Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the joke. :~)
I think my comment has already acknowledged that.
No, despite using the word "joke" it appeared that you'd missed it.
Oxidizing the Technical Interview
21–30 of 76 posts
Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview
#22> They're a younger engineer and you are being tested for a Principal Engineering position
Found your problem!
Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview
#23I personally enjoy this writing style a great deal. I believe it's likely inspired by the very popular series by Kyle Kingsbury (Aphyr)[1] [1]: https://aphyr.com/posts/340-reversing-the-technical-intervie...
The best of aphyr's series is Hexing the technical interview ( https://aphyr.com/posts/341-hexing-the-technical-interview ), which includes one of my favourite lines from any post ever: > “Og én,” you recite, sing-song, “Til javanissen!”
You've made my afternoon with that. Brilliant read.
Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview
#24This whole blog post should just be added as an appendix to the Rustonomicon , in order to provide official documentation for the RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1 flag.
That flag shouldn't be documented: it's completly unsupported and meant to be used only by the compiler. Please don't rely on it :)
Yeah I included it only as part of a joke and no one should actually use it because it completely subverts stability and if someone put this in a build script to set that env var it would be very very bad
Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview
#25This is how I imagine it feels to code on bootleg Adderall. It gives you the power to deliver a comically useless end product, wrapped in such a fantastically prolific technical show that most people fall for it.
>bootleg Adderall
You mean meth?
Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview
#26I like this style of writing, feels like storytelling, rather than something purely instructional. As someone who doesn't do Rust, the code lost me a little, however it has been one of the most loved technologies on the Stack Overflow Developer Survey [1] and that has me intrigued.
On the subject of technical interviews, I recently collected, cleaned up and published [2] the code exercises I submitted to Monzo, Geckoboard, SitePen & Masabi (and a Google one which I didn't actually submit).
All code solutions, except one, let me proceed to the next stage of the application process, and I hope this can help others, or at least offer an interesting insight.
[1]: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2020#most-loved-dr...
[2]: https://umaar.com/blog/my-code-exercise-submissions-part-1/
Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview
#27I personally enjoy this writing style a great deal. I believe it's likely inspired by the very popular series by Kyle Kingsbury (Aphyr)[1] [1]: https://aphyr.com/posts/340-reversing-the-technical-intervie...
To each their own, but it's offputting for me. I like it short and pointed.
Luckily, there's a lot of that kind of content out there already.
Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview
#28This whole blog post should just be added as an appendix to the Rustonomicon , in order to provide official documentation for the RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1 flag.
That flag shouldn't be documented: it's completly unsupported and meant to be used only by the compiler. Please don't rely on it :)
To expand on it, there's no assurances of that flag working, and crates relying on it to work on stable are breaking all compatibility guarantees the language restricts itself to. Updating stable compilers can break your crate, and nightly features in stable and beta do not receive backports and them being broken won't stop a stable release, so it's pretty much like running on nightly unless you know what you're doing and take on the responsibility of maintaining the stability assurances yourself.
That being said, it can be useful in closed source repos for specific circumstances.
It would be nice if we changed what the flag is named every stable release as a way to "discourage" its use. I wonder if I should write an RFC.
Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview
#29This article is clearly invalid because attempting to email Z̴̧̡̢̨̛A̷̡̡̢̢̡L̶̢̧̢̪̬Ģ̵̡̢̢̧̛Ơ̵̡̡̬͇̬ ̵̡̧̢̛̳Ċ̷̢̨̢̼̰Ǫ̷̨̧̢̛͎M̵̡̨̖̹̣E̴̢̧̨̨̛S̸̱̠̹̮̣@gmail.com using Gmail produces this error:
Error The address "Z̴̧̡̢̨̛A̷̡̡̢̢̡L̶̢̧̢̪̬Ģ̵̡̢̢̧̛Ơ̵̡̡̬͇̬ ̵̡̧̢̛̳Ċ̷̢̨̢̼̰Ǫ̷̨̧̢̛͎M̵̡̨̖̹̣E̴̢̧̨̨̛S̸̱̠̹̮̣@gmail.com" in the "To" field was not recognized. Please make sure that all addresses are properly formed.
Re: Oxidizing the Technical Interview
#30I personally enjoy this writing style a great deal. I believe it's likely inspired by the very popular series by Kyle Kingsbury (Aphyr)[1] [1]: https://aphyr.com/posts/340-reversing-the-technical-intervie...
The best of aphyr's series is Hexing the technical interview ( https://aphyr.com/posts/341-hexing-the-technical-interview ), which includes one of my favourite lines from any post ever: > “Og én,” you recite, sing-song, “Til javanissen!”
Can you explain that line? I think I am missing something obvious.