Are you pitching or complaining? Because I can't tell.

Mostly aiming to share my anecdote about being too close to a problem for others to learn from, and to pitch - to validate the security thesis.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. Don't feed the trolls.

Absolutely. I’ve had a very similar experience where a bunch of the paddles broke off that push the coffee into the hopper only a couple weeks after we bought it. It was completely our own fault, we had been grinding more coffee than the hopper could handle. I took the thing apart and got in touch with support and they just sent me an entirely new grinder so I didn’t wait to wait to get the one part replaced

Seems like a question you could simply ask the interviewers up front. Establishing expectations about the task is useful anyway.

> Let me flip your quote back on you: how can intelligent people still believe in unbiased meritocracy being the default? Very few people I think would argue that systems based on meritocracy have zero bias. This is not the point. The point is that today’s conventional wisdom by the progressive left is that these biases must be resolved by a system of affirmative action where every sub culture or group somehow is proportionally representative of the overall population based on race, gender, etc. For some reason, that outcome is thought to be the best way to affirm that no bias exists in a group. Personally I think that premise is just very flawed. Meritocracy is not a perfect system. No one is saying that. But it’s the best system we have for engaging with the actual content that is relevant to any given group. As far as bias is concerned, the best we can do is call out specific instances of it and try to squash and correct those (and maybe this case in this blog post is one). There is no commonly understood way to measure bias or racism that everyone agrees with and so why would we think that measuring representation would somehow be the best solution?

You’re ascribing affirmative action to this when that wasn’t what was suggested.

The person in question called out bias and then asked what could be done.

That’s exactly the same as you suggested. The person I replied to then spun that out as reverse racism.

Which is a very common tactic to squash actual discussion on the topic of biases in the industry.

I agree with you though about the cries about reverse racism. Not helpful to the discussion.

But I also believe that when someone cries out bias or discrimination by some group because of underrepresentation or lack of diversity, they are implying that affirmative action is the way to solve it. Maybe I'm putting words into people's mouths there, but it's just anecdotal

“They are implying” is putting words in their mouths like you say.

There’s a whole field of nuance in between “do nothing” and “affirmative action”. People deserve the benefit of not having someone else’s argument ascribed to them.

I understand the HN mods changing titles of sensationalist clickbait, but can we agree that maybe titles of articles in scholarly journals should not be changed?

It's true that with Datadog, a spike in your usage can have a dramatic impact on your bill. This feels true though of any usage model. We've all read stories about out of control AWS bills. Datadog does at least provide some guardrails to prevent things from getting out of control: https://docs.datadoghq.com/account_management/billing/usage_...

With these usage metrics and a little bit of automation (for example the Webhooks integration: https://docs.datadoghq.com/integrations/webhooks/), you could stop shipping telemetry at a certain threshold.

Disclosure: I work at Datadog.

My issue isn't necessarily that a usage spike impacts the bill, that's fine!

The problem is that because of the billing complexity, it's hard to predict how billing will scale with usage. There are just too many axes. Even steady-state billing is hard to price out before signing up, so much so that the answer we received from sales was to just try it and see what the bill is.

This becomes a road block. "I'd like to move us to Datadog! – Oh yeah, how much does it cost? – I won't know until after we've moved." – these conversations are hard to have internally.

The product is fantastic, I'm a big fan. And the total price isn't necessarily bad, it's just opaque, and required a lot of work on my side to model out the pricing, present the business case, get sign-off, and manage the contract over the years. Not something that I, as one of ~8 engineers, wanted to spend my time doing.

Lots of people here suggesting the main benefit of PowerShell is its object model and indeed that is very useful, but there are other great features as well. First and foremost, PowerShell basically has a command line parameter framework built in. You also have a runtime backed by one of the best standard libraries out there (.NET) - one in which you can easily reach into anywhere in your PowerShell scripts. It also has a module ecosystem supporting development in either PowerShell or C# proper. And now with PowerShell core it's cross platform. PowerShell also supports pipelines, but I mention this last because it's obviously not a distinguisher for it with bash. It's really not even a contest, PowerShell is way more... well, powerful than bash. Since I've become proficient I would never go back to bash.

This isn’t necessarily something I’m proud of, but at my old C# job I would do inline C# in Powershell as a very hackish “C# REPL” for prototyping and interactive testing. At the time C# Interactive in Visual Studio was unreliable and I found it easier to just copy-paste C# code into a Powershell script.

It seems that C# Interactive has gotten better (and since leaving that job I have switched to 100% F# for .NET stuff). But a more useful application is using Powershell to bundle a .NET class library into a flexible, low-weight, modular command line application for internal use. For instance, a C# library which does serious analytics on large data, and then a Powershell script that deals with easier annoyances like AWS authentication or FTP access, argument parsing, and so on. Obviously a real .exe is a better long-term solution but I found Powershell worked really well for rapidly sharing compiled .NET code into a tool that data scientists on my team could use.

I don't think it's a question of it being more powerful than bash. Why does it need to be? I'm not going to use shell script to write apps. There are better scripting languages like python and node for scripting non-trivial apps.

Hi shoenick. I just applied for a Software Engineer position through Nike's website, but your profile says you're an engineering manager. Mind messaging me with your email and I can pass along to my resume directly to you? Thanks!

Good chefs will always tell you: Use the right knife for the right job. Can we not simply use our kitchen appliances and tools for what they were designed for? The author suggests (and I'm inclined to agree) that using a dishwasher to poach salmon is a fairly wasteful use of electricity and water. If you want poached salmon, get out a pot and some water. If you're really particular you could buy a cheap thermometer to poach at whatever temperature you choose, and I'd be willing to bet you'd get more consistent results than using a large machine designed to clean plates. I'm all for new techniques and ideas in the kitchen, but this is a fad that should not and will not stick around for long.

> Good chefs will always tell you: Use the right knife for the right job. Can we not simply use our kitchen appliances and tools for what they were designed for?

I guess you never used a torch to reverse sear meat? The right knife for the job is the one that gets the best results. I do agree that there are probably better ways to get the same results, but if you dishwasher gets you the exact temps you need, go for it. I do a lot of sous vide steaks in a large cooler.