►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Okay,
how
do
you
like
the
book
club
so
far?
It's
my
first
one.
So
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
good
book
club
or
not.
B
It's
my
first
one
as
well,
but
like
my
goal,
was
mostly
to
actually
finish
reading,
because
I've
already
started
to
read
it.
Yeah.
A
C
Yeah,
I
think
it
should
work
now.
I
read
the
book
a
couple
years
ago:
I'm
not
actively
reading
it
right
now.
B
So
when
when
you
were
reading
it,
so
how
do
you
find
it.
C
C
I
yeah
there
were
a
couple
of
chapters
here
and
there,
where
I
felt
like
they
sort
of
threw
things
in
without
really
explaining
them
properly,
but
it's
a
bit
of
a
recurring
thing.
With
these
kind
of
books
they
they're
usually
written
by
people
that
already
have
you
know
a
deep
understanding
and
as
such,
they
might
overlook
things
that
are
important
to
those
who
don't
have
the
understanding
yeah.
Overall,
I
believe
I
I
quite
enjoyed
the
book.
A
What
would
you
recommend
right
now
to
sorry
titania
that
interrupted
what
would
they
recommend
right
now
as
either
ruby
or
rails
book,
for,
like
advanced
that
you
or
something
that
you
found
super
interesting
recent
years
that
enhanced
your
knowledge
in
that
area?.
C
Ruby
real
specifically,
I
don't
know
I
apart
from
this
book,
I
never
really
read
any
ruby
or
reels
books.
I
for
ruby.
I've
always
kind
of
felt
that
the
book
quality
was
a
little
eh.
C
The
books
from
sandy
mats
are
generally
quite
nice,
but
they're
usually
quite
sort
of
specific,
like
they're,
not
these
sort
of
general
books
about
you
know
how
is
ruby
implement
or
how
do
compilers
work?
It's
more
like
you
know,
there's
a
set
of
patterns
with
whatever,
and
I
can
give
some
recommendations
like
specific
topics
for
garbage
collectors.
The
garbage
collection
handbook
is
probably
the
the
best
one.
Let
me
get
it
if
I
can
reach
it.
C
C
Hold
on
sorry,
my
my
headphones
keep
me
on
a
sort
of
a
leash
and
it's
like
my
books
are
just
out
of
range
yeah,
so
garbage
collection,
handbook,
second
edition
to
be
particular
great
book-
covers
pretty
much
everything
there
is
about
garbage
collectors.
C
C
Like
I
have
a
bunch
on,
I
have
two
on
compilers
in
specific
and
then
one
about
like
implementing
programming
language
patterns
or
whatever
it
was,
but
they
the
compiler
books
they
always
dedicate
like
the
first
quarter
or
something
to
parsing,
and
they
never
introduce
something
new.
So
once
you've
bought
one
book
you
can
basically,
you
know,
skip
a
third
of
all
the
other
books
and
then
they
usually
start
with
like
topics
that
either
a
people
don't
use
anymore.
They
stopped
using
it
like
20
years
ago
or
b.
C
It's
just
not
that
useful
and
then
the
important
parts,
you
know,
let's
say
yeah
type
checking
and
that
sort
of
thing
they
just
came
over
there
like
oh
yeah.
You
can
do
that,
but
yeah
blah
done
so
I
bought
two
books,
two
quite
expensive
ones,
and
they
both
were
kind
of
the
same,
and
I
was
kind
of
bummed
out
by
that
there's
some
other
more
high
level
books
that
are
so
and
so,
unfortunately,
the
quality
is
a
bit
of
a
hit
and
miss.
C
In
that
sense,
I
have
a
book
also
called
like
it's
called
like
mastering
application
development
with
poster
sequel.
I
think-
and
I
thought
oh
okay,
because
it
said
you
know
we
have
examples
about
ruby
and
rails
and
django
and
whatever,
and
I
bought
that
thinking.
Oh,
that
might
be
a
good
book.
We
can
recommend
to
people
at
gitlab.
C
Well,
basically,
the
book
dedicates
like
one
page
to
django
and
rails,
and
everything
else
is
just
pure
sql
queries
which
is
useful,
and
you
know
there
are
more
practical
parts.
Now
you
can
do
things
as
opposed
to
secret,
but
it's
not
application.
Development
like
like.
I
felt
a
little
bit
misled
by
the
title
so.
