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.

> 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

  1) My life that I don't feel great about
  2) My life that I don't feel great about, with some compliments now

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

Now they are tightening it up a bit which as a developer I support but honestly end users are being screwed, and the root cause is Google not Qualcomm in my opinion. Google could have from the start been stricter about certification if they really cared about delivering a good experience to end users and developers, rather than just sending out a shitty product quickly.

YMMV upgrading - I wish I had not.

There's a lot of code from Google that's not open source - for whatever reasons. Where are all the C++ big data tools that google uses internally. Why is big data ecosystem centered around hadoop in Java from guy at Yahoo. Where is the source code for borg, bigtable, chubby, or most of the tools mentioned in their research papers? Where are the specs for their tensor flow fpgas. Does Google open source all the custom linux kernel patches they have to drive low latency networking and containers? Where's the source for the stuff that lets google...be google? Given that, which the author does acknowledge toward end of article, using Google as one of the poster childs for open source seems like a weak candidate to me (in terms of open sourcing all the things facebook seems like they open source more of their core infra but maybe that's just me buying into the marketing).

Most video game code isn't open source. Is any intel/AMD cpu code open source? Is the source code for stuff I interact with (routers, switches, telecom, traffic lights - anything) open source? There's Cisco iOS and I know I've worked with telecom switches that run proprietary unixes. Is QNX open source? Hell is the code by Nasa open source? I'm not even going to get into the arguement about is Android better off open source or not compared to iOS.

I think the people who write this closed source code could be amazing developers. I think the companies who write a lot of this closed sourced code are amazing companies. I think a lot of what drives tech forward is the result of closed source development.

I think the authors points about doing open source development as a good way to grow your career as a developer or for a company to get free dev work and a pool of highly hiring candidates are true, I just don't know why it had to start with what I view as a false assertion that discounts the literal world of nonopen source code that powers your life, done by highly skilled developers.

Also my post kind of jumps all over the place but I think the authors does too. I really think this whole article by the author could be boiled down to 1/2 the length just focusing on a few core points about open source that would have made the arguements stronger (I felt the author covered his bases in a few places that made the overall point weaker). Below is my summary of authors article.

Intro

  1. Think of programmers you know
  2. A lot of them do open source work. 
  3. Why do they (big companies/big name progammers) do this work?(Possibly skip points 1, 2, 3 to start with, I thin they're pretty weak)
  4. A lot of big tech companies open source code. Why?

  1. Let's skip mastery - I'm not sure how teaching somehow became the same thing as open sourcing)
  2. The work you do package a good open source project is likely to improve the project quality.
  3. Open sourcing your work invites new eyeballs to look over your code and offer free improvements beyond the improvement you just got packaging the   software.
  4. Labor (see 3, not really sure how this got split off from quality).
  5. Both as an employee and a company, open sourcing your work is a way to get your name out there.
  6. I'd skip this point "In other words, open source projects are simply more fun and more satisfying to work on." as that's really debatable.

  1. No time
  > Make time noob btw I learnt Ajax by myself and got a sick job
  2. No one cares about my work
  > Even if no one cares, open sourcing it will make it better (see the whole reasons to open source cmon get w/ it)
  3. Someone will steal my work
  > My bad u right companies don't open source their core business code. But mostly people won't steal. Not sure where the line is between the 2 so I'll   just mention both to cover my bases

  1. Sharing is a good way to be selfish and get your name out there (see pt 5, reasons to open source)
  2. Open source is why silicon valley beating wall street (this point is completely unsubstantiated and to me very weak since wall street hft does a lot of cutting edge tech work, and who's even arguing silicon valley is beating wall street?). Weird dig to end article on.

You can look at stock price sure but Disney revenue has been going up by billions year over year and I don't see that changing much, even if ESPN starts to shrink, because of the valuable movie IP they have.

Some of the recent chip maker mergers come to mind but that's a different market - when does a company merge with a company that by revenue is ~10x smaller and by net income 2 orders of magnitude smaller?

Guess the jokes on us though the Sackler family gets knighted and modern institutions like MoMA let them slap their name on buildings for $$$ so who's really any better.

1. Be independent in your role. Have opinions. You're hired for your expertise - use it to weigh options, consult with colleagues, and implement a solution. Sometimes your solution works sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't mean a failure, just a learning opportunity. The point here is don't be paralyzed about making technical choices and never make technical choices yourself - if you always defer this to other people then what were you really hired for?

2. It's easy to always say "yes". Sometimes it's important to say no to projects. In the time/money/expertise constraints at your job, some things just aren't possible and everyone in company might not have the same visibility into why a project will fail as you do. This relates to (1) in that you should raise your concerns early as possible if you have them. Then you and your coworkers can make an informed call whether to try the project or not, but this time with better expectations.

3. Try and set yourself up for success. Be honest with yourself about what your skills are and what you think is possible. It doesn't mean saying no to anything you think isn't easy but communicating that you think it is diffcult and proposing an appropriate timeline keeps everyone expectation in line. It sucks sometimes to say that some exciting new idea that will earn tons of money can't happen but it's better then rolling the dice and then missing deadline after deadline. It's also more valuable to the company to know that this a weak knoweldge point and try and route resources approrpiately in the context of that.

4. There's 40+ years to get what you want done. No need to rush things. Try and do some creative hobbies outside work. Be a person you wouldn't be bored to spend time with.

To elaborate, I liked the fact the interview was take home questions that seemed relevant to the actual job but still were pretty interesting, plus they even offered (unsolicited) to compensate me for taking the time to interview. Also the whole process was pretty fast, no dragging around waiting to here back from them.

Definitely left a positive impression!

In fact you seem to be saying she did not do a good job yourself as you put this defense of "ceo can't do much and this ceo had bad luck"

So what has she done to earn $55 million dollars? Without attacking anything about her personally, in the role of her job, did she do a good or bad job? I think a bad job or at most neutral job. In fact in writing this comment I looked at her bio and I came away really impressed, but at the same time Yahoos stack ranking wasn't popular, Tumblr I think was a fail move. Do I think anyone could have done a better job then her? I don't know...digital ad sales is huge but as a single person I don't know how much impact you can have.

Could they not have found someone else to go down with the ship for less then $55 million (say $5 million) or is 50 million just so little money for a large company like Yahoo that people who offer hire ceo just don't give a fuck about the difference between the two numbers.

Between weekends and just general downtime in week (I spend time watching netflix and browsing the internet and I read books in my commute) I have at least 30 hours free a week. If you're into stocks as much as I'm into wasting time entertaining myself then why not.