I commend your professionalism. I do believe if asked why I would take a given job given I "eat gold and shit diamonds", I couldn't stop myself from answering "constipation".
Well, it depends on what kind of answer you give. No, a stupid interview question is not an excuse to be an asshat, but if you respond in a way that the interviewer laughs at, then I think it's OK.
Well, I don't know - I like to respond to blatant psychological probing with "are you testing to see whether I'm an $X or a lesbian". Either they get the joke or not, either way I find it funny.
Why waste 45 minutes interviewing for a developer position at a place that doesn't use version control?
Well, I would follow up by asking whether I'm being hired to fix that - senior dev jobs often include that sort of thing. That being said, I once left a job after two weeks (well, two weeks after an internal transfer) because the group insisted on using Rational Rose. I've since asked about that on every phone interview, so as not to waste my time in person if they're that silly.
I've had fun with the "why are manhole covers round" question in an interview before. If you've never read the fake Richard Feynman answer, it's worth a google.
I did think "why are tennis balls fuzzy" was a quite reasonable question - better than "why are manhole covers round", anyhow, as the expected answer to the latter is simply wrong ("so they don't fall through the hole": there are many kinds and shapes of covers and grates each with an each solution to that problem).
"How honest are you" is just begging for it. There's a famous case of a professor of logic who, when asked if he had ever told a lie, thought for a long time and then answered "yes". I still don't get "Have you ever been on a boat?" for a graphic designer. What is that I don't even?
The problem that you and they are ignoring is the fact that the you can suppress someone else's speech by overwhelming the room with your money.
Those who can personally buy a newspaper company or TV station already have this ability. You don't make it better by forbidding a group of people to pool their resources to compete with the richest few! How would that even make sense?
Look, you can either have political speech only by the most wealthy, you can allow groups of people to act in concert to air their collective view (which in the modern world means a financial entity designed to pool money: a corporation), or you allow the government itself to select specific viewpoints to be aired. All three have problems, but the first and last are vastly worse than the middle!
The corporation Citizens United was very much a group of people who had pooled their money to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton. How is that in any way not political speech by a group of people, peaceably assembled?
Would you have the ruling be that some corporation can and other can't have political speech? As selected by the government? Wouldn't that be convenient for those in power!
But that's just it - the finding was that if a person has freedom of speech and of the press, then a group of people have the same freedoms, whether incorporated or otherwise. In the modern world, any attempt to get your ideas heard in the national conversation requires money, unless you are a professional journalist with a soapbox provided for you. If we are to believe that freedom of speech and of the press are not something restricted to professional journalists (as I strongly believe), then you cannot restrict the money needed to power speech without restricting speech.
It's very clear that anonymous political speech is needed to insure free political speech. That's a somewhat separate discussion, but one that seems quite obvious to me: Anonymous Coward can be a total asshole, to be sure, but there are so many governments that kill or imprison those who speak out against them that we know that anonymous speech may at times be the only political speech.
I would argue the distinction has ALWAYS been unworkable its just that the internet has made it more obvious.
That's exactly it. The Supreme Court said
âoeWith the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media ⦠the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.â
Guess where they said it? Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. Yes that Citizens United. How that decision became popularized as "corporations are evil because the system is corrupt" I can't figure. Protection of First Amendment freedoms is good, full stop.
Why is it so important only patented MEDIA codec be used
You seem to have jumped from "h.264 allowed" to "h.264 required". I agree that it would be silly for Wikimedia to have only h.264 video, but that's not the question on the table.
My phone has really long battery life when in airplane mode with the screen off. Most of the power use by phones is the various radios and the screen (and CPU needed to do anything interesting on the screen). I've found that 6 hours of listening to audiobooks while travelling barely makes a dent, noticeably less battery drain than when my phone is on normally and not being used.
Because that's not how we resolve political disputes in America! The key to democracy is that voting really does fix problems that most people actually care strongly about. If you want to use violence to force a change that most people don't strongly want, what you're really saying is that you want to be a dictator. No thanks.
You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world. But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out? Don't you know it's gonna be all right?
