zlacker

>>lostms+(OP)
I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the reason for the sudden radio-silence after his on-campus interview is that someone up the chain realized he is also the creator of Sonarr and just nobody wanted to take ownership of that potential liability.

>>apetre+qd
Why? From the way you were talking about Sonarr, I expected it to be something more than... a bittorrent organizer. It has nearly 6k stars on github and seems wildly popular. Why would that be taken as anything but a strong "hire this person" signal?

I mean, I believe that it's possible you're correct. But this is just such a foreign "does not compute" situation to me. Is the thought process something like "Sonarr is often used to download things against copyright law -> that's a no-no -> we don't do no-no's here"? I'm trying to phrase this as positively as I can, so I apologize if it sounds like I'm belittling the mindset or something. It's not like that.

(It's mildly unfair to Microsoft to imply that this could be the reason, since as a company policy Microsoft can't show up and say "Well actually, the reason we didn't hire was because X" – and this seems like it would be an outstandingly bad decision. Old Microsoft may have made decisions like this, but in recent years they've made some pretty impressive reforms.)

>>sillys+fh1
Pretty easy to understand if you understand how risk-averse big corporations are, and how the image of BitTorrent has been forever polluted by "but, it's copyright infringement!".

Anything mentioning or using BitTorrent is scary for these huge companies, because it's associated with piracy.

Sure, your deploy times to your container fleet can be 70% faster, but if you're using BitTorrent, it'll be very hard to push that through leadership.