You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.
matt knox
mattknox
asker of first questions, ender of awkward pauses.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
A Rubocop wrapper that checks only added/modified code
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
A checklist for designing and developing internet scale services, inspired by James Hamilton's 2007 paper "On Desgining and Deploying Internet-Scale Services."
This is all personal opinion and a matter of taste. I'm putting it here because people have asked - I'm glad Cider exists and that a lot of people are obviously using it to great effect. This is not an attack on Cider or a an attempt to negate the experience of those who like it, just my own experience.
Also some of the critiques are more properly aimed at nRepl than Cider - I don't use nRepl either, in Emacs. For some reason I have fewer issues with it in Cursive (though I still do have some).
With Cider, there's too much "going on" between Emacs and Clojure. When something glitches, hangs, doesn't return a value, throws an excption, etc (as it does, multiple times a day), I don't know whether the problem is in Emacs, in the Cider client, the nRepl server, one of any of the default middlewares or in my actual program. I run Emacs in inferior lisp using lein trampoline -m clojure.main - if something goes wrong, it's either in Emacs (which is usually obvious) or my program. Mi
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I imagine each of these chapters being about 2,000 words, making the whole book about the size of a small novel.
For comparison, articles in large papers like the New York Times average about 1,200 words.
Each topic gets whatever level of detail I can fit into that space.
For simple topics, that's a lot of space: I can probably walk through a very basic, but working, implementation of the IP protocol.
Who pays when startup employees keep their equity?
Who pays when startup employees keep their equity?
JD Maturen, 2016/07/05, San Francisco, CA
As has been much discussed, stock options as used today are not a practical or reliable way of compensating employees of fast growing startups. With an often high strike price, a large tax burden on execution due to AMT, and a 90 day execution window after leaving the company many share options are left unexecuted.
There have been a variety of proposed modifications to how equity is distributed to address these issues for individual employees. However, there hasn't been much discussion of how these modifications will change overall ownership dynamics of startups. In this post we'll dive into the situation as it stands today where there is very near 100% equity loss when employees leave companies pre-exit and then we'll look at what would happen if there were instead a 0% loss rate.
What we'll see is that employees gain nearly 3-fold, while both founders and investors – particularly early investors – get dilute
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Kong, Traefik, Caddy, Linkerd, Fabio, Vulcand, and Netflix Zuul seem to be the most common in microservice proxy/gateway solutions. Kubernetes Ingress is often a simple Ngnix, which is difficult to separate the popularity from other things.