second.
Very rarely, I have worked with PMs who add net positive value, and in every case they would have made okay engineers as well.
> Overall, if you have a product management organisation, you're doing it wrong.
I've found myself on both sides of this issue in my career and I've landed on it being a good thing to have a PM organization, assuming your entire org is large enough.
The main reason why is that when PM (or whoever plays that role in a team) reports up to the same engineering management chain, all things eventually bias towards the needs of engineering. Much-needed feature work that is likely to advance the business eventually always gets de-prioritized because there's always tech debt or infrastructure work that inhibits people in some way. Sometimes it's actually the right move to do that, but you need tension between two orgs that have equal chairs at the table to make that kind of call. That ends up not happening when it's a part of engineering.
Of course a lot of the sad reality in our industry is that separate PM orgs get to have more power than engineering orgs because they get to own "what's good for the business", and when you combine that with a bunch of PMs who know how to follow a process or framework but don't actually understand their own products or users, you get a nightmare.
Since I only use reddit logged in and having the user preference set to the old UI, the most effective way for me to go cold turkey is to logout. Any twitch response to back to reddit presents the newer layout and I'm instantly compelled to close the browser tab again.
In my opinion, it always helps if you get to know the people reviewing your work personally. Sometimes, this happens naturally. You don't have to be buddies; however, if you understand a person's background, biases, and experience, it adds a lot of context to anything they say.
Disagree. This is one of the most interesting posts I've seen here in recent months. It's tragic, yes, but also fascinating -- and not just in a rubbernecking way.
I didn't know B-17s were still airworthy, and you don't hear about planes crashing into each other often, even at airshows. As someone casually interested in aviation, I would very much like to hear analysis about how this could've happened, etc.
A disproportionate amount of the best hardware and firmware engineers I know have pilots licenses and are very interested in the mechanics and technical details of flight. Seems perfect for HN.
Seriously doubt any firmware was involved as these aircraft would be manually operated, but I could be wrong. Mechanical malfunction or pilot error would more likely be the cause. Sorry for the loss of life in any case.
How is any of that related to a video showing 6 people dying? This is, literally, like saying you’re into cars, so you watch fatal car crash videos. Sounds like complete nonsense. It’s been flagged to death, so the sentiment wasn’t shared.
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
It's the kind of thing you probably wouldn't hear about on TV news unless you were in that same geographical area. It's interesting not because it's a disaster but because of the engineering and (presumed) avoidability involved... the "what went wrong?" angle.
Certainly chicken is increasingly popular, fish and chips is almost a boutique food these days since fish is expensive and also very easy to make badly. Whereas chicken is cheaper and easier https://archive.is/Mu1DL