> There was one notable exception, and that was my experience with Triplebyte. They have a much better technical interview process than any I have seen anywhere else
This looks just like an Ad I see on reddit all over the place.
This comment breaks the site guidelines, which specifically ask you not to do this.
If you're worried about abuse, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can investigate. The guidelines say that too. Would you mind reading them and following them when posting here?
im not going to create an email to anonymously notify the same site who will review a flagged comment anyway. So, to the process as described, no. I think the comment was timely and relevant, others just disagree about the utility.
for what it’s worth i did triplebyte as well and it was actually a really good interview process. I didn’t end up accepting an offer from any of their companies but I thought they asked very practical things instead of just algorithms.
Of course this can be improved and simplified.
Handling 12123123 err checks is a problem of avoiding short circuit failures. That's fine, but you have multiple return values, so there's no reason not to leverage that properly...or even consistently. The whole file is littered with waiting assignment until a comparison, except in some cases or where if and elseif statements use the return values inline but not other places. It's just random.
//checkVolumeSatisfyClaim checks if the volume requested by the claim satisfies the requirements of the claim
func checkVolumeSatisfyClaim(volume *v1.PersistentVolume, claim *v1.PersistentVolumeClaim) error {
// check if PV's DeletionTimeStamp is set, if so, return error.
if utilfeature.DefaultFeatureGate.Enabled(features.StorageObjectInUseProtection) {
if volume.ObjectMeta.DeletionTimestamp != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("the volume is marked for deletion")
}
}
volumeSize := volume.Spec.Capacity[v1.ResourceStorage].Value()
requestedSize := claim.Spec.Resources.Requests[v1.ResourceName(v1.ResourceStorage)].Value()
if volumeSize < requestedSize {
return fmt.Errorf("requested PV is too small")
}elseif v1helper.GetPersistentVolumeClass(volume) != v1helper.GetPersistentVolumeClaimClass(claim) {
return fmt.Errorf("storageClassName does not match")
}
// function here, obviously
err = volumeAccessModeChecks(volume, claim)
return err
}
// Here's the function
func volumeAccessModeChecks(volume *v1.PersistentVolume, claim *v1.PersistentVolumeClaim) error {
// even the naming sucks. DISTINCT case error name
isMismatch, volumeModeErr := checkVolumeModeMismatches(&claim.Spec, &volume.Spec)
if err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("error checking volumeMode: %v", volumeModeErr)
}elseif isMismatch {
return fmt.Errorf("incompatible volumeMode")
}elseif !checkAccessModes(claim, volume) {
return fmt.Errorf("incompatible accessMode")
}
return nil
}
This whole function is already a separated function from the middle of the file, no reason to stop there. No need for separate files when the function calls are going to be distinct and inline beneath their usage.
I don't care who his friends are.
I don't find people interesting because of the company they keep or track their career because they interviewed someone.
Galafinakis isn't worth fawning over because he mock-interviewed Obama. Baskets wasn't interesting either.
Any guy quitting facebook (who can sign up again for free in a heartbeat, it's zero risk) is an event, granted. Might as well talk about the time someone quit selling on eBay or had a video removed by Youtube or went to Ohio. It doesn't mean anything until you sensationalize it. This indicates that it is not news, but raw sensationalism.
> author is admitting he's unhappy because Python isn't C
That's not the point at all. I mean, did you read it?
How do you mischaracterize the specific point about the casual opportunity for foreign module metaprogamming? Module initialization is bad in a pernicious way. While you can't do operator overloading, you can clobber namespaces (which was referenced). Paired with a community repository, this is exactly the same case of what's so dangerous about npm.
My point wasn't to devalue his arguments - in fact, I find them valid arguments. My point was he's using inexperience and/or familiarity with C/C++ as a reason to "hate" it.
He complains about Python developers grep'ing directories when he admits to looking through just as arbitrary of a directory. His complaints about random code execution during import is valid but also seen as a feature _allowing_ metaprogramming. It's just as bad as C/C++ allowing clobbering over memory.
These are features that come with trade-offs. The author is focusing _only_ on the trade-offs and how they don't exist in his favored language as a reason to hate the language. That's certainly fine for his subjective opinion but not as appropriate in a blog post where he is clearly trying to persuade others.
> It's just as bad as C/C++ allowing clobbering over memory.
That's a good parallel.
> My point was he's using inexperience and/or familiarity with C/C++ as a reason to "hate" it.
I have less familiarity with C/C++ than Python and I hate it because it's not about language perspective. It's bad language design, for such a high level language. Inclusion wrapped with execution is unsafe and has an easy fix for most language interpreters. Don't allow execution during a declaration. If you want to do metaprogramming, there are other ways that don't break the paradigm (rewriting files before inclusion, chaining programs, etc).
RFCs are often useful guidelines, but don't get too hung up on them. There are always side effects. eg resource usage, interaction effects (cache priming), etc.
[Edit:]
> The point is that GET is not supposed to change the information stored on the server side.
The RFCs for HTTP USAGE are guidelines that are less about utility and more of an interoperability dream that was never realized. There's nothing sancrosanct about them. There have been DECADES of usage contrary (eg medical, gamedev, advertising, ERP, etc). At some point people realize it's bikeshedding issue that's more trouble than it's worth.