A
So
what
would
you
recommend
like
for
application
development,
I'm
now
thinking,
because
I'm
currently
doing
interviews
again,
I'm
thinking
through
like
what
are
the
things
that
we
look
for
in
candidates
that
you
get
by
like
reading
a
book
and
not
just
experience
because
like,
for
example,
scaling
issues
or
migration
issues
that
they
discuss?
That's
something
you
I
got
by
experience
like
I
experienced
them
on,
unfortunately,
and
I
mean
that's
one
way,
of
course,
to
learn,
but
how
how
to
advance
there
is
something
that
I
have
not
figured
out
to
be
like
formal.
A
C
I
think
books
are
useless
for
that
like
so
I
have
a
book
about.
What's
it
called
a
site,
reliability,
engineering
from
google,
it's
a
pretty
well
known.
A
C
Don't
think
at
the
time-
and
I
read
through
and
it's
one
of
those
books
here
where
there
is
useful
advice,
but
you
read
it
and
it's
you
know
it's
sort
of
there,
but
it's
not
something.
You
really
know
how
to
apply
it's
kind
of
like
you.
You
read
like
a
cooking
instructions
like
oh
okay,
so
I
have
to
put
this
in
you're
just
long
in
the
office
and
then
you
do
it
like
everything
goes
wrong
because
it
turns
out.
You
know
what
the
book
doesn't
say.
C
Is
you
sort
of
in
what
order
and
parallel
it's
usually
like
you
know,
cut
things
then
do
that
and
you
find
out
by
doing
is
like
hey,
wait,
a
minute
that
actually
doesn't
work,
because
if
I
do
it
separate
steps,
then,
by
the
time
I
get
to
step
three
whatever
I
did
step
in
step,
one
is
now
burning,
and
so,
if
these
books,
I
kind
of
found
it
similar
like
they
can
they
can
give
you
a
certain
amount
of
insight.
But
I
don't
think
you
can
say.
Oh
you
know
people
who've
read
that
book.
C
You
know
they
will
know
this
or
they
are
capable
of
doing
that.
I've.
We
did
that
in
the
past
or
you
know
years
ago
get
web
when
I
was
doing
interviewing.
Some
people
have
book
related
questions
too.
Like
you
know,
what's
the
latest
book
you've
read
and
why
I
kind
of
hate
those
questions
because
they
sort
of
bias
towards
the
expectation
of
people
reading
books,
so
somebody
another
interviewer
likes
reading
books,
so
they
ask
people
what
you
know
books.
Do
you
read?
C
If
people
don't
read
books,
then
they
sort
of
immediately,
I
wouldn't
say
necessarily
school
worse
on
the
test,
but
it's
kind
of
like
oh
and
when
they
do
read
books.
I
find
it
doesn't
say
that
much.
C
I
think,
just
in
general,
the
what's
called
the
pragmatic
programmer
is
a
decent
book,
and
the
initial
edition
is
a
little
outdated
at
this
point,
but
they
recently
published
a
second
edition.
I.
C
I
think
in
that
sense
I
I
was
always
more
interested
in
what
people
are
doing
outside
of
work
opposed
to.
You
know
what
books
they
read
things
like
that,
and
that's
just
mostly
to
see
like
okay,
you
know,
besides
this
person
being
technically
capable,
are
actually
nice
to
talk
to
because
as
silly
as
it
sounds,
that's
an
important
aspect
of
development.
Like
you
talk
to
people
and
if
somebody's
life
is
basically
working,
that's
it
I
don't
know.
I
I
personally
don't
really
like
working
with
people
like
that.
B
C
I
I
haven't
read
it,
but
katrina
owens
is
generally
well
well.
I
said
well
respected
similar
to
sending
meds,
but
the
the
the
books,
for
example,
sending
mets
puts
out
they're,
not
really
my
type
of
book,
because
I
look
at
it
like
oh
yeah.
This
is
so
reasonable.
You
know
what's
the
point
but
she's
at
a
level
where
at
least
I
and
I
suspect
many
others
will
just
consider
whatever
she
puts
out
as
good.
Like
I
mean
a
lot
of
the
stuff
she
writes.
Just
straight
up
is
good
and
katrina.
C
Owens,
I
think,
falls
in
a
similar
category
which
it's
good
stuff.
C
B
How
do
you
think
is
it
like?
If
I
read
it
read
it,
does
it
change
my
like
work
approach
because
make
making
me
better
in
my
work
or
just
like.
