They are moving everything to azure to be able to scale so I'm guessing they are going through growing pains.
But if these issues continue for more than a couple months I could see organizations looking more and more into other options, but let's be honest, everyone knows and uses GitHub so they'd really have to mess things up for more than a fraction of their user base to move away
I have tried a lot of breathwork techniques lately and Buteyko is very good. One thing I always tell people that sit and slouch a lot is that your diaphragm is probably very tight (the same way your quads/hamstrings/etc can get tight). breathing exercises are very good for loosening it up, which, at least for me, have had a very positive impact on my health and wellbeing.
I grew up playing a lot of jazz in the late 2000s and there was always a strict canon - big band was seen as kind of cutesy and not worth putting much effort into while the Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Coltrane, Davis, Hancock, Shorter and a few others were the "real" musicians. But the internet was in its infancy at the time and YouTube/spotify started showing things that I had never heard of like a bunch of Japanese jazz musicians, so I always wonder what musicians coming up today see as "the canon". Is it still mostly the names I mentioned or does it include a lot more?
On a separate note, I always saw Chet baker and Gerry mulligan as "real" musicians but was taught early on that Brubeck was "staid" and boring. After judging it myself I guess you could say his soloing was a little underwhelming but he was incredibly creative in a way that a lot of the "serious" musicians weren't. Jazz people can be such losers sometimes
I've been playing jazz as a bassist for nearly 50 years, including with several big-band groups. Today my main band is a big-band, though I also play with a number of smaller groups.
Finding repertoire is a perennial challenge. Adding new material takes more effort than just a quick agreement on the bandstand and flipping through the fake books. A lot of material is unpublished, out of print, surreptitiously Xeroxed, etc. But there's a lot of exciting material spanning an entire century.
And the west coast is well represented.
Of course big-band is unique in that it involves improv soloing but is much more about the arrangements, especially the newer stuff. It's like playing chamber music in that way, but of course people still love chamber music. It's never hard to fill an empty seat in our band.
The core repertoire hasn't really changed but the boundaries get further and further out. It's like "classical" music. Pianists must learn the 2 part inventions, they're an essential part of the tradition.
Big band is hard to learn from. The large ensembles like Basie's and Duke's have persisted in popularity, but classic "big band" are very much of their time.
The bebop guys will always occupy the position in jazz that Bach occupies in "classical". They're foundational musicians in a continuous tradition and one learns a lot about the music by studying them.
By "canon" do you mean respected musicians? Or do you mean that PLUS players whose work is considered essential to learning how to play the music? The answers will be different. Keith Jarrett is great and esteemed but unless you want to sound like Keith Jarrett, he's not essential to study.
I think jazz taste has diversified a lot in the last decade and we aren’t seeing a canon outside of cliques. I know myself and other younger folks listen to the artists you listed, I know several who grew up playing in a marching band and enjoy big band, myself I listen to nearly anything.
> I don't think ive ever met a jazz lover I liked.
It can be a sub-type of zealot who self-installs opinions and parades them like secret knowledge or a grand epiphany. I know a guy whose entire jazz discourse is like this. It's remarkably similar to astrological codswallop or political zealotry.
We can dig the music and make the world a better place without being an ass about it.
> I grew up playing a lot of jazz in the late 2000s and there was always a strict canon - big band was seen as kind of cutesy and not worth putting much effort into
Rock used to be this way too. It’s hard to believe now, but there was a real wall between punk and metal in the mid 1980s.
In punk circles grudging respect was given to Motörhead and a few thrash acts but everyone else was seen as hair-obsessed posers or dinosaurs. Neither camp would admit to liking anything “mainstream.”
As I mentioned in an adjacent post, I've been playing jazz for nearly 50 years, and have not experienced gatekeeping, except on rare occasion from mediocre players. I've played with pro's, academics, and amateurs. The overwhelmingly predominant attitude is simply love of music and an interest in a challenge.
I mean, it is true that a lot of his solos get busier and bangier until he's hammering out polyrhythms at the end. I just take it as part of the ride when listening to Brubeck.
But I really don't want to listen to other jazz artists emulate that, especially knowing how little chance there is that they'll have the same creativity and sense of rhythm that Brubeck had. (Edit: based on the experience of hearing the banging without the creativity/rhythm-- it's not fun.)
Brubeck suffered a serious spinal injury swimming in Hawaii which resulted in chronic hand pain, depriving him of some dexterity. He may have been a fluent and swinging improviser before that, I don't know. It all worked out, his quartet had a unique style and Desmond was such a great player and improviser.
