You might want to try UberConference, which is free and also automatically transcribes conferences with high accuracy (note this may be a paid feature I'm not sure). It also does some extra neat NLP stuff to detect sentiment, topics of conversation, etc.
Check out Dialpad (https://dialpad.com) - it has native apps for all the platforms that you listed, and no attachment to social networks. You will also receive a phone number.
Please tell me you're trolling... you actually want your software to run when there're errors and not have it blow up in your face? I don't even... ah screw it.
Depends where you live, but if you're in the UK then check out REVL (https://revl.world).
They have a very wide and deep listing of events from small local events (think your local pub) to large nationwide events (such as gigs, festivals). The website is good but the app offers a much more comprehensive experience.
I think you misunderstand what "10x programmer" is intended to mean (even though I hate this term and think it is mostly rubbish). A 10x wouldn't make some ungoldly amount of complexity "just because", they would implement the simplest solution that meets the given requirements - hence they're "10x more productive" than other developers; this doesn't mean 10x LOC, just being pragmatic. The ones you describe are the non-10x.
Anyway IMO you have more like 4 types of dev, the ones who fail to write fizzbuzz, the ones who can do the vast majority of what they are asked, the ones that can do everything and can self manage and stay focused on (and clarify) product requirements (probably what you mean by 10x) and the ones that have highly specialized skills (e.g. ML, graphics, embedded systems, etc).
Also a 10x Dev would usually go back to the product manager/client and say that feature X looks kind of redundant or a really edge case, but would take a significant chunk of time to code. Is it really needed for v1.0 considering it will cost 2 weeks of Dev Time?
You obviously need to have a good understanding of your clients and their needs and the way they use your product to e able to do that, but many shops simply ignore introducing their developers to the actual users of the product.
Do you specifically hire D3 developers? This sounds like a pretty difficult "coding challenge" for a non-D3 guy, let alone someone who may not even primarily use javascript. Having used D3 sparingly before i've found it something that requires a fair amount of upfront domain knowledge to get much done beyond something extremely simple (unless of course you copy an existing example, which is what I always did). This seems unreasonably difficult for someone with no prior knowledge to accomplish in a 48 hour window whilst working etc -- you may find you are inadvertently optimizing your interview process for the unemployed with this kind of time limit / coding investment.
No, we're not specifically looking for experienced D3 devs. That particular challenge can be completed with the simplest D3 viz if desired (of which there are hundreds of examples online) and doesn't even require prior D3 experience (I didn't have any when I applied). We do look for a solid working knowledge of JS, however, and an ability to learn new tools quickly.
The 48 hour time limit is a relatively arbitrary timebox and isn't a hard limit; we value quality over speed.
This is a great example of why the OPs question could be a good or terrible interview question -- it's not clear if they want the obvious technical solution (comparing datetimes) or a wider discussion about "what is a date time and how is the data represented", "what are the real world / business implications", "here is existing technology using intervals that will solve it" etc as you mentioned.
In my experience interviewers are usually looking for the technical solution despite the business oriented solution usually being much more applicable (and thus relevant) in the day to day role.
Key thing to remember here as an interview candidate is to clarify with the interviewer the scope of the question and the nature of the answer they're looking for. If for instance the interviewer starts with the simple technical solution and then probes the business aspects this might be a nicely rounded question.
My company asks a question during engineering interviews that is overly simple, but a bit vaguely defined on purpose. The main objective is to see if they can ask clarification questions to determine precise requirements, which is something that every engineer does daily on the job.
This is close but you need to ensure the start time is before the other ends, and test for the second one starting before the first also. There's four cases:
[appointment 1 start] [1 end] <-- some time --> [appointment 2 start] [2 end] (case 1 - no overlap, appointment 1 first)
[appointment 2 start] [2 end] <-- some time --> [appointment 1 start] [1 end] (case 4 - no overlap, appointment 2 first)
So you need to do:
if (appointment1.end > appointment2.start AND appointment1.start < appointment2.end) OR (appointment2.end > appointment1.start AND appointment2.start < appointment1.end) // conflict
a = Appointment 1 start
A = Appointment 1 end
b = Appointment 2 start
B = Appointment 2 end
The only predicates are: a < A, b < B
The complete set of orderings are thus:
aAbB - no overlap
bBaA - no overlap
abAB - partial overlap
baBA - partial overlap
abBA - complete overlap of one appointment inside the other
baAB - complete overlap of one appointment inside the other
> if appointment1.end > appointment2.start OR appointment2.end > appointment1.start // conflict
This actually isn't correct. Consider the events (0, 3) and (4, 6). The end of the second (6) comes after the beginning of the first (0), but they don't conflict. You want `and`, not `or`.
> Your cases don't consider [1 start][2 start][2 end][1 end] or the opposite [...]
Your notation there, where instead of a pair of start/end pairs you have a list of tagged times, reminds me of a good approach if one is doing a generalized version of the problem: given a list of N appointments, find conflicts.
Make a list of tagged times, where a tagged time is a triplet (time, 1, name) if appointment named "name" starts at time "time", and is (time, -1, name) if appointment named "name" ends at "time".
Sort the tagged time list with time ascending as the primary sort key, and the start/stop tag ascending as the secondary key.
Now to find conflicts you simply scan through the tagged times list, keeping a running total of the start/end tag values. If the running total is greater than 0 when you begin to process a given entry, that entry has a conflict with an earlier appointment, and the running total is how many earlier appointments it conflicts with.
As described above, this lets you print a list of what appointments have conflicts with earlier appointments, but it doesn't give an easy way to say which earlier appointments conflict. If you want to do that, it is straightforward. Just add a set data structure, and during the scan of tagged times add "name" to the set when you encounter an appointment's start, and remove "name" when you encounter an appointment's end. When you find a conflict, the set contains the names of all of the earlier appointments the present appointment conflicts with.
The above assumed that two appointments do not conflict if the ending time of the first is the same as the starting time of the second. If that should be counted as a conflict, just change the sort so that the secondary key is sorted descending instead of ascending.
True, I didn't include those cases as they are not unique in terms of why there is / isn't a conflict. But you're right, worth including for completion.
Does anyone really test for specifics like this? I thought the goal was to ensure the candidate understood that dates and times are abstract numbers, anyone that applies a mathematical operator should pass it. Yes this would still filter out a lot of people.
I spent about 15 minutes going through the tutorial before getting bored and trying to find a real game, only to find I have to finish the tutorial. I get that there's a lot to explain but man that tutorial is long.
A way to solve this problem would rather than explaining everything up front add a campaign whereby you first play games against AI with only the basics unlocked, then as you advance explain what the newly unlocked thing is.
The main problem here is that you have a new match for each new feature, but walk through it step by step with tutorial messages. Just having one message at the start of each tutorial message "this is unicorn, unicorn does X" and then let the player figure it out would go a long way IMO.
