That chart counts nginx and openresty as separate categories. If you combine them (which I think makes more sense, since a lot of openresty's adoption must come from ingress-nginx), nginx/openresty would be at 34%.
Either way I'm happy with a wide variety of products doing the job, it avoids lock-in.
Personally I use apache as I have very few users (internal facing stuff), it has a nice simple mod_auth_openidc config which remains the same from one year to the next
I do have to recompile ws_tunnel though as I proxy a broken product I proxy which doesn't accept the correct standard for camel-capped "WebSocket" -- my "fix" script runs
sed -i 's/WebSocket/websocket/g' ./modules/proxy/mod_proxy_wstunnel.c
"Mirror" is what this question is generally understood to be asking. I don't think swapping the direction of the edges produces a tree in general although it would produce a DAG. I think "invert" could mean "mirror" or turn upside-down depending on the context.
Personally, if I were asked this, I would just say "convert the graph to a matrix, invert the matrix, and then convert the resulting inverted matrix back to a graph", and let them try to figure out if that would work for a bit before joking "oh come on, preorder traversal with a temp var, do you have a more interesting question?"
It would be more leetcode to be given an ordered binary tree and asked to reverse it O(N). It's a lot more fair to the interviewee to be given the explicit task without knowing 'the trick' unless one considers knowing recursive functions to be a trick.
I agree absolutely. One of these people can stop whenever the experience stops being fun and the other has few other options. It's about as inspiring as poverty tourism or an episode of Undercover Boss.
> To get accepted and graduate from a reputable university you have to get good results in standardized tests and work your self through multiple courses for at least 3 years. That by itself doesn't mean anything but there's a level of rigor and self-drive required to succesfully traverse this experience.
It's worth noting that Lamda school actually does use an industry-standard "IQ test" [0], although it seems the cutoff is quite low (23 out of 50 whereas the median score according to Criteria Corp is 24).
Academia may seem quaint but often accurately signals what is to come in the rest of the professional managerial class. Last year during an interview (software engineering) I was asked what I would do to support Diversity Equity and Inclusion. It was towards the end with other behavioral questions. I think I recited the Correct things but to be safe I should probably start studying Ibram X Kendi along with Cracking the Coding Interview.
That's not the definition of equity, at least not outside of fringe fever dreams. (There's a radical left that dreams of it, and a radical right that fantasizes it is the status quo - both are loons and rightfully ignored)
The text on that page explains it a little better, it's not about equality of outcome but I understand how you could get that from the graphic.
> We can think of it in terms of food. When ordering pizza for a large group, you’ll probably assume some people will eat one slice, some people will eat two, and some will eat three or even four. You’ll account for those differences when ordering - maybe you have several hulking athletes or small children in your group. You won’t police who eats how many slices, you’ll just assume that everyone got what they needed, be it once slice or more. The pizza isn’t shared equally, it is shared equitably.
Another way to think of it is equality is about the rules of the game, and equity is about the starting position.
If they are asking behavioural questions then questions like that are probably reasonable.
"Towards the end" does not sound like it was a screening question.
In my life being able to work with people different from me (in my case not people from "oppressed groups" but downright difficult people) has done me very well.
Thanks for sharing that list, it definitely challenged some of my preconceptions. As someone who watched The Closer and didn't think it went too far, I think most would agree that there should be some fixed line to judge what goes too far and shouldn't be on their platform. It's sad that this line doesn't seem to be determined by any principles -- or at least any explicit principles. These 2 examples make me think the "principles" being followed are 1) Money, and 2) PR/current events (George Floyd protests in the case of removing episodes with blackface).
"I think most would agree that there should be some fixed line to judge what goes too far and shouldn't be on their platform."
I can see the need for things like parental filters, or better user controls to be able to get recommendations for things you actually want to see.
I would also be the first person to agree that Netflix has the right to decide what content they want to distribute.
But from a customer point of view what I want from Netflix is to give give me maximum choice. Give me absolutely every kind of content imaginable, offensive or G-rated, and then give me the tools to be able to limit what my children can view and to fine tune the sorts of recommendations I get.
I'm a huge believer in "if you don't like it, watch something else" and "if someone else likes it, that's none of your business."
Unfortunately, from a business perspective, there will always be a trade off of "buying a license to X means we can't afford to license Y or Z". They spent millions to get this special, and probably could have gotten a dozen works from less-famous comedians for that same money.
That's driven by how many people will watch it (demonstrably, very many, in Chappelle's case), not by the magnitude of offense taken by some number of people.
The proportion of people not watching a show will always be far higher than those watching it, so there's room for offense from non-watchers to drive product decisions. The parent comment is saying that he doesn't want that to factor in at all, which is orthogonal to the question of Netflix needing to allocate resources between content.
