What might have happened is that due to the poor weather they thought they were closer to the airport, or they weren't closely following their glide path, or the aircraft was misconfigured for the RNAV approach. Perhaps a combination of the three.

In other words, such a thing is completely infeasible given our current understanding of science and technology.

The time required to develop such a capability would span so many lifetimes that is it effectively science fiction.

https://wondery.com/shows/how-i-built-this/episode/10386-the...

L4 requires experience. New grad hires are L3.

At cruise altitude, you're moving along at 500 mph, which is 777 feet per second. So going from +30 feet to -30 feet in a minute is just an adjustment of only about 5 degrees. You'd barely feel it, even walking down the isle. An acceleration of 33 ft/sec per sec is 1 g.

You experience greater changes in vertical motion on any flight you go on.

*edit: units

In good internet fashion, people figured out that they can coordinate large networks of receivers, which basically centralizes a nationwide database of all aircraft movement.

So, all this account did was tweet when Elon's jet moved from this central ADS-B database.

Persistant performance related issues are management's responsibility. It's unfair to withhold their vesting mere weeks from their vest date when management should've addressed the issue earlier.

They didn't take Chernobyl to take the reactor, they took it because it is extremely strategic if the goal is to assault Kyiv.

AFAIK, none of the NATO articles were invoked as part of the operation in Yugoslavia. That is to say, though it was a NATO operation, members were not bound by treaty to participate.

This fact muddles some of the points the author made, but the author speaks broadly of the ramifications of invoking Article 5, so I would say their analysis is well-reasoned.

* https://hckrnews.com/ -> my favorite thread browser

* https://hackerweb.app/ -> a mobile focused app w/ dark mode

It's not clear to me what the House committee is asking for. From what I read in their letters it's basically, "We think you have more than you've given us, so give it to us".

That's not how this works. If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted. If you don't get what you think you want, call people in to testify.

Here's the actual Committee release [1]. Two quotes from the Alphabet letter:

"For example, Alphabet has not produced any documents that fully explain non-public moderation discussions and policies" "Additionally, Alphabet has not produced documents relating to YouTube’s policy decisions"

But, IIRC, YouTube (and Twitter) were pretty publicly vocal and specific about their policies for months preceding Jan 6th. I just don't see what warrants this round of grandstanding.

[1] https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-comm...

Self-hosting is a good option, especially when mixed with multi-cloud offerings.

The big rub is that it's really hard to approach the same level of availability the cloud offerings already give you. Depending on work-load, self-hosting is typically more expensive.

This is why the SRE book talks about availability budget. You can't have 100% uptime, so how much do you want to pay to get close to it?

To echo the statement from the other Googler who posted, this quote from the article is simply not true. It implies that if any employee chooses permanent WFH, you get a pay cut.

If you follow the link [1] from the article, you'll see the following reasons:

* Google supplied an online calculator to see how their possible relocation would affect their pay

* Pay rates are defined by metropolitan statistical areas (MSA)

* Google says "Our compensation packages have always been determined by location, and we always pay at the top of the local market based on where an employee works from,"

So, if you choose to WFH permanently and you commute far enough to live in a different MSA than your office, then you might see a paycut.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/the-great-reboot/pay-cut-googl...

I would do this if the company provided the hardware and I only had to use the device to do work things during work hours. (As other pointed out Google does in fact provide hardware to employees needing this capability.)

Mandating use on personal hardware is a different story.

It would be an interesting experiment to implement lossless compression, but it likely wouldn't achieve high compression ratios or be nearly as efficient as a purpose built algorithm.

I'm a big fan of Pandas, and didn't know about Arrow. I've been considering do a talk advocating for a consistent data-frame api across languages since IMHO, it's the next fundamental data structure that should have baked in support everywhere. So it appears you've at least somewhat beaten me to the punch.

Since Arrow is more than an API to tabular data structures, what would you think about a Promises/A+-like specification for dataframes?

How much of the Arrow API do you think end users will wind up using, as opposed to being a lower-level framework that projects like pandas and dplyr wind up using behind the scenes?

Finally, do you think that Arrow has the potential to be the logical successor to pandas? If not, what is your long term strategy to address the shortcomings that you see in pandas?

Your experience matches mine. I think it might even be somewhere in the mandatory periodic training.

Doing a patent search as a software engineer can only hurt you. Better just to route any questions to product counsel.