C
C
C
I
think
this
book
in
general
is
great,
like
it
covers
up
until
2011,
because
that's
when
the
book
was
released,
it
covers
basically
every
algorithm.
There
is
all
the
trados,
you
know
pros
and
cons.
It
has
a
code
examples
of
pretty
much
every
algorithm,
it's
sort
of
like
pseudocode,
but
they
explain
the
semantics
of
it
and
it's
quite
readable.
C
C
I
think,
if
you
do
that,
probably
your
head
would
explode
because
it's
it's
like
800
pages
or
something
it's
quite
a
big
book.
B
Okay,
I
understand
so,
should
we
go
to
discussion.
A
That
was
interesting,
so
I
mean
yeah,
okay,
that
it
uses
a
branch
unless,
as
default
to
do
the
jump,
instead
of,
should
it
branch
or
not,
it
makes
little
sense,
which
was
interesting
to
me,
was
like
this
break
and
return
being
like
the
same
implementation
wise
in
the
end
and
using
throw
which
I
guess
can
also
throw
do-
is
doing
a
throw
at
the
end
right
so
interesting
that
this
is
not
a
good
programming
practice,
then,
in
the
end,
just
to
use
throw
everywhere
like
like.
A
If
you
read
the
throw
it's
always
like,
oh
and
I'm
not
sure
like
tatiana,
because
you
also
read
it
there
was
this
puts
at
two
where
they
provide
the
hash,
and
I
mean
there's
like
a
space
between.
So
this
might
be
an
issue,
but
it
didn't
explain
why
it's
not
using
the
hash
that
we
provide
as
the
numbers.
B
B
So
it's
it's
a
beginning,
like
it's
a
listing
of
four
nine
or
four
eight.
A
Because
what
for
two?
It's
exploring,
how
ruby
implements
keyword,
arguments.
B
B
On
yeah,
probably
yeah-
it's
probably
like
because
of
the
space
when
it's
parsed,
so
it's
expecting
to
like
get
to
break
it
like
that
argument,
but
it
don't.
So
that's
why
it's
used.
This
default
keyword
grams.
A
My
understanding
what
you're
talking
about
this
is
the
code
and,
as
you
can
see
here,
there's
a
space
in
between
which
is
therefore
not
compiling
correctly,
but.
C
So
what
it's
essentially
doing
here
is,
but
it's
a
little
I
I
would
imagine
that
probably
the
parenthesis
becomes
a
hash,
that's
the
correct
way
hold
on.
A
So
I
mean
I
get
why
he
I
don't
just
don't
get
why
he
wants
to
to
show
a
syntax
error
like
it's
it
didn't.
I
didn't
see
why
what
he
was
trying
to
to
explain
there.
So
probably
what
you
just
said:
it's
it's
not
compiling
correctly
and
tokenize.
It
correctly.
B
Yeah
from
my
understanding,
it's
just
like
illustrations
that
like
when
there
is
keyboard
arguments
we'll
get
this
local
table
with
default
hash
and
if
we
don't
provide
any
arguments,
so
you
just
like
take
the
values
there
from
from
this
local
table.
A
I
mean
if
we,
if
we
remove
the
parenthesis,
that's
what
she
probably
wants
to
explain,
because
now
it
puts
put
as
like
two,
which
is
a
fine
again.
So.
A
B
Digital
can
you
post
it
into
the
agenda
because
I
just
really
like
I
spent
a
few
minutes
trying
to
understand
how
actually,
actually
it's
listen,
four
or
five,
so
they
actually
call
in
this
five
argument:
types
function,
method
and
passing
the
block.
A
A
So
this,
oh
here's
it
the
five
other
one
types
yeah.
I
will
just
post
the
screen.
Yeah
we'll
post
a
screenshot
a
bit
nicer
to.
A
B
Yeah,
so
I
just
like
from
my
point,
like
from
my
understanding
that
this
will
be
a
person
error,
because
we
are
passing
arguments
here
and
after
this
six.
We
have
like
this
parenthesis
like
meaning
the
end
of
the
arguments,
and
then
we
have
a
blog
which
is
written
as
this
argument
d.
A
Like
if
you
look
it
from
the
back,
it's
like
okay,
it's
the
last
one
is
a
block,
it's
okay,
so
the
c
must
be
six
and
then
the
b
okay
b
is
optional,
but
it's
provided,
and
then
it
knows
that
this
is
like
b.