I think the knowing-people effect is a better criticism about referrals generally. Given that most companies already accept referrals, at least with this setup, employees would think twice about referring someone who would be let go before 2 months.
> If you stay on the job for more than two months, your sponsors get double what they invested (minus our fees).
I feel like the linked Twitter criticisms just gloss over the fact. This is definitely a strange idea but it's a shame people dismissed it out of hand based on crude characterizations.
I think referrals, at least at large companies, have messed up incentives. If you and your direct team don't have to suffer the consequences of a bad hire, then of course you should refer random Blind/Reddit/LinkedIn strangers for a chance at getting several thousand dollars. The "large company" issue may be harder to fix, but if you have the potential to lose money, then you will be more discriminating.
> If you and your direct team don't have to suffer the consequences of a bad hire, then of course you should refer random Blind/Reddit/LinkedIn strangers for a chance at getting several thousand dollars.
Several thousand dollars is trivial relative to the amount that professional recruiters charge. That's partially because employee referrals are, on average, less trustworthy than good professional recruiters for the reasons you mentioned: You get a small number of very good referrals, but you also get a large number of people playing the referral bonus like a numbers game and putting in every name they can think of.
But this startup had a different problem: They asked employees to pay to basically gamble on the hiring process. A hiring process which is largely out of their control. Most people don't want to gamble on things like this, and with good reason. It was doomed from the start.
Professional recruiters flood you with unqualified candidates (they can't tell the difference). I would never use an outside recruiter, it is less work per hire for the manager to find people themselves (and thus cheaper in time and expenditure).
This is kindof how external recruiters already work (recruiter is paid to get you hired after you stay long enough) . You can fix the bad incentive for employers by taking the money and donating it to charity if the person does not last two months.
Perhaps a version without the payment aspect but with rewards would have been received better. Say a potential referrer would sign up and get three reference tokens (which expire) periodically. Then they can use one to support a person they know for a position. If the employee lasts for two months, they get two tokens and some monetary reward.
Honestly, the barrier of having to sign up to act as a reference for someone might be too much on its own. But, if they manage to get people with good professional networks participating it might be valuable.
Having to write a couple of paragraphs is not bad per se, just not sufficiently interesting on its own. some current referral systems already request reference letters and reward successful referrals.
It might be fun to try out a system with a limited number of referrals one can submit that rewards consistent good recommendations.
Referral based hiring means you don't get paid if the person doesn't get hired. So there is already an incentive to not waste one's time referring somebody that is unlikely to get hired.
Either way, this company doesn't appear to provide any solution, it's just inserting itself into the process as a middleman.
Well, the disincentive of wasting one's time (in practice that means generating an application link, or filling out a short form online) is much, much smaller than the potential reward.
I think of myself as someone who "follows the science" and the fact you present is what keeps me skeptical of expert advice. Another example was when the question of which vaccine to get was being asked. Any doctor who knew they were being interviewed, said to get the first one that's available to you. I can see this making sense from a population standpoint, but if I'm personally not trying to get COVID, then of course I'm willing to wait some amount of time to get Moderna/Pfizer rather than J&J. It's just like being told "don't panic", and I honestly don't know if there's any resolution that doesn't involve light deception.
> But rarely do I find something to keep the person on, their mind already made up. I respect that. When I close the video meeting, I settle. My mind is racing. “Can I try something to bring the person back?”
It's interesting reading this, as I have always been too -- shy? underconfident? I don't know -- to ever mention my job search to my manager, until I got an offer and accepted it. I worry about it being obvious that the time off I request is for interviewing and perhaps them placing obstacles in my way. I wonder if it's ever a good idea to mention a job search when one doesn't have any offers in hand yet.
The conventional wisdom would be to never mention a job search until you have an offer in hand and you are ready to hand in your resignation letter. If you do mention it, you will be perceived as having half a foot out the door and if your job search falls through (as many do) then you have just telegraphed the fact that you're highly disengaged.
But you don't need to actually mention the job search. If you can put your finger on what's wrong with your current role and you have at least a little trust with your line manager, then you can just say "I'm not happy about XYZ in my role, I want to improve it, have you got any ideas?". And be prepared to bring it up several times.
I don't think anyone is expected to tell their employer they are job hunting.
Once you announce your intention to leave, you've broken trust with your employer and manager. Why assign the good projects to someone with one foot out the door? If they decide not to leave, was it because they want to be here, or because nobody wanted them? Are they going to leave in a few months anyways?
