Yes, you can use both standard and SSD persistent disks. If you create a larger instance with more vCPUs and a big enough disk, you can achieve greater than 240mb/s, see the docs:
[I am a Cloud SQL-er, and worked on region expansion... among other things]
Cloud SQL has only been available in regions with at least three zones (since we believe that is the minimum to make sure we can maintain HA in the event of a single zone failure). asia-southeast1 currently only has two zones, when a third zone is launched, Cloud SQL will become available in that region.
When you say you couldn't get the root certs to work... what do you mean?
Cloud SQL automatically generates server certificates, and we offer UI+API for creating additional client certificates. The two should not share a root CA.
And no, appengine standard is not a second class citizen. Hand-wave-ily, the connectivity path that flex uses works for postgres with minimal changes, but unfortunately some additional work is required to get appengine standard for other languages working for postgres. :(
Was this for a software engineering role? I've never been asked this, and I'm pretty sure during interview training you are explicitly told not to ask those sorts of questions.
No, not software engineering - product management. That said, the position in question was still of a fairly technical nature as far as I understood it.
Sure, but coding doesn't apply to the position you applied for. Fermi questions are a good way of determining cognitive ability and problem solving, especially when coding or algorithmic questions aren't appropriate. I've gone through both PM and SWE interviews at Google, and am currently a SWE and interviewer. My PM interview had a Fermi question, and thought it was enjoyable and appropriate for the position.
So I'll try to respond to this with as little bias as possible considering I was an interviewee and you have self-identified as an interviewer.
I am not debating the utility of Fermi questions, I can see how they might be useful and/or might be harmful during the interview process. My statements have been simply that my experience differed from what others have been saying, in that I definitely had that type of question during an interview with Google, so clearly they cannot be "against the rules" or anything like that.
That said, these types of questions are a bit like any standardized test (such as the SAT/ACT, etc.), which may or may not be strong indicators of cognitive ability/problem solving depending on who you ask. I think there is enough controversy over standardized testing to be able to at least say that solely relying on such methods, especially in a high-stress situation or even due to cultural differences, might come with some drawbacks and not be an accurate indicator for all candidates.
Lest I forget, Google is a business, and if such tools are what help Google find the candidates it wants, then so be it. It might also be an indicator to candidates about what kind of organization Google is. As a business, the organization will usually prioritize its desires/needs/benefits over those of the candidate - it's not a charity, and I get that. All I am saying is, it may just be that they are excluding certain diversity or individuals unnecessarily without realizing it. Perhaps that is the motivation behind the reported change in attitude towards such types of questions, I'm not sure.
It may or may not be that coding skills were relevant to the specific position. That said, in my experience, product management in software companies in particular is not stovepiped in such a way that you need not have any experience in coding. In fact, I think that some of the best product managers in such companies have coding experience, business experience, hardware/software/etc., and/or cross-disciplinary skill-sets. Perhaps such strong candidates don't fit the standard model, I'm not sure.
Brain teasers are not as frowned upon as much for non engineering interviews but they are absolutely banned for engineers (source: former Google employee with about 300+ interviews during my time there and also former hiring committee member).
No, unfortunately, I can't give you a useful answer here. It seems that, in the first rounds of interviewing, you might not be interviewing for a specific position initially, rather, a function/role (for example, product management or software engineering).
In my case, I was clear that I was unable to relocate, which left only a specific position available as a possibility which was nearby. The reason I thought that specific position had technical responsibilities was by the description of said responsibilities in the job description as posted. Also, I was told that I was contacted by Google in large part because of my technical background, but during the interview, that background was not discussed or explored.
In general, our product managers are technical -- almost all have a computer science degree, many have worked as engineers. When going through the initial interviews you are usually not interviewing for a particular position, but rather as a "generalist."
After the hiring committee has decided whether or not to hire you, your specific background will be matched with specific openings around Google. Naturally, some products require less technical expertise than others.
I'm the developer of Atlas(https://github.com/Qihoo360/Atlas).In current Atlas has used in 30+ companies,If you are interested in Atlas,you can contact me with email(flikecn@126.com),any question are welcom.:)
The corollary to this is that people also have a vested interest in thinking their failure is the product of bad luck or circumstances outside of their control.
Of course they do. That doesn't mean their success isn't from their hard work. If you are raised in a culture of hard work, it is no surprise that you succeed. If you are raised in a culture of hanging out smoking blunts guess what happens? Immigrants are some of the most astoundingly successful people in the country and they often start with nothing. Victimology is self fulfilling.
You miss the point of the article, which is that it's not victimology to understand that social mobility depends on a lot more than talent or hard work, and that you have to be either young or naive to believe that that's all it takes.
I'm currently reading a biography of one of the most famous and successful British rock bands. The core of the band met at a famous public school. They had:
1. Spare money to buy instruments and equipment, including vans and cars
2. Plenty of rehearsal opportunities - often in very large country houses or grand cottages where they stayed for free
3. Direct access to successful people in their immediate social circles
4. No immediate financial pressures. (Not that they were rich. But they were never in danger of starving or becoming homeless.)
They happened to be very talented. But without those opportunities the talent would not have been enough, and they would have had to join most of their peers in ordinary jobs.
Class is a network of opportunities that is denied to outsiders. It's also about learned social confidence within the network.
A few 'Well I made it so you can too' anecdotes are beside the point. A few people always do make it, no matter what.
The real issue is the number who don't, in spite of best efforts and hard work, and of the talent and hard work wasted in a culture of low social mobility.
The failures never appear in Fortune, but they're out there in their millions.