It
assumes
that
in
the
first
one
and
then
the
rest
must
be
this
array.
B
B
C
B
Actually,
I'm
actually,
on
the
weekend
I
found
some
like
the
arctic,
like
I
was
like
going
through
the
documents
that
I
have
and
actually
find
one
interesting
articles
about
that.
Why
ruby
like
have
all
this
different
ways
to
do
the
like
the
same
things
like
you
can
have
like
size
counter
like
many
many
stuff
similar,
and
this
actually
happens
from
the
fact
that
japanese
language
is
like
it's
a
built-in
feature
in
japanese
language.
They
have
a
lot
of
synonyms
and
they
like
use
it
all
the
time.
So
probably
when
the
ruby
was
designed.
C
Yeah,
I
think
the
cultural
aspect
plays
a
role.
Perhaps
in
that
sense
I
suspect
part
of
it
would
also
be
the
case
that
the
maintainers
of
ruby-
just
don't
say
no
often
enough,
regardless
of
what
the
reason
is,
doesn't
matter
whether
it's
cultural
or
something
else.
C
But
this
is
something
where
you
see,
for
example,
newer
languages
where
people
have
like
a
very
sort
of
strict
idea
of
what
they
want,
that
language
to
be,
and
they
just
say:
oh
yeah,
this
falls
within
the
scope
and
that
doesn't
too
bad
because
with
ruby,
it's
always
been
more
like.
Oh,
this
is
a
nice
idea.
Let's
see
how
we
can
incorporate
that
record
software.
C
We
should
you
know
a
bunch
of
examples
over
the
years,
but.
C
I
think
with
javascript,
it's
more
like
we
didn't
have
anything
to
begin
with,
so
whatever
like,
we
don't
even
have
a
proper
standard
library
and
I
think,
with
ruby,
it's
more
because
matt's
in
the
past
is
in
various
formats
stated
that
for
him,
ruby
should
be
fun
to
write
and
from
that
sort
of
point
of
view,
I
can
see
that,
because
different
people
have
different
opinions
on
how
things
should
be
named,
it
wouldn't
be
fun
if
you
constrict
them
to
one
particular
approach.
C
B
Yeah
yeah
like
besides,
like
if
like,
if
put
performance
out
of
the
scope
for
me.
Actually
I
like
this
the
way
that
I
have
like
the
philosophy
behind
ruby
that
we
have
like
this
all
the
different
things
to
have
to
express
something.
B
C
Yeah,
I
think
the
best
example
there
is
like
it
generally
works
fine
in
ruby,
but
if
you
throw
rails
in
the
mix,
you
get
these
things.
So
it's
like.
Okay,
I
have
a
collection,
should
I
use
size
length
count
or
something
else,
because
if
I
do
count,
it's
going
to
run
a
sql
query
to
do
select
count.
If
I
do
size
or
length
it's
going
to
load
the
whole
thing
into
memory
and
count
it
in
ruby
and
that's
kind
of
where
these
kind
of
things
bite
you.
I
think
you
actually
have
a
cop
these
days.
C
That
says
you
know,
hey,
don't
use
title
length
or
whatever
it
is
use
this
other
thing.
Instead
or
at
least
we
had
that
for
a
while,
maybe
that's
gone
and
that's
where
I
think
it
would
help
to
say.
Oh
no,
if
you
want
the
size
of
what
it
is
currently
or
that
is
length,
for
example,
if
you
want
to
actually
evaluate
it,
that's
called
count
and
that's
it.
You
know,
there's
no
distinction,
but
I
think
yeah
naming.
C
There
is
part
of
an
issue,
and
I
think
in
this
particular
rails
example,
you
could
have
that
even
if
there
was
no
size
alias
like,
if
you
have
length
versus
count,
people
might
be
like
okay,
which
one
does
what.
B
B
Inject
and
map,
or
like
okay,
some
methods
and
actually
when,
when
we
go
to
the
ruby
guides,
it's
like
it's
just
like
aliases,
so
they
have.
They
broke
inside
like
just
like
one
one
chord
running
inside,
but
they
have
two
different
names
and
people
arguing
about
performances,
just
the
method
but
they're,
just
like
basically
the
one
thing
so
yeah,
it's
sometimes
it
should
the
community
in
the
leg
when
we
like
all
this
multiple
stuff.
But
anyway,
I
think
it's
beautiful.
