I tried Logitech's wave keys at the store and I fell in love with them. I have several custom keyboards (including a HHKB with topre keys and WASD Code keeyboard) and this puts them to shame, unfortunetly. Can pick it up for $56 USD.

https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/keyboards/wave-keys.html

• The shape is not those crazy ergo keyboards but the keys are very easy to reach, and you will not have to adjust to a new layout if you are comfortable with laptop keys.
• The keys have more travel than laptop keys but less than mech keyboards (on average).
• The Keys are also effortless to press but offer resistance.
• Bluetooth and if you use wireless Logitech mouse you can use the same BT receiver.
• They have them at Staples and Best Buy, so you can go and try it out.

As for programming, I found the WASD Code keyboard to be pretty customizable with their hardware switches. I can flip a switch and boom, my Caps Lock is now another Ctrl, etc. But you can do that in the OS as well. They go around $99 and you can pick different keys. Not sure if they have any wireless ones

https://www.wasdkeyboards.com/code-v3-87-key-mechanical-keyboard-cherry-mx-blue.html

society gains nothing by preventing a software developer from implementing ...

I see the point you are trying to make but I respectfully disagree. Technology is at the core of seemingly every field and at the core of technology is software. Will it result in direct bodily harm? Rarely. But indirectly the impact is certainly more substantial.

Take internet as an example. The significance of internet and information sharing cannot be disputed. Disturptions to information sharing can send ripples through services that provide essential services. Networking these days is accomplished Vida software defined networking techniques. And we are becoming more dependant on technology and automation.

I can see why the indirect risk is not as scary as direct risk, but you have to admit, as automation is growing and decisions are being made for us, regulation of those that build these systems should not be overlooked. Professional engineers have a code of ethics they have to adhere to and if you read through it you can see the value it would bring.

As a counter example to your "doctors are licensed to not kill people" - orthodontists, who move teeth around, pose no fatal risk to their patients. Should they be exempt from being licensed?

EDIT:

Just yesterday news was published by Reuters that Musk and managers at Tesla knew about defects of autopilot but marketed otherwise. If those working on it had been licensed, then negligence and decietfulness could line them up to lose their license and prevent them from working in this line again. It would bring accountability

The table of contents hints there is only one section relevant to security, Lab Firewall Config.

Anyone have experience with this book that could vouch for other chapters that explore best practices for security?

I take you are a satisfied user. Ages ago when I looked into it, I didn't see the need. To save time for me and other people on this thread, what value does it bring to you? I would consider subscribing just to financially support them but what other tangible use does a subscription bring?

Valid point. Again for the sake of discussion, technology evolves quickly. New tools are made out of the shortcoming of others. If docker evolves and a new tool - Kocker - is born, AI will need training data from best practices which should be generated by people.

This could unfold in many ways. For one there could a small group of people pushing technology forward. But people will need to be around to create requirements, which takes experience.

More likely, majority of engineers will likely just move up to a higher level of abstraction, letting new tools do the lower layer stuff. And any innovations in the lower levels of abstraction will be done by a small group of people with niche skills (take CPUs for example). This is the trend we saw historically. Assembly -> compilers -> lower languages -> interpreted languages -> scaling bare metal systems -> distributed systems -> virtual machines -> automation -> micro services etc etc

my experience with hackerrank is a company will use hackerrank platform to facilitate the online assessment - NOT look at someone "hacker rank" like you mentioned.

Candidates follows a link a company sent them and gives them an in-browser IDE to solve a problem. The platform records keystrokes, mouse events (like if you left the tab) etc etc. Then when you submit your code it is complied, executed in a sandbox, and tested with test cases. Based on which test cases pass, the execution time and memory usage, hacker rank will generate a report and fwd to the hiring team.

What I was saying in the above comment is if you had the right idea but your code didn't compile or failed the test case, it's as if you failed entirely. No hiring teams sits there and reads the code. Not even garuanteed that an engineer is reviewing your submission.

Hackerrank (to my knowledge) does not parse the code to determine your knowledge of algorithms, data structures, etc etc, it inferes it from which test cases passed and their execution time amd memory usage.

I agree with you. practically speaking, candidates don't have a way to tell if the problem they are solving applies to the role, especially when bringing tour skillset to a new-ish domain.

That being said, hackerrank generates a report based on if you pass or fail. Hiring managers tend to only look at the metrics in the report instead judging the candidate based on their approach to the problem. And for code that doesn't run, the metrics are nearly all 0. Not to mention there is no fucking debugger to step through the code and catch the 1 off index error that is common to make when you're under pressure.

Anyway I'm beginning to rant. There are a lot of things that should be addressed but as long as someone else can solve it and the candidate pool is large, there is no point to optimize the selection process (from a company point of view). They feel as if they are getting the best candidate because they assume better experienced == better chance of passing

But if people want to complain about the irrelevance of reversing a list or describing two different approaches to balanced trees... they'd probably complain more about being tested on generators and RC frequency response in low pass filters even if you only have to take it once.

LOL! absolutely.

I think the skills tested on tech interviews are important, though; At least fundamentals. I don't encounter many people that consider time and space complexity of a unit of code (big O notation) and that's unfortunate.

Data structs and their method for language built-ins are already optimized so I get that most people just use them but man, I see so many developers not even choose the correct structures. That includes me until I started leetcoding for a new job after 4 years of professionally work.

But of course, this needs to stay in reason. Asking Brainteasers and optimizations like dynamic programming are dick moves. I don't want my team to prematurely optimize and make our code base complex just cause.

how does it compare to commercially available options? namely code generation, text summarization, and asking questions related to programming? I'm curious if they trained it on code.

check out Protectli Vault. They have different hardware configuration options depending on what you need.

Protectli supports virtually anything you want to slap on it, be it BSD or Linux based. A popular approach is to put Opensense on it (BSD based firewall).

I can vouch for it, quality hardware and silent. Easy to repurposed.

I posted interpretations to the remaining ones. I did not have time to massage the prompts or verify the answers. I assume you know what they do and can comment on the accuracy. I am rate limited and had to use a lower tier model, As free up more queries I can re-do some or have it expand on what it's purpose and usefulness might be.

:O you're not even lurking from here, but from over there