I get Java needs it because some uses need the performance gain in terms of less ram and less pointer interdirection. I'm glad library authors of like servers or caches will be able to improve performance without weird things like unsafe byte buffers and native memory leaks.
I suspect I won't ever use value types in my code though unless it's drop in to refactor from AnyVal=>AnyRef (or w/e the java equiv is).
* Does accepting a value type parameter accept it by value or by ref?
* How does this play with GC? Can I get dangling ref with value type?
* How does value types play with inheritance e.g. will it be like c# and struct and they will be boxed any time treated as ref?
* How safe will it be to convert a class from being value type based to Object (w/e AnyRef equiv is). Will I need to inspect all methods that deal it now?
This can probably just be resolved with a style guide like c++ can be mostly sane if you're starting a new project today with an aggressive style guide, but I just appreciated not think about this and just count on escape analysis + gc + hotspot tricks like monomorphize code paths with some counters to be good enough.
I think you have misunderstood the issue. Just because YOU did not use those services does not mean your data was not leaked. It means that other peoples data was not leaked on YOUR site, but YOUR data could be leaked on other sites that were using these services.
We only host our static corporate sites (not apps)
If this part is true, they're not vulnerable. Only data that was sent to CloudFlare's nginx proxy could have leaked, so if they only proxy their static content, then that's the only content that would leak.
The rest of their comment gives the wrong impression though, yeah.
> Only data that was sent to CloudFlare's nginx proxy could have leaked, so if they only proxy their static content, then that's the only content that would leak.
The way it worked, the bug also leaked data sent by the visitors of the these "static sites": IP addresses, cookies, visited pages etc.
Beyond this post, you might be interested in another post in the blog: http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2017/01/WhyIcheated.htm.... The blogger interviews someone he caught cheating in a pretty benign fashion about why he cheated. From that article, and my perspective on it, the answer to:
> That would be hard thing to live with it seems
Is the choice is not between
1) My great life
2) My greater life, with some compliments
but
1) My life that I don't feel great about
2) My life that I don't feel great about, with some compliments now
Where "my life" is how I'm feeling at that particular moment. I am impressed that to you this concept seems so foreign, for me I can definitely recall moments that people overstated the importance of things I've done and I've accepted the compliments because it made me feel better at times I was feeling down. This to me seems like a minor leap from what I've done.
I've run marathons in the past and my times were awful but back then I was generally a happier person. If I were to be running a marathon today and somehow the timers marked me an hour faster then I really was for example, I might not correct them.
>>somehow the timers marked me an hour faster then I really was for example, I might not correct them.
People are more likely to draw the moral line in the sand when the error in your favour goes so far as to bump a legitimate winner off the podium. Your scenario above regarding "[...] with some compliments now" seems more in line with "just a slightly better time in the middle of the pack."
I appreciate your willingness to be open and honest about how you'd handle a less egregious situation, but I doubt you'd go this far based on the relative positioning you've outlined.
I think there is a difference between momentarily having a lapse in judgement and just not saying anything. We've all made bad decisions, I certainly made plenty. There is a different of preparing and planning to cheat, like say doing the race on a bicycle to cover up the lie and generate fake data.
If you look at CED high demand, CA today already has almost 10% excess of the projected 2026 peak demand (projected is between 65-70, lets say 69MW, per the LA times capacity is 75MW). High demand makes it's own set of assumptions about the efficacy of self generation and economic growth, and I'd be interested to see if they redid this in 2016 (based off how much they overestimated in 2014 and lowered their expectations in 2015).
I did not fully digest this document but based off a brief skim I don't think this document disagrees strongly with the LA times article. Clearly there are more plants coming online, but that today we have 10% excess of the high end of a 10yr projected forecast, I think is part of the articles point (although I think the main point of the article is about how regulated utilities are benefiting from this, at the cost of consumers and non-regulated utilities).
I think you are missing the point of the article. It lays out a case that this excess power generation is done for the profit of some regulated utilities, such as PG&E.
For example, it mentions a power plant that was shut down because of it's excess capacity while another plant, which benefited PG&E, was allowed to come online. Secondly you mention 15% as a good thing, ignoring the article's mention that 15% itself was controversial, as higher then normal.
You mock "show a scary graph where the supply keeps going up even though demand if flat. Frightening!!", but I don't understand why. This is a fact that demand is going down, so why should power plants keep getting added, to the point we are shutting DOWN power plants for excess capacity.
The article cites multiple experts who argue that this is an excess of power generation, including multiple people on the PUC board. These people surely have some conception of future anticipated growth. And also we pay 50% more per kwh then is the average, which is money going into pockets of regulated utilities.
And yet despite this, somehow you have decided the bigger number is better, no matter the actual cost. I honestly cannot understand how you read the article and come up with your conclusion, based off no cited expertise yourself.
The fact that your comment is on the top baffles me even more, as if everyone here has decided for the day they are suddenly experts in utility planning. It is possible of course you have some more knowledge about WHY this is needed e.g. some demand spike you anticipate. Yet to dismiss it all in bad faith, with no real argument other then 21 > 15, is just ridiculous to me.
