What I miss in this overview is the whole of analog IC design. I get the usual tendency to focus on digital logic (higher volumes, etc), but analog design has a large importance in fields like aviation and defence, for security, communications, radar, etc.
They are the dominant players for sure. I think the biggest reason is that they do everything mostly the same, there is no reason to talk about how deep trench was done independently if Intel did it 10 years before. Or that x technology allows for higher performance. It's all not important to the product offerings and hype train.
It is also possible for economic reasons like reorganizations, but still, those will need a valid reason, and severence packages are mandatory. Just sacking people who don't have a temporary contract is impossible.
With QAM you're more thinking about the error vector magnitude (EVM), rather then the signal-to-noise ratio. From the EVM you get a bit error rate, which determines maximum sensible data speeds. How high QAM will go is also a strong function of what frequency band: at low frequency, I've seen 512-QAM and higher, while at >100GHz they're struggeling for 32-QAM
Thats's only when applied to things outide twitter, which I don't think it's the case. I have never heard anyone talk about retweeting on facebook or whatever. The fact they don't do this would make their brand even more valuable
Yeah, the difference between manipulating the syntax being the intendend way, and it being possible only through hacking and dark magic is rather stark.
It's fun to know that it is basically possible to do though, and I didn't know python had these obscure parts (ast manipulation and codecs)
Whether manipulating the syntax is encouraged or only possible through black magic, the basic problem which GP was (I think) referring to stays the same: "modified" syntax may look more elegant to whoever wrote it, but probably makes the code harder to read and understand for whoever has to work with it later (and that may be yourself, a few years down the line). Plus of course this makes it easier for bugs to hide in unexpected places...
Similarly, I have so many terrible experiences at 'job fairs' for engineering students, where they only sent HR. Things like asking what stack they use, and getting answers in the form of 'Diverse an challenging technology is at the heart of our innovative agenda ...'. Even when I _know_ the insider details through friends, HR always does such an appalling job of selling it to you, even when they're actually good.
I would even argue that knowing just how well the accepted candidates did is also extremely difficult. Some assesment might be possible based on some simple metrics, but the ultimate 'how much value does this person add' is a hard one. I wouldn't always trust performance reviews and the like for someone's added value, since that adds another point for added bias.
To add to this, it can still have a similar meaning in regular Dutch. I would usually associate the yard-like meaning with the diminutive form 'hofje', and the the (royal) court meaning with an included article: 'het hof' (_the_ court).
I really appreciate this point, and I think it applies very broadly. Good design comes from a coherent, individual (or group) vision. Citing examples will only incite discussions, because everyone has a different needs and ideas, but the things I most appreciate in tech and art share this common aspect.
As I see it, relying on excessive telemetry, surveys, focus-groups, etc is a bit of an indication that nobody at the top has a strong idea of where to take the project.
Which is strange coming from ~Go~ Google. The community loudly demanded features for years which ~Go~ Google said were unnecessary (dependency management, monotonic time, etc). Weird to think that telemetry would do anything to change their opinions when the project has always done what it wants.
Edit: fighting the markup trying to get strikethrough to work
