Did anyone else solve the puzzle after finding a bug in today's puzzle where on step 13 the circle you were trying to match didn't change, but should have?
Oh, nevermind, it appears others noticed this bug, too!
Cleaning up of feature flags was something that I excelled at failing to do. If you are the one cleaning them up, then you sir deserve a raise. Don't question it. It's a service.
Now if your site was named wafflehurricanetracker.org it would have probably survived trademark issues. The scraping issues would have been better if they were anonymized - it wouldn't necessarily be obvious that it was Waffle House (TM) that you had scraped, but if you suggested it was made by slow scraping websites of one or more popular breakfast establishments, then it wouldn't have been obvious.
It's also worth noting that in systems that get as large as Google's that you end up with commits landing around the clock. It gets so that it's impossible to test everything for an individual commit, so you have a 2nd kind of test that launches all tests for all branches and monitors their status. At Google, we called this the Test Automation Platform (TAP). One cool thing was that it continuously started a new testing run of all testable builds every so often -- say, 15 minutes, and then your team had a status based on the flaky test failures vs solid test failures of if anyone in any dependency broke your code.
So if your code is testing fine, and someone makes a major refactor across the main codebase, and then your code fails, you have narrowed the commit window to only 15 minutes of changes to sort through. As a result, people who commit changes that break a lot of things that their pre-commit testing would be too large to determine can validate their commits after the fact.
There's always some amount of uncertainty with any change, but the test it all methodology helps raise confidence in a timely fashion. Also decent coding practices include: Don't submit your code at the end of the day right before becoming unavailable for your commute...
I'm working on an engine based in C++, Luau, and OpenGL - started almost 2 months ago. I aim for it to me MIT license open source, but it's too early for sharing. When it is, I do plan to post a show HN with the Github link.
You realize that you just gave hacker news gave enough details to commit some satellite controlling backdoor into their system... It's not like some of us aren't going to be like: "Yeah, let's get 'em!" Not me. I'm the ethical type, but some people might think:
Step 1: Modify OSS repository to gain control of satellites
Step 2: ...
Step 3: Profit!
Knowing the details of an open source tool a company uses does not magically give you a backdoor.
By that logic, merely knowing coinbase uses the open source go language for some things would let you steal all their crypto, and I assure you if it was that simple their coffers would be empty.
btw I use linux and firefox and have an unencrypted bitcoin wallet.dat on my computer, feel free to prove me wrong.
"At first, the senior director didn't outright tell me I couldn't stay in the old domain, but made it very clear it was in my best interest to move to the new domain, where there wasn't a staff+ engineer."
Do you think this was good advice? You took their advice, even if it seemed a bitter pill at the time. They were most certainly part of the process for your promotion.
It feels like this senior director is in your corner. I'd schedule a 1:1 with a simple agenda of "looking for advice".
Definitely start with a compliment. "I remember that you advised me to move to X, Y time ago, and you were right that it was great for my career and promotion."
Be clear and specific about your desires - "I miss working on X technology. I was wondering if you have any visibility into any 2025 Q2, Q3, H2 projects or opportunities related to X technology that I might be able to [contribute to or transition to]." Sometimes you can be 50/50 to try something out or dip your toe in the water if you are attached to the success of something else. It's important that you be clear and specific. Maybe you could do this via email - it depends on if you are introverted or extroverted.
I once had an EM go back to Principal IC in an area that he loved. He's still working on it.
> One is that I really don't like being in charge of my own destiny with this kind of thing.
> I don't want my career and life to evolve by happenstance.
OP is looking for someone to benevolently direct their career path...
>Do you think this was good advice? You took their advice, even if it seemed a bitter pill at the time. They were most certainly part of the process for your promotion.
>It feels like this senior director is in your corner. I'd schedule a 1:1 with a simple agenda of "looking for advice".
And as you pointed out, they might actually have it! OP, consider these things. If you truly don't want happenstance OR yourself to direct your path, you're going to have to stick with a benevolent individual who will, so you should stick to this senior director like glue.
This is good advice. Also have similar conversations with the new director.
"I'm here to support you, and am committed to turning around this project. Long term, I would also like to return to working in X domain, so please keep me in mind when opportunities for that come up."
