> An 8 hour interviewing day plus an hour on the front end (screen) or back end (confirm/double check some things/really meet manager) can make sense.
> 3x 3 hours sounds -exhausting-.
I think most people would prefer 3 x 3 hour blocks.
A 3 hour block could be worked into a day without anyone batting an eye at every (tech) employer I've ever had. People go to appointments all the time.
A full 8 hour interviewing day requires taking the day off. It's also exhausting to do it all continuously.
The 3 x 3 hour structure also allows the company or candidate to end it early if it doesn't look like it's going to be a fit. I'd rather lose 3 hours and than take a vacation day, spend 8 hours somewhere, and then get rejected if they knew I wasn't a good fit after the first few hours.
That’s a more subjective task of balancing trade offs: how much it saves versus how annoying the change really is. It’s not the job of the benchmark utility to make these subjective decisions.
> You can easily review 10-100x that in an hour, even if you're being super pedantic about it.
I think spending 9-18 seconds per line of code is a good baseline for review. There are diffs where you mostly moved a lot that can go quicker. There are also diffs where I spend 20 minutes thinking about 5 lines of code.
About 40-45% of US petroleum use is burning it in passenger cars.
We're already a net exporter of oil; if we pushed a bigger fraction of cars and other transport uses to electrification we'd be a massive net exporter.
That wouldn't completely insulate us from global energy markets but it'd do a lot.
I think the scary bit is down the road. We can all use AI well because we have the gist of how things work and a well-honed set of technical empathy for "how they probably wrote it."
I'm not sure how you build that sense as well if you're starting out today, though.
For historic reasons (e.g. 32 bit address spaces, plus the need to reserve the space for multiple pci peripherals) it has been a narrow, movable aperture.
Resizable BAR lets the size of the aperture be chosen (which is usually chosen to allow all of VRAM to fit in and be directly accessible).
I think mechanical / electronic intuition are important, and they come from tinkering (especially at younger ages).
Sure, being able to do math and detailed analysis are important. But having a good guess on step 1 is important, too, to narrow the search of huge design spaces.
I think we've all experienced different kinds of engineers. The one you trust to do a month-long trade study with deep mathematical reasoning is usually not the one you trust to just know a plausible path forward. And we need both.
* 1x Prusa XL Gen 1 with 5 toolheads
* 1x Prusa Mk4IS
* 1x Bambu Labs X1C with multi-material
* 2x Voron 0.2
* 1x Sovol Zero
My experience: the typical higher-end printer runs out of the box and runs hundreds of hours (or more) between maintenance beyond wiping the plate down, occasionally greasing the rails, and blowing little plastic bits out of the enclosure. Every year I end up doing a few hour significant maintenance job on about one of the six printers.
But then there's lemons. That Sovol Zero is terrible and has been down more than it's been up, because of something in the extruder assembly. It also came with a defective camera and needed it replaced. I need to decide whether to rebuild all that with many hours of labor or just get rid of it.
I mean, on the one hand, manufacturing has grown near-continually for those 70 years, and its demand for labor has reduced. So, it's not like you're wrong.
At the same time, our production of lower value, commodity-ish things has indeed shrunk rather than grown with population of demand. That manufacturing expertise is more concentrated more on higher value (aerospace, information technology, etc) things and less on fasteners, bulk materials, or extrusions.
We are not vertically integrated in the way that China is.
3x 3 hours sounds -exhausting-.
reply