I assume the responses are from people who didn't know that and are now offended that they would've flubbed what the interviewer considered common knowledge in their field. I could see someone thinking it's not a relevant question for certain types of positions, but anyone getting defensive about it is a little bit of a red flag. Anyone doing development relying on location services or navigation systems should have a general baseline intuition for how those things work, even if it's only the broadest strokes. If someone feels angry about not knowing this, well congratulations, you now know this and no longer have anything to get defensive about.
Babbage's eccentricities and loopier thoughts were always more interesting to me than his writing about the things he's better known for. I read this many years ago but for some reason the part that stuck with me the most was a surprisingly long stretch articulating all the different ways in which organ grinder monkeys were public menaces. His loathing of street musicians was comical but the degree of spite specifically reserved for organ grinder monkeys took it to the next level.
It's been a while since I read it, but I definitely got the sense that that was very much how he felt and he wasn't playing it up for comedy. He wasn't the most likable or relatable guy but he certainly was passionate.
Agreed. It's only broken if there were some ideal Utopian open source world that we were falling short of, where if only everyone can work out some issues, then that world will come into existence.
When people are growing up it's easy to get swept up in ideas like, "if only everyone saw things the way I did, everything would be perfect and so much better than it is right now".
There will always be lots of conflicting ideas about how software should be developed and distributed and so far none of them have proven so effective that all of the others have fallen by the wayside. IMO the best anyone can do is advocate for whatever makes the most sense to them, but not make the mistake of thinking that anyone has all the answers.
I think another big part of it is, the conspiracy theorists only need one paper that agrees with them to instantly say the gazillions of papers that disagree with them are wrong. So even one redacted paper is more important to them than all other scholarship.
Yeah there was no one even remotely credible up against him. If some insane radio host is the best anyone can come up with, I'll take the possibly shady professional politician any day. Whatever his other issues, Newsom isn't a nutjob and increasing the dysfunction of local government even more by electing a nutjob isn't going to help anyone.
Literally the worst thing I've ever heard about Newsom is that he used to date Kimberly Gilfoyle, an actual complete and total nutjob. Newsom's competition in the election were the kind of people who think Gilfoyle is a totally normal and sane human being and enjoyed her speech at the GOP convention last year.
Really the entire personal computer industry's early success was due to VisiCalc, followed by Lotus 1-2-3. Likewise for WordStar, then WordPerfect. It was the first thing I ever heard referred to in the press as a "killer app", which I think of every time someone here makes the claim that nobody called applications "apps" before the iOS App Store.
There's some nuance there though, "killer app" is sometimes short for "application" in the sense of "use" not "program"[1]. When Steve Jobs said "the killer app is making calls." in the iPhone intro, he wasn't talking about the dialer app.
Later on the App Store could certainly be credited with Apple's success, but not during the iPhone intro, though? I think people had been saying "our killer app is X" (where X was not a piece of software but an approach to doing something) for quite a while before that.
> every time someone here makes the claim that nobody called applications "apps" before the iOS App Store.
Also I remember that many warez sites used to have a section called “appz” where you could find cracked applications for Windows. This was before the iPhone even existed.
Terminologically speaking, it's always been applications in the Apple world, since at least the Macintosh in 1984. The type for an executable program was APPL. And I don't think that's for "Apple", though it's a sound association marketers might like.
It does makes sense to distinguish the software on the machine you run to maintain the machine (most software, once upon a time) from the software you run to do your actual work. Now that iOS and Android are mostly set it and forget it, I'm not surprised app has come back. Though the App Store is surely an influence.
People need to be absolutely fearless about looking stupid. Whether or not you look stupid at any given moment is an imponderable, an unanswerable question. The fear of looking stupid is more paranoia and insecurity than anything else. As long as you do your absolute very best to communicate to other people, even when that's difficult or impossible, that's the only thing that matters. If someone else decides you're an idiot you have no control over it, and if you're truly doing your best to communicate then someone else dismissing you as stupid is on them.
What's much more self-destructive than being afraid of looking stupid is feeling like you need to look like you know 100% of what is going on at all times- this inevitably leads to bullshitting and half-truths and weird circuitous conversations where it's unclear who actually knows what. Never try to conceal ignorance. People who matter and people who you actually would want to work with and work for would never judge someone for admitting ignorance or asking questions. People who don't matter, and people no one would want to work with or for are the ones who get on someone's case for asking what they think is a stupid question.
You don't search for locations with HTTP, any more than a shipping company searches for addresses to deliver to. The problem with bad metaphors is it derails discussion, which I am arguably doing with this comment.
Yeah it's literally just a short list of companies that people see as being the big kahunas of the tech industry. In the '80s it would've been Intel, Microsoft, IBM, and maybe even companies like Lotus or WordPerfect. In the '90s it would've been more like, Intel, Microsoft, AOL, Sun, maybe Oracle, maybe still IBM? Hell maybe even Ebay. Lots of those companies are still around but the ones that are tend to be more mature, less volatile, and less influential on the rest of the industry now, and get correspondingly less press.
But yeah, that's all FAANG is and I'm amazed anyone thinks it's anything more standardized or meaningful or precisely defined. It's shorthand for the biggest and most influential companies in the tech industry at the moment, at least from the perspective of people on the outside looking in. If someone wants to the throw an M into FAANG I totally get it.
