https://www.chp.ca.gov/news-alerts/alerts/Ebony-Alert/

https://www.chp.ca.gov/news-alerts/alerts/Feather-Alert/

It's funny how this question might have the greatest divergence in answer distribution between people who do and don't know what they're talking about

Other candidates are "is debt good" and "is property tax better or worse than income tax"

Google is a multi trillion dollar company, not a scrappy libertarian upstart ready to gamble everything in court

OK, and? The market is just paying them to make information about their decisions public.

It wish the author would have offered a more detailed refutation than "I'm not having it". I'm pretty sure the claim is right! I'm fairly convinced that we'd be a lot better off moving to ring0-only linear-memory architectures and rely on abstraction-theoretic security ("langsec") rather than fattening up the hardware with random whack-a-mole mitigations. We're gradually moving in that direction anyway without much of a concerted effort.

So what? If it's not already, frontier LLM one-shot output will be as good as heavily edited human output soon.

Obviously the specific examples of end-users failing to encrypt are bad, but that's not really a problem with the satellites.

A very small subset of possible lessons that could have been learned...

1. Different languages have totally different allocation requirements, and only the compiler knows what type of allocator works best (e.g. generational bump allocator for functional languages, classic malloc style allocator for C-style languages).

2. This perhaps makes wasm less suitable for usage on embedded targets.

The best argument I can make for this is that they're trying to emulate the way that libc is usually available and provides a default malloc() impl, but honestly that feels quite weak.

Are they also planning on completely overhauling their economy and tax system to attract the engineers required to make this happen?

Systematizing this is not feasible. The next best thing (in terms of predictive power for future job success) is direct IQ tests, which are illegal in the US. Next best thing after that are IQ proxies like coding puzzle ability.

> If a candidate's performance improves with practice, then so what?

It means the test isn't measuring anything useful. The extremely broad spectrum skills that benefit a software/eng role aren't something you can "practice".

> The only thing we should care about is that the interview performance reflects well on how the candidate will do within the company.

Agreed, which any Goodhartable test will never do.

The problem is that it is too amenable to prep

You can move your score like 2stddev with practice, which makes the test almost useless in many cases

On good tests, your score doesn't change much with practice, so the system is less vulnerable to Goodharting and people don't waste/spend a bunch of time gaming it

These days, people mostly use things like GHC.Generics (generic programming for stuff like serialization that typically ends up being free performance-wise), newtypes and DerivingVia, the powerful and very generalized type system, and so on.

If you've ever run into a problem and thought "this seems tedious and repetitive", the probability that you could straightforwardly fix that is probably higher in Haskell than in any other language except maybe a Lisp.

Haskell mostly solves boilerplate in a typed way and Lisp mostly solves it in an untyped way (I know, I know, roughly speaking).

To put it bluntly, there's an intellectual difficulty barrier associated with understanding problems well enough to systematize away boilerplate and use these languages effectively.

The difficulty gap between writing a ton of boilerplate in Java and completely eliminating that boilerplate in Haskell is roughly analogous to the difficulty gap between bolting on the wheels at a car factory and programming a robot to bolt on the wheels for you. (The GHC compiler devs might be the robot manufacturers in this analogy.) The latter is obviously harder, and despite the labor savings, sometimes the economics of hiring a guy to sit there bolting on wheels still works out.