> There are always side effects. eg resource usage, interaction effects (cache priming), etc.
"Side effects" probably isn't the best term for what I meant. The point is that GET is not supposed to change the information stored on the server side.
> It isn't irrational. Being wrong is not the same as being irrational.
Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Your argumentative tone is not compelling and you fail to demonstrate your position within some very constrained topics. Perhaps you will reconsider some of these ideas.
Your link does not support your belief that it is in some way partially correct. The catholic church is not a pro-life group. They pre-date the very idea of a pro-life group by many centuries. The largest pro-life group that random person lists does not have a position on birth control. So this does not support the notion that pro-life equals anti-birth control. But again, even if pro-life did equal anti-birth control that would not support the belief that pro-life people are pro-life because they hate women.
In case you missed in the post you are replying to: "And it would not make the liberal idea of the conservative view correct even if it were true. Christians who oppose birth control do so because they value the traditions of their culture, not because they hate women." Even if every single person who opposes abortion also opposed birth control, that would not make the belief that those people oppose abortion because they hate women correct. Opposing birth control is not hating women any more than opposing abortion is. Consider the opposite incorrect belief: "liberals hate babies, that's why they are pro-abortion". Now would you think "liberals also support birth control, so that proves it is because they hate babies" is good support for that belief? Neither supporting abortion nor supporting birth control can be equated to hating babies, just as neither opposing abortion nor opposing birth control can be equated to hating women.
>Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic
Yes? The four humors theory of health and medicine was based on reason and logic. It was also wrong. You can have a rational belief based on incomplete or incorrect data.
>Your argumentative tone is not compelling
Please don't assume a "tone" for someone. It does not further discussion.
>Perhaps you will reconsider some of these ideas.
I have. And in light of the lack of contradictory evidence, my views did not change this time.
> Your link does not support your belief that it is in some way partially correct.
Not my belief. I have evidence, so it's what I know, since previously I did not know. I found your arguments compelling and looked it up.
> In case you missed in the post you are replying to:
Nope. You decided to ignore a statement you agreed with for another you wanted to attack.
The largest pro life groups (as a body made up of pie slices) does evidently (ie have evidence) that supports:
> they are not just anti abortion, they are also anti birth control
Which is what was being referenced by at least a partial correctness, since it was a following statement. Not sure who you're trying to fool.
> Yes? The four humors theory of health and medicine was based on reason and logic. It was also wrong
Wrong is a matter of evidence. For the time, it was right as right can be. That's how science works and is in accordance with rationality. Proving a theorem, does not mean that bringing it up as a theorem was/is wrong. Over time, changes in knowledge are part of the process.
Good luck with your religious convictions to these issues.
Then why not present it? Until you establish it is fact, then yes it is your belief.
>You decided to ignore a statement you agreed with for another you wanted to attack.
I have no idea what you mean.
>The largest pro life groups (as a body made up of pie slices) does evidently (ie have evidence) that supports
The link you provided says otherwise. It very clearly shows the largest pro-life group has no position on birth control.
>Which is what was being referenced by at least a partial correctness
That does not make logical sense. The statement "conservatives support abortion because they hate women and want to control their bodies" is not proven to be partially correct even if you believe that all conservatives oppose birth control. Opposing birth control is not hating women.
>For the time, it was right as right can be
No it was not. Incorrect isn't correct if you simply don't know any better.
>Good luck with your religious convictions to these issues.
I find it interesting that you ignore what I say, try to attribute what I say to malice, claim your belief is objective fact, and still suggest that I am the one with religious conviction here. "Conservatives hate women because I say they do" is not fact, no matter how many times you repeat it.
> Trump is probably going to lose the trade war over Iran
Who cares what "Trump" loses? This is about the USA and Trump will be long gone before any of these situations are measured.
The USA is not starting a trade war with Iran (first time I've ever heard sanctions called a trade war), the US is enacting sanctions to hurt Iran without scaring allies like Saudi Arabia.
> China holds far more US debt than Americans hold Chinese debt
That's intentional and good for the US. If you don't understand this, I really think you need to understand why we sell it to foreign powers at all.
> China has far more market reach into emerging markets in Africa
That's a real problem which the USA is losing out on potentially. It won't be apparent for some time, since people who are industrialized enough to get out of self-oppressive warlord control will not handle foreign occupation very well either. The US answer is always to enable the counter-revolutionaries anyway until the US has someone they want to deal with.
The USA is not starting a trade war with Iran (first time I've ever heard sanctions called a trade war), the US is enacting sanctions to hurt Iran without scaring allies like Saudi Arabia
The trade war is with the EU and Russia. Iran is a huge potential future market, alongside the rest of the non saudi aligned Middle East. After Iraq the contracts for rebuild and repair went to classic US interested parties in trade retaliation for prior diplomatic posture in the m.e. by France and Germany.
Please explain to me what I don't understand about china holding US debt,and what it means tactically regarding the trade war.
At least they are getting out of nuclear, so yay? I think it's just backpedaling due to the low standards and high operational risk of many Chinese industries.
But with renewable electricity costs falling, these plants are going to be too expensive to compete, and will likely be shut down in the not-too-distant future. This isn't sound financial investing, it's local governments wasting funds to keep up employment, as they so often do in China.
This looks just like an Ad I see on reddit all over the place.