The tea.xyz protocol first earned an entry on Web3 is Going Just Great in late February, when their plan to reward open source software contributors resulted in crypto enthusiasts with no intention of participating in OSS opening endless pull requests to claim ownership of prominent OSS projects. This spam was disruptive to said projects, whose (usually volunteer) maintainers had to figure out what was going on and then try to stop the spammy PRs.Max Howell, the creator of tea.xyz (and creator of homebrew, though he's no longer involved), seemed apologetic, and promised to make changes to the protocol to stop this spammy behavior.Now, deprived of that avenue, people are just creating massive waves of empty software packages, with nothing other than a "teafile" with their crypto wallet address for rewards, and submitting them to package managers like NPM and RubyGems.This spam prompted a blog post from RubyGems, who wrote that they had to devote time to strengthening limits on package publishing and "ensuring [accounts] didn't disrupt the community further."Security researchers at Phylum also wrote up the protocol's impact on the JavaScript world, which has seen as many as 7x as many packages published on NPM as previous daily averages. "Automated sustained spamming of this volume for months on end is rare and does nothing but cause heavy strain on the ecosystem itself, degrading the performance of the ecosystem for genuine users and straining open source security researchers," they wrote.
who could have seen this coming, other than everyone who told the homebrew tree inverter guy this was a bad idea they absolutely shouldn’t do
idly, first time I’ve seen lemmy do any sensible render with a textblock, which retro-informs a lot about the choices for text handling (which we’ve wondered bout in the other thread)
A whiteboard is just a glorified chalkboard, and I got sick of being asked to prove I understood how to use and manipulate one of the most complex systems ever invented by man by basically rubbing a soft rock against a hard rock.
I’m now in favor of puzzle interview questions, just so this guy gets asked them
His complaint seriously backfired here, because it makes working on a chalkboard sound epic. The act of rubbing one rock against another becomes ascendance into the highest realms of thought? That’s fuckin’ alchemy, bro.
If computers are “we taught sand to do math” then this is “we learned to read and count from people who were rubbing stones together.” Screw fire, we learned shakespeare from rock friction. Awesome.
MAX HOWELL is a legendary open source developer. Creator of Homebrew, used by tens of millions of developer around the world. Founder of tea protocol a decentralized technology protocol that enables open source developers to be rewarded for their software contributions for the benefit of all humanity. He is known for his careful approach to software development that results in delightful products that solve their niches perfectly.
what a fucking metric. I’m a lot closer to being a legendary open source developer than I thought.
Max Howell draws back the curtain on the reality that artificial super intelligence will be here sooner than we think, and shares his approach to thinking about how it might impact our future. Max Howell has a master’s degree in chemistry, but after a year in the profession, abandoned it upon realizing chemistry is “super boring”. He began exploring open source coding. After working at Last.fm, then TweetDeck, Howell created Homebrew, an open source software manager that is today used by about 50 million people. He also authored a tweet about the interview process in the software industry that has been viewed more than 3 million times. Last year, he and his wife started a mobile app development company in Savannah.
Wait, the dude wrote that about himself? Jesus fucking christ, I wouldn’t hire him for anything just based on that. “Hello, I am Max Howell and I have a LEGENDARILY giant dick that pleases multitudes.” Get the Howell outta here.
Or possibly the interviewers simply liked the other candidate better. Maybe the other candidates blew them away, maybe there was a hiring freeze during the search, maybe it was vibes. If someone’s from an underrepresented group in the profession and you have a consistent pattern of rejection at a certain stage, you can maybe draw some conclusions, but “I’m deserving so I’ll get the job” isn’t how hiring works.
That being said the guy is clearly a massive cock & I’m sure that came through.
I mean sure? Swapping the pointers recursively is also fine. It’s a question meant to see if the interviewee can talk about data structures or code, not to come up with a perfectly optimal working solution. Having a lengthy discussion about what “inversion” of a binary tree even means would even be totally fine imo.
