In this one there are often thousands of applicants for a position, most of which can't pass FizzBuzz.

Why would they (or anyone for that matter) choose a candidate who can't figure out how to find info about a trivial method?

The reason is the intent behind their question, which they don't vocalize.

This question means we are dealing with an extremely broad hiring funnel designed to fail people who can't FizzBuzz and need to keep answers at MVP level.

In other words, if you are asked to put out a fire use a bucket of sand, not a state-of-the-art fire extinguisher.

str.find(sub[, start[, end]])

"Return the lowest index in the string where substring sub is found within the slice s[start:end]. Optional arguments start and end are interpreted as in slice notation. Return -1 if sub is not found."

Your instinct to resort to "in" is correc,t as it's generally slower than the "in" membership test, but the interviewer has even allowed the use of Google. Blanking out after that is really bad.

The interviewer is not asking to solve a problem here, they're asking for a simple ability to follow instructions, hence the offer to use Google to find the correct answer.

You could make a very solid case for using "in" (it is 2-4x faster), but only after you've solved the task at hand, this is what is expected in interviews. Not knowing the interview meta makes an average Joe basically unhireable in this market.

Step 2: Parse the output with your eyes. The method is literally called "find".

This one-trick pony failure mode could perhaps have been fine for a guy who did Java and nothing but Java for 10 years, but you are supposedly the person who runs "pythonforengineers" website...

100% correct call by the interviewer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QFHIoCo-Ko

Also, check his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@mattpocockuk

Interestingly, LLMs disagree with you.

Your statement is only accurate in an extremely narrow case, like if you were there to hear the person speaking, before their speech which was transcribed. Obviously, it is not true for almost all of human writing.

And if you were to go commaless, you will quickly get to rather precarious sentences, such as this one:

"Let's eat grandma."

A comma is the natural fix:

"Let's eat, grandma."

sha256 is deterministic, LLMs are not, even at temperature set to 0.

1)Workers get more productive thanks to AI.

2)Higher worker productivity translates into lower prices.

3)Most importantly, consumer demand needs to explode in reaction to lower prices. And we're finding out in real-time that the demand is inelastic.

Around 1900, 40% of American workers worked in agriculture. Today, it's < 2%.

Which is similar to what we see with coding: The increase in demand has not exploded enough to offset the job-killing of each farmer being able to produce more food.

The same thing it's always been: The military-industrial complex.

> MAGA was sure it was backroom democrats.

It's not that hard to distinguish "them", just look at how fast the mainstream media threw Biden under the bus over Afghanistan withdrawal.

1)POTUS orders the withdrawal.

2)Generals botch the withdrawal on purpose.

3)Mainstream media (left and right) eviscerates the POTUS. This sends a strong message to this POTUS, as well as any subsequent Presidents: "Don't mess with the profits of the complex or else."

This was the tipping point for me when I realized that the deep state is not a just a bogeyman conjured up by the right wingers. Should you cross the complex, it will just as easily come for you even if you're a Democrat that's been in politics for 50 years.

Finally, the Atlantic is as establishment as it gets. No matter which party is in power, their editorial board serves the ruling class, of which almost nobody on HN is a part of.

Whether their interests align with yours or not you can ascertain just by looking at approval ratings of the US Congress.

Ben Horowitz recalled asking Zuck what his engineer onboarding process was when the latter complained to him about how it took them very long to make changes to code. He basically didn't have any.

[0] He holds the title of Chief Engineer at SpaceX.

Go ahead, try to delete the useless Microsoft Edge browser if you're not in a select few EU countries.

In my experience, you can't do it cleanly. Asking LLMs will tell you the following:

1)Modify a certain registry key to enable deletion. Which I did, but the only thing that accomplished is un-gray the delete button in the Control Panel. Once you press it nothing happens.

2)Windows will eventually reinstall Edge. So you're basically screwed.

B) makes things worse in several ways, but primarily by stifling innovation. Only large incumbents will have no trouble paying for the measures required to ensure compliance.

There's also the cost of enforcement, which will likely have to be borne by the taxpayers. I don't think this is a good thing to spend money on.

C) cannot be enforced, and any good faith attempts will cost more than the damage from harm they're supposed to prevent.

It's in a business' best interest to maximize demand for its products. Which is mostly fine for society, country, and the world by large if you're selling paper cups.

However, if you want to sell more weapons you are interested in lobbying for events that increase the consumption of weapons, in other words: wars.

See the problem yet?

It's not "people". One half of all people grows up playing contact sports or at least have some form of rough-and-tumble with their homies in schoolyards. This half also knows that you can get punched if things get too rowdy.

The other does not. Almost all of the entitled road blockers are in this category.