What the hell is this these are companies that make millions of dollars a year arguing on the weekend with public blog posts. This is what lawyers are for. I automatically assume if you try to argue online you're in the wrong and are counting on public opinion to save you.
> missing a GPL requirement doesn't imply it was done on purpose
This doesn't sound like the typical "junior dev who doesn't understand licenses added a GPL dependency" situation. Especially considering Wix's reply.
If you're arguing that nobody at Wix understands the implication of software licensing you're arguing all of their senior developers are unfit to hold senior positions.
A basic understanding of software licenses (i.e. at least Unlicense/CC0 vs MIT/BSD/Apache2 vs LGPL vs GPL/AGPL) is one of the first things I expect every junior developer to learn when working on a company product that involves third-party code.
This is either a rookie mistake (in which case Wix should have owned up to it and fixed it), malice or ignorance. And I'm not sure ignorance would save them any more respect than malice.
I don't understand a few things about Google fiber ever as a long term viable business unit inside Alphabet as a whole. As you mentioned in the thread, and I agree with the sentiment, Access succeeds by forcing others to take action. For example, bidding on wireless spectrum for get open access.
But does Google really want to be the one left holding the hot potato in situation like this? Does Google have any success/relevant experience in running a business like a residential ISP? Even established telcos like Verizon can't grow wireline very much.
You mention AirBnB and Uber as successes but those legal battles aren't over yet, with examples such as Austin/Uber and NY/AirBnB just recently. Also I think the value provided by Uber/AirBnB is much larger then Google fiber, which is to serve like 6 US cities with marginally faster internet that most websites can't even take advantage of.
Also I find your statement "they'll go right up to the boundary of what the law allows" as disingenuously painting Google as helpless & innocent. Google has gone to court for a variety of things they felt were worth it for their business
1) Anti-poaching
2) Google books scanning
3) Youtube copyright
4) Oracle Java
Whether or not you believe they were in the right or the wrong, they are a massive multinational corporation who are capable of arguing for their business interests in court. Whether Fiber was ever important enough for Google as a long term real business unit is what I question. They put 4.5 billion on the line for spectrum open access, I don't see the same time of commitment applied to Fiber at all.
Basically what I'm asking what was the successful longterm outcome for fiber if not a quiet drawdown like this? For Google to really be a large US ISP?
What problems do you have? Lombok does bytecode generation, I've never had a problem using it with things such as Jackson. How would an external library even know when the bytecode looks the same? I'm entirely aware I might be missing something obvious, this is a genuine question.
You can argue against Lombok for other reasons but was wondering about this specific one.
I appreciate your thoughtful responses so I was wondering what your thoughts are on importance and corresponding compensation of the 1st employee at a company.
If the first employee is important enough that in your mind, it's possible that with depending on the first employee they may or may not be a billion dollar company, do you think the first employee compensation is commensurate with that? Aston also mentions specifically the commitment he has as a first employee, and how he feels "you're basically a founder" in terms of responsibility.
In my opinion, he made off about as well as any first employee could reasonably expect (even unreasonably I'd argue).
I don't have the perspective of either a startup founder or the first employee anywhere so I'm not trying to slight the Dropbox founders in any way.
I guess my question boils down to two parts
1. What do you think a reasonable level of compensation is for a first employee
2. Given the success rates of startups (low), why would someone want to be the first employee somewhere versus either their own startup, or a later stage company that could pay them a much higher salary then the typical startup compensation. My unstated assumption here, which you might disagree with, is that someone who could have the impact of Aston, could become a staff engineer at somewhere like facebook/google/microsoft/etc and pull total compensation of 300/400k with a significantly higher chance.
I think the key difference between founders vs. early employees is in risk tolerance. An early employee should be able to go to work reasonably confident that he will get paid for his time and his efforts will not be completely futile. The job description for "founder", however, involves finding a reason for the company to exist, and that inherently involves the risk that you could put in a lot of work and it'll still count for nothing.
Aston (presumably) made out with a lot more than the $300/400K a year that a Google/Facebook engineer tops out at. He also took on more risk, but the risk was largely technical risk: the possibility that him and his teammates couldn't deliver what 65,000 people said they wanted. That risk is largely under their control, while as a founder, the primary risk is that nobody wants your product or it can't be built economically.
I do think that the large amount of money in the funding ecosystem lately has distorted this bargain somewhat. In boom times, you get cases where the founders get funded on hope & pedigree and draw a salary immediately (meaning that their financial risk is more akin to an early employee's), and then they go and hire a bunch of naive employees at below-market rates before getting any validation that people want their product (meaning that the employee now takes on market risk that was previously reserved for the founder). This doesn't do either the company or the employee any good; these companies are significantly more likely to fail than ones who stay founder-only while they prove out the market, and they ruin more peoples' lives when they do. If you look at employee #1's who have actually made out well - eg. those at Google, DropBox, Thumbtack, AirBnB, SnapChat, etc. - all of those companies had validated demand, had raised funding, and in many cases were already in use by thousands of people when they hired their first employee.
