funbike

When learning on my own, I I prefer to learn things that will last decades rather than years or months. Examples: Linux (bash, core utils, containers), CS (algorithms, data structures), compilers, other paradigms (functional, logic, oop), hardware architecture (logic gates, cpu design, assembly), encryption algos, Vim, etc.

Stuff that I think will only last a few years I will learn as needed on the job or at least on the clock.

I think the answer is obvious. Start looking for another job NOW. Work is out there, if you can code.

Depends on what metric you are looking and how. A warmed up JVM will run nearly as fast as Go or Rust, but many benchmarks fail to take JVM warmup into account and erroneously show Rust/Go as orders of magnitude faster, which is unfair. That said, it would be nice if warm up wasn't required. Graalvm helps in that area, but now you have to do something special.

However, JVM startup time is terrible. It's gotten better and there are ways to deploy a trimmed image, but it's still not as good as most other solutions unless you go into annoying extra steps.

The JVM is a beast, and it's very inefficient with memory esp strings.

Fine, don't believe someone that's done it before. Google "why you shouldn't host your own email server" and research before you say anything else.

That's all fine and dandy until your IP address and/or email address gets blacklisted. Hosting the server is the easy part. Properly dealing with anti-spam measures so you don't get flagged as a spammer or scammer is the hard part. And before you think that's unlikely, one of the ways of getting flagged is to run an email service on a consumer ISP network (e.g. comcast).

Helm used to be one such service. They hosted the IP address and smtp gateway, but you hosted the actual email server. They had no data to hand over; it was in your home. Unfortunately, their service went offline last year.

I hate to admit it but I'm all-in on google, for mail, drive, calendar, meet/chat, Android, oauth. It's all too convenient.

I have one personal account, one per long-term client/employer (w/their service), and one garbage (for sign-ups and low-priority web accounts). I often use the [email protected] pattern for creating special-purpose temporary addresses. We use sendgrid for sending user emails.

You will lose the best candidates with an onerous coding challenge.

Our process, which has been heavily influenced by debate on r/experiencedevs on reddit involves a short phone screen, a 30 MINUTE coding challenge, a tech interview consisting of pair programming, and a non-tech interview with management. Very light.

The coding challenge is a FILTER only. It's not to evaluate who to hire, but instead it's to filter who not to continue interviewing.

You learn a lot during pair programming in a short period of time, including personality and team fit. We let them drive and we just watch and discuss. The assignment is to fix a bug, and refactor the code the caused the bug.

I like that you explain the data model near the start, although I think more detail would be better.

I believe it's much harder to master git without understanding the simple underlying data model. Many tutorials don't touch on it and instead jump straight into recipes for various workflows. Users can follow those recipes, but don't really understand what the commands they are using do.

I wouldn't consider the bugs chatgpt's fault, per se. The same could happen by blindly copy/pasting from SO or a template Github project. If you are copy/pasting from anywhere, it's even more important that you have good automated tests with good coverage, and that you take extra time to understand what you pasted.

One of the things I do is generate high level tests first, and then the implementation code. This way I know it works, and I can spend extra time reviewing the test code first to make sure it has the correct goal(s).

Learning is another matter. Personally, ChatGPT has greatly accelerated my learning of libraries and other languages. I've also used it to help me grok a block of complex code, and to automatically comment and refactor complex code into something more understandable. But it can also be used as a crutch.

Tbh, I hate both. I wish git recognized an attempt to sync with a parent branch without resulting in either altered history (rebase) or a difficult to view log graph (merge). I also hate that teams have to choose one or the other.

It would be nice if all git graph UIs could easily exclude parent branch merges (with a checkbox). I wrote a shell script that did that, but not everyone used it of course.

I rebase with parent branch until I create a PR. Hopefully, I'll get reviews quickly and won't have to sync with the parent branch before merging the PR into the parent. However, if the PR lives longer than I'd like and conflicts occur, I'll merge from the parent branch into the local feature branch.