If you ask people whether or not they some ostensibly good policy should be implemented, the majority will agree. When you ask taxpayers to actually cough up and pay for the services, though, the majority will get extremely upset.
A more interesting survey question would be how much people are prepared to sacrifice to make these problems go away.
Barefoot didn't die -- they were acquired by Intel, who has continued to invest in it with the development and introduction of Tofino 2.[0] Moreover, P4 is not/was not Barefoot alone; to take an example that's relevant to us, the P4 application working group working on the In-band Network Telemetry Dataplane Specification[1] includes participation from Alibaba, Arista, CableLabs, Cisco Systems, Dell, Intel, Marvell, Netronome, and VMware.
Disclosure: We are using both Intel Tofino 2 and P4 at Oxide and we (obviously?) think it's pretty interesting.
I would expect to see Intel pushing P4 heavily over the next year. P4 will almost certainly be involved in the roadmap for their recently released IPU (a SmartNIC needs some type of programmable substrate). Also, their data platforms group had been recruiting heavily around the Barefoot Networks / P4 angle. AND, just this morning, Pat Gelsinger announced the data platforms group is being split into two groups —- one of which (the Network and Edge group) to be headed by Nick McKeown, former chairman and cofounder of Barefoot Networks, as senior vice president [0].
> The Silicom FPGA SmartNIC N5010 features an Intel Stratix 10 DX FPGA with integrated high bandwidth memory (HBM) and Intel Ethernet 800 series adapter.
4x100G. Double slot.
There's also a C5000X platform, with I believe only one board out right now, which is again an FPGA based add-on card, 2x25G, and also has an on-card Xeon-D processor.
Just a little reminder here at the end, AMD is still trying to get it's acquisition of the biggest FPGA company on the planet Xilinx to go through. And my general assessment of P4: P4 definitely is a strong contender for a tech which can get these fancy awesome transciever-heavy FPGAs to see more adoption.
Primarily based out of Santa Clara, California. All of the Santa Clara roles on this page [0] are in the Barefoot Switching Division (BXD) of the Data Platforms Group. It makes sense given the Barefoot Networks headquarters were in Santa Clara.
You can probably remove Netronome from the list. They stopped developing/supporting P4 and mostly dead. They tried to switch to ebpf but I don't think they succeeded. Sad story
It does kinda look like Tofino 2 was delayed two years by the acquisition, eerily reminiscent of the FM6000 delay that cost Fulcrum all of its market share. Tofino 3 should probably be sampling by now.
The real problem is not specific to C++, memory or shared pointers, but as the author mentions later, the fact that "function parameters evaluation order is unspecified".
The problem is similar in C as well.
`printf("%d, %d", i++, i++);` will give you different results depending on the compiler.
How is it "the same"? If the evaluations of the individual arguments can't overlap, then the C example's problem still exists while the C++ example's problem doesn't. And if the order of evaluation were guaranteed but the evaluations could overlap, the C example wouldn't have a problem but the C++ example still would. To me the two problem's causes seem quite different.
> Mixing unsigned and signed is seriously broken in C, and hence better to stick with signed.
Mmmm .. maybe in this specific case (didn't look). But if you meant this as general advice, then one should keep in mind that unsigned overflows are specified but signed overflow is UB (barring maybe the very latest version of C standard); because of that, unsigned division in many cases is trivially optimised to less complex ops, etc.
The problem with Triplebyte IMHO is that what the originally promised, while a great idea and concept, it cannot scale. Also after interviewing with them for a role in their company I got to realize they don't know how to conduct interviews themselves.
I used them two times. The first one was very early on, where I was given a home assignment and interviewed on it by Aaron himself, if I am not mistaken. The dude was awesome at interviewing, and knew exactly how to probe to get a better understanding of your skills.
That was when they were promising that you can interview with them so you don't have to do technical interviews with the companies. I thought it was an awesome concept and could really reshape hiring in the tech industry.
Second time was a couple of years ago, where the model has already changed a bit. Passed the first round and one of the companies that I could interview for was triplebyte themselves.
What a disappointment! The only difference in the interview process than the rest of the companies was that they gave you a laptop and asked you to do practical coding instead of whiteboard generic algorithm solving.