I've been the SD in circumstances like this. And I'll say this is good advice, but there's the potential for a subtle trap in it. Sounds like you're in a fairly political org. Not my favorite environment tbh, but if it's the game you're playing, don't go forth blindly.
(Note: I don't know genders of anybody here. I'm going to call OP "he" and the SD "she," because lots of they's and titles get confusing.)
The SD probably thinks this conversation is over. From her perspective: I told OP what to do (what was in his "best interest") and he did it. End of talk. I'm in an ultra-fast growing pressure cooker with 30 things on my plate to get right, and I work for people who don't hesitate to fire leaders. Now he wants to put time on my calendar to talk about it. This can go one of two ways.
Option A: OP doesn't like the way things went because he wants to spend time in the other domain. (which is what this is about.) On net, to the SD, this is just causing friction. Maybe she helps you out and puts you back in the old domain, at least after a while, and you owe her a favor. Maybe your performance is good, but not irreplaceable-good, and she gracefully handles the conversation, but she is annoyed. When your new director gets on, she tells them to look out for that one, he's high-maintenance. New director, you can decide whether or not he's worth the effort to keep happy, but please don't let him jump onto my calendar again without vetting what he's talking about. K thanks. (And yes, this is a real conversation that happens.)
i.e., it might get you what you want, but it also might backfire.
Option B: As a mid-to-senior manager in an org like that, your SD is always on the lookout for engineers who get "the way the world works."[1] You can go in framing the ask for advice differently: "I was on team A, I had to leave because of what happened on team A, now I'm on team B. Team B is fine but I don't see the headroom given the other players there. I'm happy to keep performing here, but what advice do you have for making a real difference in this circumstance, and are there upcoming challenges I should volunteer for?"
This may seem like a subtle distinction, but the framing is really important. In one of them, you come and say, "what's important to me is working on this domain, and that was taken away from me. Solve my problem for me." (To which the SD says, _damn, this guy can't wait 2 weeks for the new director to start_ ?) In the other, you send a different series of signals:
"I had a sweet gig where I loved the domain and was making progress as an expert/leader..." Ok, he's passionate. He cares.
"Nobody loves team disruption, but what happened happened and made sense. I'm not saying I necessarily want to go back." Grudges are for amateurs, this guy is future-focused. I can work with that.
"I took your advice, and thanks for taking the time to give it." He will engage hierarchy respectfully even if he doesn't love where it has landed him at the moment.
"But in the domain where I'm working now, you already have two leaders well-developed who are definitely the right people to lead it forward." He's a team player, not trying to knife anyone in the back. But he's also hungry and ambitious. Plus he's giving me a private and unsolicited (therefore probably honest) endorsement of other in-place players, which is a gift of high-value information.
"So with a lot of changes going on, new director onboarding, etc., I wanted to set a goal to make the biggest difference I can for our shared success. But you have better visibility than I do about how to actually stack tactics against that goal. What would you advise I volunteer for / do over the next 6 months? What should I tell this new director that I want?" He gets it. His goals are my goals. There's a clear reason he came to me rather than the new director, this is not a waste of my time. He's pragmatic and ambitious and technically excellent. I might not have anything shovel-ready for him this second, but I'll keep him in mind next time I need something knocked out of the park. And I think my 3 pm meeting tomorrow is about something like that.
[1] "The way the world works" in circumstances like this is more precisely, "the way to operate in this particular organization and leadership climate that will ruffle the fewest feathers while pleasing the right people."
Yeah, I did feel fortunately supported, though the political situation was rather more complex, and things outside both of our control played a role in this promotion.
I did express my interest in transitioning back in-person to a few important people, while asserting my commitment to getting the other team up and running, and my interest in my old domain is really well known, and strong enough that I do think it'll sustain itself even if I settle into this new position.
I am a native speaker and got the gist and saw the paradox, and found the phrasing a bit tortured by the triple negative. Thank you for explaining that this was a colloquialism. Now I have to go look up the etymology... And upon further inspection, this usage is actually a misnegation.
"It is a veiled insult: an ironic form of insult delivery which is misinterpreted as flattery to the buffoon who is targeted by it, much to the entertainment of anyone else within earshot who understands the true meaning."
Oh, nevermind, it appears others noticed this bug, too!