Not as nice though, as the arguments still depend on the order. Passing a object gives the benefit of named arguments AND position of the arguments no longer matter (as object keys don't have order and also, it's a object with key/values)
I'm guessing you haven't traveled much. American is a virtually ubiquitous term to describe someone from the United States worldwide, no matter which language you're speaking. Countries which have a problem with calling yourself American are a minority, and even then it's usually a small minority of the younger generation.
If you go anywhere within Latin America, you'll find quite quickly that "American" is used to describe someone from the continents, and it's consider very odd to introduce yourself as "American" to a local. You say you're Estadounidense, or "Soy de Estados Unidos" (From the United States).
It's actually a very charged topic in Latin America, as many latinos feel that the word they use to describe themselves has been stolen.
I'd also suggest that another factor is that the author assumed that his reader base would have basic statistical knowledge, which I'd suggest would not be true even among software engineers. Just erase any reference to distributions or averages and you'll see what most people see. This just adds to your points.
I received zero notifications. I'm assuming they selectively decided to notify users based on how recently they had logged in perhaps, meaning that there may be a large amount of cumulative bitcoin whose owners were not notified. I only heard of anything from being on Hacker News.
It's interesting that's the connotation that was brought to mind for you. In the context of this thread, Google, Facebook, and Amazon are the definition of enterprise infrastructure. Google laid the ground work for much of the enterprise big data infrastructure. They've also developed buzz worthy software such as kubernetes, and spanner. Facebook and Google both are known for big data machine learning. Amazon brought the cloud to the mainstream, and offer many popular big data services through AWS. In general, there are few companies in the world who operate near the scale, with the reliability of these giants.
I think you're conflating enterprise with old and stuffy, and non-enterprise with bright colors and cutting edge technology. When I think of enterprise I think of software that needs to operate at scale with strict requirements on performance and uptime.
Apple loses a lot of the talent to other companies, and has never really been known having strong technology, so I understand that.
The interesting thing is that Google and Facebook created big-data solutions to solve actual problems they were facing. There are plenty of Google data scientists that reach for R or Pandas well before they write a MapReduce, and if you do need to write a MapReduce (well, Flume/BigQuery now), it's highly recommended to run it on a sampled dataset before extending to the full corpus.
There are some "enterprisey" companies that do the same, but there are also a whole lot of companies that reach for big-data tools because they want to be like Google, ignoring that their problems are actually quite different from the problems Google faces.
Yes, I strongly believe that this has been one of the strongest drivers of tech fads since at least 2010. People want to be like Google, so they copy Google. They don't understand that Google probably would've loved to be able to make the thing work with Oracle v. spending years developing their own internal systems, but the unique problem space put them at the disadvantage of needing to use a completely custom solution.
Google publishes an academic paper on this and the general public misinterprets it as a recommendation. Soon you see people writing open-source implementations "based on the GoogleThing Paper", and a new tech fad is born. It will consume billions of dollars before it dies in favor of another fad "based on the FacebookThing/TheNextGoogleThing Paper".
Walk up to most business guys and they will jump at the chance to "become more like Google". Try to talk them down from this, and your challenge is to convince that no, we don't want to be more like one of the most important and influential technology companies in the world, the company that's on the news every day, and whose logo he sees every time he looks at his phone, and the company who keeps taking all of the best hires from the universities. Worse, you'll be making that argument because "we're just not as big [read: important] as them". Not a promising position for the reasonable engineer.
This has been a terrible blight on our profession these last several years, but we just have to learn to roll with it. It's only by understanding and accepting the psychology around this that we can formulate effective counterstrategies, or make the best of the situation that's before us.
> Apple loses a lot of the talent to other companies, and has never really been known having strong technology, so I understand that.
That statement is just ridiculous.
Apple innovates a lot in the mobile and desktop spaces and on the software side they have pushed a lot of projects forward e.g. WebKit, LLVM. They also run some very large web services e.g. iCloud, Messages which are on par with some of the challenges Google and Facebook have.
100M people have downloaded apps I wrote. I know all about the issues with iCloud.
But as a web service that underpins so much of iOS it is still on a scale and complexity that rivals anything Google and Facebook has. Apple doesn't get enough credit for actually make this work on a daily basis.
iCloud is impressive and is easily on a scale that most companies will never reach. But Google and Facebook are on an entirely different level. The comparison isn't even close. iCloud isn't a rival. It's more of a distant cousin.
They definitely deserve credit for making it work because even at their scale it's an amazing feat. But there's no comparison to Google or Facebook's scale.
I somewhat agree, however in I don't think the parent should have been down voted. If someone doesn't regularly follow tech news then it is completely reasonable for them to have never heard of any of these incidents. In addition, the original comment was ambiguously worded as to whether he/she was talking about Netflix or acts done at other companies.
True, but in this case you could type "tech {text of bullet point}" into google and in every single instance save one, the first link returned would've been a source of the info.
Asking for a source makes sense for controversial, or hard to find information. Not when it's so commonly reported that it's the first link on google on every single topic.
Same here. It's been a bit disappointing. I've been considering canceling my Prime membership, especially since I don't use any of the other Prime perks. But I'll wait this year out to see if it improves.
In the context of students, Prime Student is 50% off. It appears to still be that way. This built up a lot of loyalty for early Prime members who were students. That loyalty appears to have continued for close to a decade for many people.
Remember that way back when it was business as usual to pay $10+ for shipping if you bought online. This meant that if you bought online more than 4 times throughout the course of an entire year, you were ahead. It also allowed you to buy at any time without worrying about the minimum purchase total, increasing buying frequency.
For me, I don't care if Amazon has my shopping preferences. I don't see a list of every item I've ever bought or viewed as particularly sensitive information. If you use Chrome, Google search, Gmail, and maybe have an Android phone, then Google knows everything. Private conversations, every service you have ever used (assuming email is used for login), every thing you've ever searched for, every url you've ever viewed in your browser, basically everything of everything.
