FWIW when I was doing some banking courses, as I was working in DeFi and wanted to know more about CeFi, they have synthetic assets too. Which are derivatives. In fact in the Big Short movie I'm 100% they call derivates synthetics!
These are a bit different. Derivatives is a complex product based on more fundamental products. Synthetic product is what it sounds like, stocks are a great example. You can create a synthetic stock with the same price as the real one and let people trade it.
Is it gatekeeping? They hire so many junior devs, do you not think it’d be possible to strip the team down by hiring far more capable engineers? Would Google crumble if they only hired senior devs like Netflix? I’m convinced they hire so many purely because they have the money and managers want bigger teams to go up the managerial track.
Video game devs aren’t paid ‘very poorly’, they’re still comfortably above a countries median, they’re just lower than roles requiring a similar skill. My friend is a game dev at Epic and loves it, FWIW. He doesn’t give a shit about money if he can pay his mortgage, cover his wife and child, splash on toys, and save a bit.
I've worked with Haskell professionally. It was... interesting. I'd rather be in shape than deal with Stack/Cabal/Nix again. If anyone reading this is wondering if they should learn Haskell - wonder if your time could be better spent having a fun and active life instead lol.
I second this. I think Haskell is a research programming language, and in a way I feel lucky that I first learned it way back in 2002, long before anyone seriously thought of using it for professional software development.
Haskell 98 is a pretty awesome programming language. It's not the best fit for every domain, but you can write concise readable code in it. The type system is just sophisticated enough to let you model your domain, but not so sophisticated that it becomes a distraction.
A lot of modern Haskell code has the unfortunate property that the types of the functions are harder to understand than their implementations. Type inference is much more valuable when it's the other way round. You know that [a] -> [a] is the right type for the 'reverse' function, so if you get a type error, you're sure that you made an error in your implementation. Conversely, many modern Haskell libraries give rise to extremely complex types, even when you're doing something mundane like making an SQL query. When you get a type error, it's then anyone's guess whether you misannotated a type somewhere or made an error in your implementation.
I personally feel that partial types systems are the way forward. Type the 80-90% of your code that's easy to type without a fancy type system. Dynamically type the rest and write some tests for it. Fancy types make you feel smart (and in all seriousness are a fascinating and important research topic), but their practical utility is limited IMO.
I agree that gradual type systems are great, but man, I feel like the expressiveness of e.g. Typescript is fantastic even for 'normal' programming.
Something like fully typed forms (so that e.g. <Input type='text' path='address.street' /> only works if your form data has a { address : {street : string} } + branded types for more custom data fields) is absolutely magical and makes working with lots of highly complex forms a breeze. Tests just don't compare.
Oh I feel you on the weird effort/payoff curve. I spent months wanting to throw my computer out the fucking window learning Nix.
But I eventually cracked the code and now it like where is deep enough to bury anything running Ubuntu. Let’s fucking break non-dynamic linking of libc because GNU.
NixOS is fundamentally wrong on a few key points. But it’s close enough to right to make everything else look ridiculous. Who doesn’t love never really knowing without rigorous audit what is running on my machine that’s highly optimized for Drepper’s career.
Just joined a company that self hosts Gitlab (and everything else, there's zero cloud) but is 100% remote. So far everything has been seamless and there's a large enough infra team to solve these issues if they arise :)
As I wrote, it's a matter of what you focus on - I've run CI systems and internal git hosts for large organizations as part of my work. There are very valid reasons to do so, but cost alone is rarely a compelling one - an on-site enterprise gitlab license is roughly as expensive as hosted github seat, and the community edition is somewhat limited.
And it's definitely possible to run gitlab or any other git hosting solution on-site with little downtime. There's no magic or arcane knowledge involved. It just takes serious effort to do so - more than a single lone wolf sysadmin can provide. All their skills are worth nothing if they're sick and in hospital or on a beach holiday.
At some point you will need a pack of fierce sysadmins, not the lone wolf, as dangerous he might be.
If you forget to scale your ops team, you gonna have problems.
Guess it's a strategy thing: do I want to rely on a third party or do I want to manage my own people and processes for this. In any case I habe to assess the risks and plan ahead.
> At some point you will need a pack of fierce sysadmins, not the lone wolf, as dangerous he might be.
Maybe, but also maybe not. And then that still doesn't mean I want them to focus on running git/gitlab. I mean we're doing stuff that revolves around the rust compiler and we have operations people easily capable of running gitlab around, but their primary task is something else - they're building systems on top of that. Do I want to re-task - or even just side-track them - into running gitlab?
Once you reach a certain size, you can have an internal ops team that's responsible for providing internal infrastructure, but to what extend is that really different from giving github/gitlab money? They'll be about as far removed from the individual teams they're serving as github is. Is that really something I want to put organizational effort into, distracting the org from achieving the goal? It's all tradeoffs.
I have just been given an M1 Max with 64GB of RAM from work and it has to be the most insane laptop I've used. I have a very big smile on my face when I build stuff.
It’s absolutely appropriate as he’s a leader in our industry. And on that note I’d no longer apply for a role at Tesla based on his very annoying behavior.
Does your comment on "annoying behavior" relate to him not voting for candidates of your political party any more?
The only annoying behavior I've seen of late are the frothing at the mouth vitriol that's being incessantly flung at him for the last weeks/months before and after the news about buying Twitter.
That's "annoying behavior". What he's been doing has not been that.