C
I
mean
it
definitely
has
its
pros
and
cons.
It
reminds
me
a
bit
of
single
quotes
versus
double
quotes
like
they
have
very
distinct
purposes
and
there's
a
few
too
many
blog
posts.
In
my
opinion,
focusing
on
the
performance
aspect
of
single
quotes
versus
double
quotes,
which
in
ruby
is
completely
ridiculous
because
that's
never
going
to
be
a
bottleneck
like
it.
C
Maybe
if
you
write
like
assembly
and
that's
that
sort
of
level
it
might
matter,
but
even
then,
probably
it
doesn't,
and
with
these
alias
it's
the
same
and
yeah,
there's
a
there's
a
lot
of
therapy
people
like
you
know
this
is
better
than
you
know
or
there's
other
things
very
well
turns
out.
It's
the
same
thing.
B
Yeah,
and
also
I
have
like
the
last
question-
maybe
you
can
help
me
understand
from
this
book,
so
we
have
the
branch
unless
and
we
this
keyboard
is
used
for
if
else
cycles
yeah.
So
this
index
in
the
book
is
explained
that
it's
like
it's
on
purpose
just
to
make
it
like
run
a
bit
faster
so
like
to
make
this
jump.
C
Yeah,
so
generally,
not
just
within
ruby,
but
in
most
programming
languages
you
typically
have
three
jumps.
You
have
just
jump
or
go
to
whatever
you
like
to
call
it
and
then
jump
if
through
jump
with
false,
which
ones
are
more
commonly
used,
depends
a
bit
on
the
language.
C
C
Sense,
oh
yeah.
I
have
an
actual
case
what
you
could
do
if
you
have-
and
I
don't
think
ruby-
does
it
this
way,
but
some
languages
might
where.
If
you
have
optional
arguments,
what
you
would
do
is
perform
some
kind
of
test
to
say:
hey.
Did
the
user
specify
this
argument,
if
so
jump
over
the
code
that
will
assign
it
its
default
value?
In
other
words,
you
jump
if
to
skip
the
whole
thing
and
if
not,
you
know,
run
the
code
that
sets
the
default
value
and
then
run
the
normal
code.
C
That's
one
example,
but
it
depends
a
bit
on
what
sort
of
code
the
the
compiler
produces,
but
I
would
say,
generally
out
of
these
three
there's,
usually
one
that
you'll
use
the
most
and
then
the
other
two
kind
of
like
use
in
very
rare
cases.
B
Basically,
yeah,
okay,
it's
it's
kind
of
makes
sense.
It's
like
branch,
if
it's
not
really
common
used,
but
we
need
it
in
a
way
for
some
kind
of
language
cases,
but
some
like
rare
situations.
C
C
And
then
I
say,
oh
if
that
equals
false,
I
think
for
most
cpus.
They
have
it
there
to
get
instruction
for
that
anyway,
if
I
remember
correctly,
so
it
doesn't
really
matter.
I
think
it's
just
more
about
the
semantics
of
it.
A
The
question
is
for
the
cpus,
if
I
mean
cpus,
have
like
a
branching
model
that
they
predict.
So
maybe
this
helps
them
with
the
not
statement
like
the
branch
unless,
but
it's
like
just
an
idea.
C
Let
me
see
quickly
what
it
will
produce
just
curious
now,
compiling
quite
a
whole
life.
C
Errors,
what's
expected?
Oh
of
course
it's
a
boolean,
not
the
number
that
returns.
Let's
see
so
yeah,
not
equal
whoops
people
are
watching.
So
I
typing
those
to
hell.
C
C
Another
quality
check
is
compare
set
n
e
and
it's
just
not
surprising
that
there's
an
instruction
for
it.
I
think
it
more
in
case
of
an
interpreter
where
you
have
that
sort
of
interpreter
overhead.
Maybe
it
matters,
but
I
think
it's
more
just
about
being
able
to
sort
of
generate
less
code
like
able
to
say
you
know,
here's
just
a
go
to
if
not
true
instruction,
instead
of
the
comparison,
equal
and
then.
A
Wait
should
we
cancel
next
week
because
of
the
holidays
coming
up
or.
B
Yeah
yeah,
we
can
show
cool,
remove
it
like
and.
A
A
Good
then,
thanks
for
that
half
coffee
chat
half
book
club
meeting.
It
was
a
pleasure
for
me
have
a
nice
day,
nice
rest
of
your
week.