This used to be a website for people who were not just "interested in technology", but actually working to produce new products. I hope to some extent it still is.
It's quite important when making new technology to make stuff that appeals to most people in society, not just to a like-minded few (unless you want to make less of a contribution to society from the same amount of work - which is actually fine for a hobby, don't get me wrong). Wikim/pedia isn't a geeks-for-geeks niche project! It's a mainstream product, and should as such offer what most people want, in terms of formats.
And why shouldn't they, is my point. The system is working fine if people get convenience and entertainment. Freaking out over DRM etc on principle is irrational. If it blocks normal people just trying to watch/play/shift/whatever their paid-for entertainment, as game DRM has a habit of doing, then it's a problem. But we've seen companies get bitchslapped by their customer base when they cross that line, and accepted when they only cross obsessive geeks making philosophical points. I see no problem with this.
You can't sure society's ills, further it's not your duty. Your arms aren't long enough. But you can be the best you you can be, and maybe that will change some attitudes. Obsessing over racism only cements it in society - treat it like it's unimportant and make it unimportant.
Sure, sure, the NSA hire every "math" phd they can find, but only those with precisely a "Math" degree, not any related field. Did that make sense when you said it?
Again, you're talking past me. There are advantages and disadvantages we each are born with. But mostly we all have some of each, and can pick a career where our advantages are useful. There are advantages and disadvantages that are an accumulation of the choices we have made in life, but we deserve those. Natural skill at "getting help form other people" is certainly one part of that, for which you may have an advantage or disadvantage, both from factors beyond and under your control.
As time goes on, the accumulation of your choices matters more and more, but the factors beyond your control will always be there too. Playing to one's strengths is therefore wise.
You're talking about obstacles you've never faced. I can't respect that.
What obstacles do you have in mind? You know nothing about me. Growing up in poverty? Yup (as much as what we have in America can be called poverty - a trailer sure beats a tin shanty). Schooled in an area with the one of highest illiteracy rates in the country? Sure. Worked in environments where those of my ethnicity were quite rare, and watched managers who didn't match the dominant ethnicity get pushed out one by one until all the managers looked the same? You bet. Terrible, terrible people skills? You would not believe the asshole I was at 20.
Not smart enough to be a programmer? Lacking fingers with which to type? Nope, I didn't face those obstacles, but this wasn't my first choice of career either. I was not very wise in my youth, but I eventually ended up in a field where I had something going for me.
Well, my actual question was whether the non-google contributors had reached critical mass, such that the project could practically be sustained without Google.
Before the financial bubble, the NSA was the largest employer of math phds in the world. Even with their current recruiting problems, they may still be (they're only off by 1/3rd so far on hiring).
Why? I can watch and rip to H.264 with free (as in beer) tools. Is this some political thing? My tools don't convert to *.BasementVirgin, or whatever format this is. Just Works wins for me, sorry.
The "next format" is H.265, as far as I care, but only when that Just Works.
Oh, I agree - there's a very minimal set there that's currently done well. But it's not enough where I don't also need my remote handy at some point, and really I find a button on a remote easier than talking to the TV, once the remote is already handy.
Some combination of vice and gesture where I never needed the remote at all would really be great, but we're far from that.
My Samsung TV has both voice and gesture controls, but neither is quite good enough - good idea, poor execution.
My Xbone has both voice and gesture controls, but neither is quite good enough - good idea, poor execution.
If these guys got it right, then I can see the value. I'd love voice control for my TV and attached devices that actually worked worth a damn, and didn't false-positive on the audio coming out of the TV! (C'mon guys, how hard could that be to filter?) But I'm guessing these are hard problems, and that both Samsung and MS threw adequate money at them, so I'm highly skeptical here.
Slashdot Mirror
I commend your professionalism. I do believe if asked why I would take a given job given I "eat gold and shit diamonds", I couldn't stop myself from answering "constipation".
For filesystem or storage driver devs, the equivalent question is "what does fopen() do". The more you know, the more it does.
Well, it depends on what kind of answer you give. No, a stupid interview question is not an excuse to be an asshat, but if you respond in a way that the interviewer laughs at, then I think it's OK.