I’ve interviewed a fair number of candidates and I ask them a very simple question with a bunch of edge cases and grade them based on how they talk about it, not the final solution.
I get the feeling that Max got frustrated and wasn’t able to coherently speak about the problem, or the interviewer was dumb as rocks. I think both are equally likely.
Oh yeah I’ve had the misfortune of giving hundreds of interviews – mostly programming interviews, but also talking interviews which I consider vastly superior. As well as being on the receiving end of a few.
I’ve definitely had people do poorly under pressure before. This can be over-complicating the problem, clamming up (surprisingly common), or simply getting too worked up by the interview setting. I hate that because I often think they could have met my rubric in a more relaxed environment.
I’ve also been on the receiving end of bad interviewers. Don’t get me started on HP asking me to implement offsetof in C++… n.b. implementing offsetof in C++ w/o undefined behavior is impossible it has to be a compiler builtin.
No one could figure out what inverting a binary tree actually means. Like maybe swapping left and right or something?
In which case the best way to invert a binary tree of course being:
struct Node { private: Node *leftish = nullptr, *rightish = nullptr; public: static bool inverted; // I hope no one ever needs two trees... // O(1) tree invert operation! void Invert() { inverted = !inverted; } Node &left() { return inverted ? *rightish : *leftish; } Node &right() { return inverted ? *leftish : *rightish} }; bool Node::inverted = false;Don’t change the tree. Change your perception of the tree.
idly, first time I’ve seen lemmy do any sensible render with a textblock, which retro-informs a lot about the choices for text handling (which we’ve wondered bout in the other thread)
I’m now in favor of puzzle interview questions, just so this guy gets asked them
His complaint seriously backfired here, because it makes working on a chalkboard sound epic. The act of rubbing one rock against another becomes ascendance into the highest realms of thought? That’s fuckin’ alchemy, bro.
If computers are “we taught sand to do math” then this is “we learned to read and count from people who were rubbing stones together.” Screw fire, we learned shakespeare from rock friction. Awesome.
yeah, I’m thinking there were a few more problems than not being able to invert a binary tree
I will quote the entirety of Max’s website here:
what a fucking metric. I’m a lot closer to being a legendary open source developer than I thought.
also I found his TED talk on AGI while I was looking that up:
he authored a tweet
boo
Wait, the dude wrote that about himself? Jesus fucking christ, I wouldn’t hire him for anything just based on that. “Hello, I am Max Howell and I have a LEGENDARILY giant dick that pleases multitudes.” Get the Howell outta here.
Or possibly the interviewers simply liked the other candidate better. Maybe the other candidates blew them away, maybe there was a hiring freeze during the search, maybe it was vibes. If someone’s from an underrepresented group in the profession and you have a consistent pattern of rejection at a certain stage, you can maybe draw some conclusions, but “I’m deserving so I’ll get the job” isn’t how hiring works.
That being said the guy is clearly a massive cock & I’m sure that came through.
I mean sure? Swapping the pointers recursively is also fine. It’s a question meant to see if the interviewee can talk about data structures or code, not to come up with a perfectly optimal working solution. Having a lengthy discussion about what “inversion” of a binary tree even means would even be totally fine imo.
I’ve interviewed a fair number of candidates and I ask them a very simple question with a bunch of edge cases and grade them based on how they talk about it, not the final solution.
I get the feeling that Max got frustrated and wasn’t able to coherently speak about the problem, or the interviewer was dumb as rocks. I think both are equally likely.
Oh yeah I’ve had the misfortune of giving hundreds of interviews – mostly programming interviews, but also talking interviews which I consider vastly superior. As well as being on the receiving end of a few.
I’ve definitely had people do poorly under pressure before. This can be over-complicating the problem, clamming up (surprisingly common), or simply getting too worked up by the interview setting. I hate that because I often think they could have met my rubric in a more relaxed environment.
I’ve also been on the receiving end of bad interviewers. Don’t get me started on HP asking me to implement offsetof in C++… n.b. implementing offsetof in C++ w/o undefined behavior is impossible it has to be a compiler builtin.