Most sports have a salary cap to prevent being able to buy your way to success. They recognize that having more money than your opponent gives you an unfair advantage and destroys competition.
When it’s enough people to make a decent sized company, senior management owns it either way: if they didn’t screw up now, they spent years hiring the wrong people and not doing anything about it.
Prepping for 3+ months is definitely not the baseline. I'd really need some convincing that you're getting any real incremental benefit past a week of interview prep. There's not that much ground to really cover and at some point you're just solving different versions of the same problems over and over again.
A majority of the time is spent on the "LeetCode grind." You can evaluate your own progress while you solve practice problems by checking time and checking how many solutions are correct on the first submit. Most likely 1 week would barely be enough to establish your baseline performance per category (DP, trie, etc.).
"Stealing an idea" has been a phrase for far longer than that though. Stealing as a metaphor for intangible objects isn't a creation of the media companies.
> "Stealing an idea" has been a phrase for far longer than that though.
If it was only that, it may be somewhat justified. But in this case the "thief" is not making any profit from the stuff he has "stolen", he has just given away a copy to another person. The correct verb in this case is "sharing".
I refuse to partake in the orwellian newspeak of using the verb "stealing" for the act of sharing. This is a hill I'm happy to die on.
'Infringing copyright' is also a correct verb for this situation. I 100% agree that 'stealing' is not a valid word to use here. But I also don't expect most authors to be happy calling it 'sharing'.
Sure. Both are compatible. The generic act is "sharing", and this act happens to be "copyright infringement" in some cases. I don't see how anybody could say that the sentence "Sharing this file with other people infringes the copyright" uses a misleading language. Somebody may not like the socially positive aspect of the verb "to share", and they will prefer to use morally loaded terms, even if they are incorrect, but nobody can realistically say that using this verb for that act is wrong.
Agreed. But this precise usage, "stealing" digital products, is an invention of media companies. A stretching of a metaphor beyond all reasonable interpretation.
My parents decided to have an abortion because they were not financially ready to have children. I probably wouldn't exist if they hadn't. Does that mean their abortion had more right to live than I?
My parents lived for years with the guilt that had been instilled in them by their religious upbringing. It was one of the hardest decisions they ever had to make so they could give their future offspring the best life possible.
Research has shown that abortion laws lead to lower crime rates, lower poverty and a higher educated populous. My sisters and I are living proof of that.
I certainly agree that there can be a lot of utility in abortions. Frankly that's the major reason why I don't support abortion legislation. I am somewhat a utilitarian and I understand that there are instances where the utility might outweigh the ineherent immorality. But I do believe that there is an inherent immorality.
Similarly, I think it is immoral to use force to get other people to do what you want. But that quickly becomes a nuanced argument when you start taking public safety into account, or crime prevention. Life doesn't take place in a vacuum so I'm not trying to pass judgement.
Isn't Redis still single-threaded for queries, but saving in the background? That seems a little risky: you've got your 100 million users setting bits in your bitsets and suddenly everything blocks for 10 seconds while old data is being loaded from disk.
It's a way to convey tone through text. Sometimes the same comment can be taken in either a rude or a helping way, and prefacing it with "I don't mean to be rude" is a way of saying "please take this in the helping way."
When talking in person you can infer this through how they say it, but in anonymous text on the internet the disclaimer is helpful.
I've often found that one is better served by saying "please take this in the helping way" outright as opposed to relying on over-cliche phrases like "I don't mean to be X."
Being earnest and dare I say somewhat unique in your discussions can often produce better results than crutching on over-used phrases. This is a reason I stick to phrases like "I apologize for" over "I'm sorry for", or "I appreciate that" over "Thank you for." When words/phrases you intend to convey become noise or just another figure of speech, why bother saying them at all?
reply