The meme of dude standing in corner while everybody else dances as he utters an elitist thought to himself explains many jazz musicians, especially the protagonist in whiplash
"Whiplash" uses jazz music as a plot device - it has about as much to do with it as "Hackers" does with computers. I've never even played jazz (let alone at the level depicted in the film) and every five or ten minutes of watching it I found myself exclaiming incredulously at the seemingly ridiculous bullshit I was bearing witness to. My instincts were correct; the internet is rife with actual jazz musicians talking about this film's numerous creative liberties taken in service of its plot derivative of a sports flick.
Any opinion of actual jazz musicians formed on the basis of this film can be safely disregarded ab initio. Music snobs exist, but that movie is full of strawmen. A real shame as it was otherwise very well-executed but stuff like the finger-bleeding scene ripped straight from a Bryan Adams song does it no favors.
Ultrasonics, eye monitors, electronic locks, self-contained infotainment systems (just a screen and the interfaces for a phone would be fine), lane keeping, auto-braking
- see if he can be put on a project that he has complete autonomy over that is separate from the normal work that you are doing. or try and come up with something that he could do separately and doesn't need to be in meetings.
- split the team up so that he leads his own team. if he's that bad the people on his team will leave and his behavior will be that much more obvious. if he's a good engineer maybe he can actually get stuff done with him separately. if he's bad it's an easy case to make. if you make the decisions about who works on what give him the work you don't want to do. you're two levels higher and it sounds like he doesn't have much leadership experience.
- you said in one of your comments that your manager doesn't want to look bad to his manager. what could you do to make him look good and also get rid of this guy?
- can the bad guy move teams to something he likes more? where could he go that doesn't necessitate him working with you?
- make the business case that this guy is bad and not worth keeping. if he's already gotten rid of one good lead and burning out other people, I'm sure you can make the case that keeping him is not worth the cost. if his behavior is preventing you from shipping x% faster or higher quality or whatever it shouldn't be that hard a sell to management.
- whatever route you take document everything that he does that is preventing the team from accomplishing more.
- are the other people on your team reporting this behavior to your manager? if enough people are complaining and your manager doesn't do anything, he's clearly not doing his job.
- the skip level talk is also a good route. see if people that he interacts with that aren't your manager or teammates have difficulty with him. if he's that toxic you have more ammo with your skiplevel or anyone else with influence.
> if he's that bad the people on his team will leave and his behavior will be that much more obvious.
Often not true: while such people don't do great (programming) work, they are very political adept (which also includes being good at bullying outsiders), so often being a "disciple" of them is very useful for your career. So, while many people may not particularly "like" such a person, they often become "disciple" of him for such a self-interest.
I would add debugging as a course. Maybe they should teach this but how to dive deep into figuring out how to learn the root cause of defects and various tools would have been enormously helpful for me. Perhaps this already exists
Great idea. I had a chemistry lab in college where I was given a vial of a white powder on the first day of class and the course was complete when I identified what it was.
A similar course in CS would give each student a legacy codebase with a few dozen bugs and performance / scaling problems. When the code passes all unit and integration tests, the course is complete.
I feel like that's something you pick from solving problems. You hit something, printf and check work, repeat.
Repwat for 2 yeaes. Rhen later on, my Systems Programming course would give an overview of GDB, Valgrind, and tease the class with GProf. It'd even warn us on the dangers of debugging hypnosis. But that was all the extent of formal debugging I got. The rest was on the job or during projects.
Interactive debugging tends to be unhelpful on anything realtime. By the time you look at what's going on, all the timing constraints are shot and everything is broken. You may be able to see the current state of that thread at that moment, but you can't move forward from there. (Unless you freeze all the threads - but then, all the threads involved might not be in one process, or even on one machine.)
I’m not negating that. But in most cases, using a debugger is the vastly superior way to debug issues, yet many developers have never bothered to pick up on that knowledge. Like a carpenter that hasn’t ever learned to work with power tools and insists to use manual screwdrivers for everything.
I don't know why there's so much negativity. I see this as a big win for students interested in it.
1. it's a short commitment - only 3 months. more time-bound opportunities should be available to kids coming out of school. too many people go straight to big finance/law/tech/etc and get stuck because they don't want to give up the salary or safety.
2. get access to a network that is very difficult to get access to otherwis
3. better status boost than most other things you could be doing. There are likely better status signals about someone's abilities/intellect than YC, but i'm guessing they are few for people in the valley.
4. Get to work on something you are interested in
5. learn a lot very quickly.
6. gives you a lot of optionality
yes, YC is trying to make money but they do seem intent on developing talent and this is a good avenue for that.
reply