Some of the interviewers themselves were junior members of the stuff with 0 experience in interviewing.
Scheduled a practice interview and the only slot available was ~6AM my time. Nobody showed up and I wasn't informed that they wouldn't be showing up.
After reaching out about it -- they tried to tell me that my interview scored poorly, and that I would need to retry again in a few months. After some back-and-forth they realized both that it was practice interview and that the person didn't show up. So they rescheduled the practice interview.
When the interview did happen -- this was for ML stuff -- the interviewer was just no great. We spent so much time discussing the differences in terms we used -- mine largely coming from University, there's from I'm assuming their formal education -- that much of the interview was wasted. It literally came down to me deriving what we were not agreeing on for them to understand we were talking about the exact same thing.
I then had to reach out several times for my results, I'm assuming due to the fact that you're allotted one practice interview, and technically I had two(?). When I finally got my results I was again informed that my results were not good enough, and I'd need to wait to reapply. I gently informed them that it was practice interview, and the representative apologized their mistake.
When I reviewed my results... the interviewer didn't rate me too well, largely due to our differences in terminology. They also didn't like my coding style -- even though no one has ever complained to me before -- and rated the coding exercise poorly even though I was able to perform what was asked of me.
I just gave up.
Then several months later, I got an email about being TripleByte certified or whatever.
is that they say they have companies like Apple and TrueCar posting job listings and hiring but they actually never respond and all you get is offers for companies between 10-200 people in size (aka, startups)
I'm guessing this is your experience - was this more than a couple of months ago? We made some changes about ~6-8 weeks ago to how we order jobs to prioritize responsive companies much more than they were in the past. We also use responsiveness as an input to the "Likely To Accept" score shown for each job (here's a screenshot of a posting from my own prod-testing account: https://imgur.com/wSmGCEL).
This was my experience twice trying to use Triplebyte in the past 2 years.
It's a great platform, the indicator letting me know companies aren't going to respond is great.
It just doesn't fix the problem that... the quality of companies on Triplebyte aren't companies most senior/lead/architect/advisory level engineers are willing to settle for. I'm being unnecessarily harsh/biased. I'm sure plenty of people use the platform with great success. I've just come to accept "early/mid-stage startups" job offers from Triplebyte and not much else. Not necessarily "garbage" but... for sure lots of risk.
I did triplebyte most recently in mid 2019 and that was my experience as well. I used triplebyte as well as job searching on my own and I got a few offers from triplebyte, some of which seemed like interesting projects but couldn't offer a level of compensation that would make the risk worth it. I got two high-quality job offers from my own search, both of which were more compelling than any of the triplebyte offers and I am still with the company whose offer I accepted.
The "super week" of onsite interviews was interesting, probably increased my overall interviewing skill, but was probably one of the more stressful individual weeks in my life.
What matters more is recognizing the grand variance of human experience, and that while some may take a lifetime to accumulate even a little wisdom, others can possess unusual abilities and perspectives at any age. It's not like this is news, history is full of such young figures.
I often think about the old parable about a man walking down a road that comes to a fence. There is another man on the other side. He asks him to open the gate, and the man replies, "I'll open the gate if you can tell me why the fence is here".
It's not in your "self-interest", the way you mean it, to review your ideas and believes from when you were younger and realize that with your extra experience you see things differently now.
And just to be 100% clear, I am all for having younger people in critical positions and don't try to argue that one is better than the other.
My reply was on how age matters. Don't know why you try to twist it to a generational flame-war.
> 1. I went to a neighborhood clinic in Oakland, CA that's literally next door to my house, I can see the church from my window. Paul lives in NYC which is on the opposite end of the country.
> 2. I asked them about eligibility and told them I don't clear CA guidelines. They told me it's first come, first served with an ID showing I am 18+.
I am not buying this. Why would they even go and ask for eligibility when they know very well they are not eligible?
The only reason would be to hope to find a loophole.
The whole vaccine situation in CA was an excellent test of character. They failed it.
Not surprised that a YC founder thinks that rules apply only to others and not themselves. The antisocial gene is strong in this one.
A cheap logic analyzer, like DSLogic, would probably work much better for the specific use case.