Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Unbelievable Demo

brendangregg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 478 posts

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#461

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

jakub_g wrote: post #405
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flame graphs completely blew my mind, but most people I talk to about them just don't seem to get it. I'm a generalist, but I've been thinking lately if performance engineering is something I should be specialising in. I'd love to hear any advice from those in the field.

Specializing in anything is good if you have 5+ years of exp IMO. It's always good to stand out from the crowd of generic developers. The other plus is, if you frame yourself as a specialist in X, it might be easier to explain not knowing Y. You can't simply know everything, especially if you invest heavily in specializing in other things. Personally I've been a web performance (i.e. mostly JavaScript/HTML) guy latel…

Thanks for the advice!

My problem with picking a niche is that ones that are easy to learn from a book are too crowded to be considered niches, and the rest can only be learned by doing in real production environments. Now there’s one where I have a foot in, and it’s one that I enjoy.

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#462

Post by mercer »

mst wrote: post #446
mercer wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've more than once had one of the core developers of Elixir or Phoenix answer a question almost right after asking it in the Slack or IRC channel. I often felt a bit embarrassed to take up their time considering how 'basic' these questions were. I've had similar experiences in other language/framework communities. It's amazing how helpful some of these very productive people can be to random chat visitors :)!

The trick is to remember that they're almost certainly working on that stuff because they enjoy making users happy, so they're also doing support for the same reason. I do feel a little bit embarrassed if it turns out they're reading the docs to me, but I feel embarrassed about that whether it's an expert or a fellow n00b ;)

Haha, I've found that to be good training to always read the docs first.

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#463

Post by nix23 »

steego wrote: post #441
nix23 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what he said...if everyone consent that's called a interview.

Tell me what I said.

> Some places only require one party (you the recorder) to consent.

That's whats you said, and it's not true, without consent from at least one recorded or being in a situation where recording is normal (tv etc) it's pretty much everywhere illegal.

And i wrote 'Most Country's' which is a hint that there is some 'Some others'. There is even a Country where singing under the shower is forbidden, in MOST others...it's not.

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#464

Post by nix23 »

dvlsg wrote: post #312
cromulent wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of Australia, for example. https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-legal-to...

The majority of the states in the US have one-party consent too, I believe.

Yeah but the consent of ONE of the recorded...not the recorder itself right?

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#465

Post by nix23 »

cromulent wrote: post #305
nix23 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Some places only require one party (you the recorder) to consent Some places...nord Korea? You the recorder have to consent?? I consent to myself that i record others without their knowledge?

Most of Australia, for example. https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-legal-to...

Sounds a bit more complicated then what you think it is:

>But the reality is that it is normally against the law to record a phone call without the other person’s consent.

>In fact, ‘covertly’ (secretly) using a listening device such as a mobile phone or digital recorder and publishing or otherwise distributing that material can amount to a criminal offence.

Recording private conversations:

>The laws only apply to ‘private conversations’, which is one where the parties may reasonably assume that they don’t want to be overheard by others.

>One of the exceptions to the prohibition against recording and/or publishing or distributing records of private conversations is where police officers have obtained what’s known as a ‘surveillance device warrant’ – also known as a ‘wire tap’ – which allows for the recorded material to be used for investigations and tendered in court provided, of course, that the material is relevant to the proceedings at hand.

Between jurisdictions:

>It is legal in all jurisdictions to record a phone call if ALL PARTIES to the phone call consent.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-legal-to...

But hey if your a Police Officer working on a case your are correct, you don't need the Consent of the other person ;)

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#466

Post by noir_lord »

phkahler wrote: post #271
vanderZwan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not the author of anything, I did on one occasion share Russ Cox' articles on regexes with a fellow developer, only for that developer to reply "that guy is making a mountain out of a molehill, just use re2" .

>> "that guy is making a mountain out of a molehill, just use re2" That's an odd thing about the tech world, it's accessible. As you get better in different areas you are actually more and more likely to make contact with important people (big names? people who did important stuff?). This can creep up on you if you're not aware what level you're operating at. It can be a small world.

Had this happen to me, I was complementing a particular debugger I liked on an IRC channel and some random id said "Thanks, it's a lot of work".

I didn't realise the author of that tool was in the channel - kinda neat that we have such a flat open structure at times.

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#467

Post by vinodc »

derefr wrote: post #448
filoleg wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Well, yeah, there does have to be a public mailing list. Imo, this is not scalable or sustainable, and mailing lists are not a replacement for adequate customer support. The only reason sending emails directly to mailing lists for specific Google products works is precisely because those mailing lists are not public and not flooded with bajillions of emails from the general public. So those who send the emails are a…

I'm confused about what you mean about "public." I'm just a regular guy with no connections to Google, other than being a GCP customer. I found the mailing list addresses for each GCP service listed directly in the support documentation. Literally anyone who has GCP problems would end up finding those addresses, if 1. they clicked on the "help" button and went through the workflow presented, and 2. didn't first pay f…

I think the disconnect here is that Google engineers are much more likely to answer the low volume of technical "nerd-snipey" questions from other developers than the high volume of non-technical questions they'd get from the general public for something like Gmail.

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#468

Post by Aachen »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #431
Aachen wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that? The company added code to a GPL project, that means it is a derivative work and also comes with software freedoms, or at least that's how the story reads to me since there is no mention of other claims or parties to the mix. That means the company owns the copyright to the added code and is free to comply with the contract (license).

Company A writes library with commercial license. Company B uses that library and a GPL library in a product. They distribute the product. Company B has no right to relive se Company A’s commercially licensed library under the GPL. Hence, stop distribution and replace GPL library.

See:

> ... since there is no mention of other claims or parties to the mix [like company A]. That means the company [B] owns the copyright to the added code and is free to comply with the contract (license).

I'm also not sure whether the confidentiality clause would weigh heavier than a 'must provide source on request' clause, perhaps it could be resolved by not distributing the part that's covered by the confidentiality clause since another standalone library is clearly not a derivative work of the GPL-licensed library. Then only B has to distribute what they made for everyone's benefit.

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#469

Post by squarefoot »

rendall wrote: post #454
squarefoot wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that code wasn't mine either as I wrote at another company as their product. When I added my "hidden" traces I did that with no intention to claim ownership, but rather to leave a signature just in case. Technically the 1st company should have sued him, but I can't know for sure the details; the old project was then dead, and he could have purchased the sources legally, although I doubt that.

> leave a signature just in case Just in case what happened? I'm not understanding the work environment that would lead to this practice

I honestly don't know, I for sure couldn't foresee that some years later I would have been called from others to work on the same sources. The work environment was really good and I wished the project lasted more, but alas all good things must come to an end. Anyway I had no explicit reason to leave traces other than maybe some odd reasoning after listening to a ("toxic", as some of us realized later) colleague talking about bad experiences in other places and signing his sources in a similar way, but to me it was mainly a "Kilroy was here" thing.

Re: An Unbelievable Demo

#470

Post by randomswede »

nix23 wrote: post #464
dvlsg wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of the states in the US have one-party consent too, I believe.

Yeah but the consent of ONE of the recorded...not the recorder itself right?

Consent by one party of the conversation. If you initiate a recording of a conversation, you can reasonably have consented to you, yourself, recording the conversation.

Note that I believe (and, IANAL) that if at least one party to the conversation resides in a "two-party consent" jurisdiction, you will need the consent from all such parties.

Post reply on HN