The article states that the two main factors are family and money. I am of the opinion that family is the much more important, and difficult to solve factor but everyone wants to focus on the money. Growing up rich gives advantages for success, but in my opinion growing up middle class makes it much more likely you will be a success, not just slowly squandering your inheritance. It is hard to have a strong work ethic if you don't have to work for anything. The phrase helpless as a rich man's child comes to mind. We should concentrate on helping families stay together.
Most of it is. Your dad can be LeBron James and you can inherit all his genes, physical characteristics, and natural abilities, but if you don't want to practice 4 hours a day, practice while the other players are playing video games, staying up late, drinking beer and eating junk food, you're not going to be successful in basketball.
Being born into a better family gives you a better chance but it doesn't guarantee you anything, just like being born into a worse family gives you a worse chance but doesn't completely eliminate the chance of success for you. 90% of it is your effort in either case.
No, it's not anywhere near 90%. That is a number you pulled out of your ass that is diametrically opposed to every finding from the study described in the article.
Hard to sustain the fiction that people deserve or earned their outcomes if hard work/effort/gumption/ambition doesn't make up the vast majority of the equation.
Establishing that most/many people are effectively doomed from birth even in the US takes a lot of the validity out of the "personal responsibility" argument.
Even so it's not that simple. If you see your parents - and all the 'mature' people in your life - doing things a certain way, then that it is the "right" way. If what they are doing is complaining how they're ont getting what's rightfully there's (vs working to make it something they earn) -- then you're going to believe that too.
In order to be able to put in the effort required, you first have to have your eyes opened to the fact that there are better ways of doing things than what you're living with every day. WOrse, you have to accept that the people you've been looking up to may be wrong about important, fundamental things.
That hurdle - that awakening to possibility - is so much bigger than any of the rest of the effort required, because people don't generally know what they don't know.
Lebron James was already playing basketball and being noticed by coaches when he was 9 years old. He was incredibly lucky to be in that position. At 9 years old 100% of you do in life is your genetics, environment and luck.
You also can't possibly believe any significant part of the difference between Lebron James and lesser basketball pros is due to effort and dedication unless you assume everybody else is lazy and partying when Lebron is practicing. He is the best (or one of the best) out of hundreds of extremely dedicated professionals.
I think that's an over-simplification. Maybe better put as: 90% of successes required putting in a great effort.
But how many equal efforts did not result in success?
I think it's fair to consider the effort (which undoubtedly is less and less important to success the more resources you start with) a minimum barrier to entry. But I don't think it automatically follows that the effort you put into something is a very good gauge of success. Or even that it's a differentiator between success and failure.
I am very skeptical of the claim that 90% of the variation between the performance of the average professional basketball player and LeBron James is effort.
When I interviewed at Google 5 years ago they weren't using those brainteasers.
There are many posts online about the actual, CS-y questions that you can expect in a Google interview, I had just assumed that the mentions of brainteasers were merely urban legend.
I've interviewed at Google. Years, years ago. I didn't get the job. Similarly, no brainteasers, but something worse: they made me write syntactically correct code on a whiteboard. I have never written code without using a keyboard; turns out, I just didn't have the neural pathways for anything else. My brain kinda seized up. I specifically recall failing to recognise the fibonacci sequence (especially horrifying given that I read mathematics at Edinburgh). Things went downhill from there.
Ever since, whenever I've interviewed someone, I ask them to demonstrate their strengths to me first.
> Similarly, no brainteasers, but something worse: they made me write syntactically correct code on a whiteboard
Interestingly, I believe Google are slowly moving over all their coding interviews from whiteboards to Chromebooks - this is what I was told by my Google recruiter when I last interviewed with them, anyway.
The whiteboard can be a bit polarising...I love whiteboarding code, but I suspect many people detest it with a passion (I used to teach CS, so it's something I picked up on the job). I do think it is rather unfair to have candidates whiteboard and demand syntactically correct code, especially when under pressure. There's room for flexibility.
"I ask them to demonstrate their strengths to me first"
Nice. That agrees with some of the other comments here. For example, about asking about past work or projects that they are proud of or that demonstrate their skills.
Another hard issue is what to do, as an interviewer, if things start to go downhill to the point where the candidate becomes flustered and you can tell they're not at their best.
It's standard (or slightly pretentious) British English; I guess the US equivalent would be "majored in math at Edinburgh" (which would be equally incomprehensible to a Brit)
It's not really pretentious – it kinda depends on what university you went to. I typically say 'studied', but my friends who went to other unis say 'read'. I would take 'read' as a pretentious term.
I think he meant "wouldn't". It's not pretentious per se, it just would be interpreted that way to an American because we wouldn't use that phrasing, therefore we can only imagine it being spoken in an upper-class English accent, pinky fully extended.
Quite so. Having been raised by the BBC World Service I actually do have a somewhat received pronunciation, albeit gently deflected by many years abroad.
The disposition of my pinky, however, shall remain a mystery.
From what I hear, the brainteasers were retired quite a while ago for engineering and technology roles, but persisted in other fields (like account management, sales, etc) for some time longer.
If that is the case, then why do Asians underperformed compared to Whites? If affirmative action is meant to help underrepresented groups, shouldn't the overrepresented group be the one "taking the hit"?
That's like saying children of age 6 are overrepresented in kindergarten, because there is a higher proportion of kids of age 6 in kindergarten than in the total population!
The "natural" (equally-represented) proportion isn't that in the total population, it's the proportion in the population of interest, which in this case is the set of qualified applicants.
The meaning of words does depend on context of course. Regardless, rest assured that when you hear someone say "overrepresented" and they are talking about higher education, they are using the definition I gave you above.
Yes, you can use both standard and SSD persistent disks. If you create a larger instance with more vCPUs and a big enough disk, you can achieve greater than 240mb/s, see the docs:
https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/disks/performance#ssd-...