It's sandboxed!

Yup I switched to WezTerm from iTerm2 and being able to version control the settings is one of the biggest benefits (especially because WezTerm allows more complicated Lua scripts)

One reason is portability if you use (or plan to use) desktop Linux

I usually use macOS + Fedora KDE and Konsole is more than enough for me :)

Don't let the Emacs folks read this :)

I read the comments before the link and thought this was a bit harsh, but reading that response I now feel the same way you do.

The reporter ALREADY provided a minimal example and Apple is like "yup we're going to keep changing things and you need to keep rerunning the code you sent us and reporting here because we won't bother to run your minimal example ourselves".

Just wow.

Forward looking statements can come from anyone and become sticky when considering security laws. Imagine everyone at Apple was sharing their full triage and timeline for every issue; one can then make informed decisions about their stock price, and investors could sue if those statements turned out to be misleading. At a certain point, the risk is too great.

Ok, but even if that were true , it costs nothing to say "we'll let you know when we think we have fixed the issue so you can then retest"

"Idk lol, it'll probably be fixed one day, keep testing and find out" is a pretty crappy response.

A friend encouraged me to write the paper, even if I didn't submit it, as a means of self-reflecting.

Are we talking about the same thing.

I apply for jobs because I want money. Not to reflect or learn about myself.

It’s just business, even if you do the song and dance to get hired they can still fire you later.

Oxide's process involves submitting writing with various questions about you, what you've done, and what you're looking for in your career. The process of doing so inherently means reflecting on the answers to those questions, and so some people find it a useful exercise.

OK.

But that should be done later in the process. I'd rather an LLM auto-reject my application vs spending 5 hours on a writing exercise.

Think about, I apply to a minimum of 5 jobs per day. If I need to spend 5 hours for each application I'm spending 25 hours a day on job applications. Obviously this isn't possible.

I think that you are (naturally) approaching it from your side, and they're (naturally) approaching it from theirs, and it sounds like it's not a fit. That's a successful outcome for a hiring process.

> I’d rather an LLM auto-reject my application

Be careful what you wish for. You might end up with no writing exercises and a 100% automated rejection rate with no way to figure out why or talk to someone.

Yes obviously you need to choose how to allocate your finite time, that was always true, so think about whether it’s truly effective to apply to so many jobs. You aren’t required to apply to 5 jobs per day, right? You want to maximize your chances of getting 1 job, right? Is it possible that fewer, longer interactions with people (and not LLMs) might increase your chances?

Also consider that getting enough bites on your resume that you have to choose between companies is a great problem to have. Don’t forget that interviews and writing questions also cost the company time, and they’re not asking unless they think there’s a decent chance of success. Nobody is asking anyone to write 5 hours of unique material per application without filtering resumes and talking to candidates a little bit first, so it’s extremely unlikely you could end up with the problem you’re complaining about even if you wanted to.

So instead I wasted 5 hours without a way to figure out why I was rejected.

Say the first step was an OA. I fail my OA and move on with my day, or I pass and we both know I’m minimally qualified.

I just think there are better ways to do an initial filter.

You knew before you did any writing there was a good chance you’d be rejected, right? Why did you do it anyway? Why did you apply to this company? Did it have anything to do with their reputation? Or salary?

Lots of people are minimally qualified, and that’s not what they want, so their initial filter works for them. At least that should be your first assumption, no? Better depends on perspective, right? If you think you know a universally better way, what’s stopping you from building it? (If it’s money, be aware that money is available for people who know better ways, but you will have to do a lot more than 5 hours of writing to get it, and you’ll have to be okay with rejection.)

> I apply for jobs because I want money. Not to reflect or learn about myself.

We are not the same.

I wish that article showed what the display looks like instead of just the keyboard. Others here have mentioned the lovely information density; I'll have to search elsewhere to see it

Go doesn't monomorphize, so benchmark your generics- they might not be zero cost

Go monomorphizes quite a lot, so that's mostly incorrect - it'd be relatively true for Java, for comparison, ignoring Graal. https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generi... there are only exceptions when you instantiate multiple different types that share an underlying type/layout, all other cases (including different types) are monomorphized. E.g. `type x struct{a int, b float32}` and `type y struct{b int, a float32}` share codegen, but if you even just swap the type order (float32 then int) they wouldn't.

The primitive generic atomics in the stdlib don't run into those details, so you really do get pretty much exactly the compiled code as what you'd write inline by hand:

>In particular, fundamentally different built-in types such as int and float64 are never in the same gcshape. Even int16 and int32 have distinct operations (notably left and right shift), so we don’t put them in the same gcshape.

Are you referring to writing a wrapper cli? Or adding a GUI?

Mostly just a little 1 to 3 line bash script that calls the relevant CLI with the relevant arguments/options for what I want to do. Stuff doesn't have to be complicated.