It's like when your significant other says they want to break up with you - "no, please I can change!" is never the right next step. You can end up together, but spend at least 3 months apart first.
It sounds like you experienced a situation where that trust never existed in the first place?
I've been on teams where on more than one occasion colleagues have mentioned to me one day that they were thinking of leaving, and then a couple weeks later when I asked them about it they mentioned that they raised the explicit thoughts of departure with their manager (as well as their concerns that lead to it) with respective changes manifesting that kept them on the team for a number of years.
In the model you mention, it seems like it would never be worthwhile to retain employees who have an offer and are at that point announcing their departure?
Edit: I am not sure why what I am saying is controversial.
Either a person has a trusted relationship with their manager, or the they don't. I've had managers for whom I trusted and others I did not. It can also be assessed on how they treat others who report to them as well as how they speak of others of others on adjacent teams. Concerns can and should be raised over time, and not just bottled up and delivered at the end. A good manager should be probing for them as well.
There's obviously risk involved in any conversation, but I disagree with "it's never a good idea."
I have actually told a manager I trusted and it was no big deal, although, in retrospect I don't see any way for this to have benefitted me and a ton of ways in which it could have hurt me.
But I have learned to be open about this and so far it seems managers appreciate it. It helps plan the transition better and prioritize closing projects.
The default should be to just never do it. If you do it, be very very sure that you can trust that person.
One of my guys shared it with me for example and it was totally fine. We always were and still are on great terms and talk to each other from time to time. But we also both 'clicked' from the start. Never really a manager/employee relationship feeling. And while I tried to keep him with us I understood and wished him all the best. He's much happier at his new place now.
Guessing whether your manager might appreciate being able to plan transitions? Forget it! The best you should consider (depending on your level) is to give more notice than the required one. That can be a good compromise but I do hear that in some companies you shouldn't even consider that. But if you feel that they won't escort you out the building the second you give notice anyway than this can be a nice touch. It's a hard decision even then though because you are trying to be nice to your immediate colleagues but make no mistake that in the opposite situation they would not give you more than the mandatory notice period. Even if your manager might want to. HR is HR.
I’ve always regretted not being more honest with my manager 20 years ago when I’d made the decision to move back to my home town but wasn’t ready to pull the trigger. She knew I was getting married, knew we were trying to decide where to live; I could have given her more warning.
I think it really depends on why you're leaving. If it really is simply a physical presence thing, then I do agree, one should be open about that. So consider this a partial retraction. Assuming you're sure of course.
I was once fired after sharing with my manager that I was looking elsewhere. I had other managers at the same company who were safe to share this with, but my manager at the time was not, in retrospect.
Keep it to yourself; it just isn't worth the risk.
But that’s the worst that can happen. If you’re prepared that this could be your last day, it is nice to tell them.
I told my boss later into the process when I was sure I was going to get an offer. He could have fired me on the spot, but he appreciated the extra notice.
The best thing in the world is to be fired on the day you receive a better offer. You get all of your notice pay while you are getting paid at your new employer.
It's really depends on your relationship with your manager. 99% of the time, it's a bad idea to say you're interviewing. If your manager is someone you trust, and they genuinely have your interests in mind, you can talk to them and they can use their influence to try to solve whatever problem is making you think about leaving.
If you're not confident that's the case (and unfortunately it's rare), it's too risky to make it known you're interviewing. It is often better to discuss whatever is making you unhappy, but without saying that you are considering leaving because of it.
I’ve been in that situation with the 1% manager, and it still doesn’t end well. The manager resigned on my behalf after getting “drunk and sad”, which I had to rescind, then that same manager out of shame eventually fabricated a story to get me fired which led to a legal dispute due to the nature of the claims. Sounds fine so far right? Bullet dodged?
Until I applied for another role 6 months later and the CTO knew the CEO of the former company, where overnight I went from completely technical and culture fit to even my recruiter being ghosted by the company.
The moral of the story here is if you’re exiting then don’t really bring it up unless you’re entirely prepared to exit that same day. When things go south, they hit rock bottom and the consequences go beyond the four walls of your office.
I would (and have) kept my cards close to my chest when searching for a new job. I think the employee/manager relationship is a delicate one because on the one hand you're human beings and you develop a relationship as human beings working together. There might be some friendship there. On the other hand, your boss represents the company and will do what's best for the company.
When you're looking for a new job, you're doing what's best for you; what's best for the company is secondary. If you let your employer know you're searching, they'll start prying and trying to make changes to make you happy. That's reasonable, but at this point they may make promises they can't keep. Obviously, if you are unhappy and think they can change things, share those concerns, but if they aren't doing enough for you that you want to look for a new job, then you've sort of given up on them.
