My thoughts as someone who used to do a ton of Exchange/365 setups.
Protocol compatibility shouldn't be MVP. Forcing everyone into a browser is fine, millions of people interact with Google that way.
Same thing with End to End. Just ability to self-host is fine. If someone wants to encrypt their data, since you store it all as files, just have them encrypt local file store.
SQLite + Files is great storage method and actually makes your system more clusterable than you think. You develop a gateway that looks up which servers holds the active user, direct all traffic there. Secondary servers just receive updated copies of data from primary. Exchange works this way.
What laws? As long as they fulfill Heroku fulfills the obligation in any contracts they have made, no law has been broken.
If you are paying month to month and actually check the Terms of Services of those services, most of them can shut down instantly without notice as long as they stop billing you.
American here, most of ISPs here do it as well. With modern router hardware, there is plenty of hardware available to run tiny DNS server that caches and forwards all requests to ISP upstream. Memory overhead is probably about 50MB and CPU overhead is trivial, probably .1% or less.
I'm already using LLM to generate things and I'm not sure what this adds. The Demo isn't really doing it for me but maybe I'm wrong target for it. (What is running on that server? You don't know. Build your cattle properly!)
Maybe this is better for one man band devs trying to get something running without caring beyond, it's running.
But fluid lets AI investigate, explore, run commands, and edit files in a production-cloned sandbox. LLMs are great at writing IaC, but the LLMs won't get the right context from just generating an Ansible Playbook. They need a place to run commands safely and test changes before writing the IaC. Much like a human, hence the sandbox.
Yea, just include "All printers bought by US government must have Tracking Dots" and Executives will move that feature to top of backlog without any other concerns.
Big company executives are easiest to control; they want money and all of it. US Government luckily has plenty of it to throw around.
Because a lot of scammers are overseas in countries that either won't extradite and/or cooperate with investigators. Why focus on those cases when no one will face justice?
But if you do nothing, it enables people in countries that DO extradite and cooperate to get in on the fun, too. I guess that's just being nice to our allies.
If you don't dispute it, yes. However, if you don't dispute it, IRS knows about it as well and will be asking for their cut. Generally, the benefit increase is not worth higher taxes.
After seeing the flood of resumes for application, I do think a small cost to apply wouldn't be a bad thing for either applicants or companies. I also realize that if someone is unemployed, getting them to pay money they don't have to find a new job is counterproductive.
However, when we wanted to hire a new Ops person at work, the flood of obviously not qualified at all applicants we got was insane.
> the flood of obviously not qualified at all applicants we got was insane
From speaking to folks looking for jobs in tech over the past few years, this is a natural result.
1. Companies write requirements on the job posting that are a little beyond reasonable for the role and salary.
2. Applicants learn over time, and start applying to jobs for which they only meet most of the qualifications.
3. Companies adjust and write even more ridiculous requirements.
4. Applicants start applying to jobs for which they only meet some requirements.
5. Repeat.
As evidence that the applicants are, at every stage, correctly reacting to the situation: I have received positive responses (and, later, job offers) by applying to roles for which I am only mostly qualified, and I know many people for whom this is true of jobs they are only barely qualified for.
The last req I opened I closed around 500 applicants. I opened it Thursday afternoon and closed it Tuesday morning.
Over 40% were totally nonqualified. The job was for a rails engineer. In the current market, I wanted exactly what I asked for: a senior rails eng. But as long as the applicant had shipped a web app in a dynamic language -- node, react, vue, svelte, django, flask, phoenix, whatever the php folks use, etc -- it's not unreasonable to apply. That 40% had never shipped a webapp. Another 10% or more completely ignored the senior: many had < 1 year of experience.
I ended up using AI to filter because even 1 minute per is an entire 9 hour day. Engaging for 3 minutes per application is 3x that. And I can't be in a position where I spend effort while the applicant spent none: I assume the bulk of these were just mass applications.
I think it is an anecdote about a trading firm. Something about throwing the CVs to their desk from a few feet away. Only the ones who made it to the desk were considered. After all who wants to hire unlucky traders?
>And I can't be in a position where I spend effort while the applicant spent none
But isn't that literally what you are paid for? Your job is to do the steps needed to hire someone and that includes reading through applicants. Why would the applicants -that are dojng this for free, for a promise of a posibility- need to put more effort than you?
> As evidence that the applicants are, at every stage, correctly reacting to the situation: I have received positive responses (and, later, job offers) by applying to roles for which I am only mostly qualified...
Even fifteen years ago, I was getting advice from grizzled (programming industry) veterans of the form
If you match even half of what they're asking for, apply. Most of the time, those lists are put together by HR; and even if the list is completely accurate, they're never going to find anyone that meets all those requirements. The ad is asking for the *ideal* candidate. The smart companies know they're going to have to settle for less. Let *them* filter *you* out.
I've interviewed a fair bit, both in and out of Silicon Valley. I've had exactly two interviews where the folks hiring knew exactly what they wanted. All the others were like "Well, we need a programmer to do programmer stuff, IDK.".
That's nothing new. From the job applicant perspective it has always been stupid to filter yourself out if you're even slightly qualified. I mean if you're already unemployed then you have plenty of free time to submit applications so there's nothing to lose.
I wish this wasn't true (but know it is from experience), because those of us who are posting job requirements that actually correspond to what we're looking for are left with nonsense applications.
In your process, I understand why step 2 would occur. But what are the companies "adjusting" to in step 3? What's gone out of whack for them that they're trying to correct?
Well, if the majority of candidates are applying to a job where they only meet four out of five of the requirements, if the employer can add a sixth requirement they may naively think then applicants will have five out of six requirements.
Alternatively, if they receive too many applications, a solution is to be more specific so they receive fewer or they can filter out more earlier. Adding additional requirements is one way to do this, even if the requirements are not necessarily connected to a successful candidate (knowing how to write in languages that aren't used in the company, for example); some recruiters don't seem to know that some of those requirements are completely irrelevant to the position.
It’s a Turing pattern generator. Inevitable results.
To fix it, employers could require applicants to include a random variant as part of their application. What parameters? Postage, as is being discussed. Attach a handwritten personal reference letter.
I once designed, built and sent — on my own initiative — a building facade model for an architecture job, but it was with Michael Graves, so I’m sure other applicants sent in entire villages. They were old school enough to send it back with the rejection letter.
If I were a job applicant, I don't know how much I'd pay for an ironclad guarantee that the human hiring manager for the role would open and read my resume. $100? Multiple hundreds?
There are a ton of fake jobs openings out there, or which sort of exist, but they aren't exactly eager to hire and haven't filled the role in nine months.
You'd have to pay with no guarantee anyone will even read it, which even at a fairly low cost rapidly becomes an issue when you might have to apply to a lot of jobs.
Making the employer also pay might help, but I suspect then the employers will just wander over to another jobs site that promises free listings.
It's been that way for over 40 years so yes, according to Congress/SCOTUS, this is legal.
reply