Well, I don't know - I like to respond to blatant psychological probing with "are you testing to see whether I'm an $X or a lesbian". Either they get the joke or not, either way I find it funny.
Why waste 45 minutes interviewing for a developer position at a place that doesn't use version control?
Well, I would follow up by asking whether I'm being hired to fix that - senior dev jobs often include that sort of thing. That being said, I once left a job after two weeks (well, two weeks after an internal transfer) because the group insisted on using Rational Rose. I've since asked about that on every phone interview, so as not to waste my time in person if they're that silly.
I've had fun with the "why are manhole covers round" question in an interview before. If you've never read the fake Richard Feynman answer, it's worth a google.
I did think "why are tennis balls fuzzy" was a quite reasonable question - better than "why are manhole covers round", anyhow, as the expected answer to the latter is simply wrong ("so they don't fall through the hole": there are many kinds and shapes of covers and grates each with an each solution to that problem).
"How honest are you" is just begging for it. There's a famous case of a professor of logic who, when asked if he had ever told a lie, thought for a long time and then answered "yes". I still don't get "Have you ever been on a boat?" for a graphic designer. What is that I don't even?
The problem that you and they are ignoring is the fact that the you can suppress someone else's speech by overwhelming the room with your money.
Those who can personally buy a newspaper company or TV station already have this ability. You don't make it better by forbidding a group of people to pool their resources to compete with the richest few! How would that even make sense?
Look, you can either have political speech only by the most wealthy, you can allow groups of people to act in concert to air their collective view (which in the modern world means a financial entity designed to pool money: a corporation), or you allow the government itself to select specific viewpoints to be aired. All three have problems, but the first and last are vastly worse than the middle!
The corporation Citizens United was very much a group of people who had pooled their money to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton. How is that in any way not political speech by a group of people, peaceably assembled?
Would you have the ruling be that some corporation can and other can't have political speech? As selected by the government? Wouldn't that be convenient for those in power!
But that's just it - the finding was that if a person has freedom of speech and of the press, then a group of people have the same freedoms, whether incorporated or otherwise. In the modern world, any attempt to get your ideas heard in the national conversation requires money, unless you are a professional journalist with a soapbox provided for you. If we are to believe that freedom of speech and of the press are not something restricted to professional journalists (as I strongly believe), then you cannot restrict the money needed to power speech without restricting speech.
It's very clear that anonymous political speech is needed to insure free political speech. That's a somewhat separate discussion, but one that seems quite obvious to me: Anonymous Coward can be a total asshole, to be sure, but there are so many governments that kill or imprison those who speak out against them that we know that anonymous speech may at times be the only political speech.
I would argue the distinction has ALWAYS been unworkable its just that the internet has made it more obvious.
That's exactly it. The Supreme Court said
âoeWith the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media ⦠the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.â
Guess where they said it? Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. Yes that Citizens United. How that decision became popularized as "corporations are evil because the system is corrupt" I can't figure. Protection of First Amendment freedoms is good, full stop.
Why is it so important only patented MEDIA codec be used
You seem to have jumped from "h.264 allowed" to "h.264 required". I agree that it would be silly for Wikimedia to have only h.264 video, but that's not the question on the table.
Thank you! Well said.
My phone has really long battery life when in airplane mode with the screen off. Most of the power use by phones is the various radios and the screen (and CPU needed to do anything interesting on the screen). I've found that 6 hours of listening to audiobooks while travelling barely makes a dent, noticeably less battery drain than when my phone is on normally and not being used.
Because that's not how we resolve political disputes in America! The key to democracy is that voting really does fix problems that most people actually care strongly about. If you want to use violence to force a change that most people don't strongly want, what you're really saying is that you want to be a dictator. No thanks.
You say you want a revolution?
Well, you know, we all want to change the world.
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out?
Don't you know it's gonna be all right?
This used to be a website for people who were not just "interested in technology", but actually working to produce new products. I hope to some extent it still is.
It's quite important when making new technology to make stuff that appeals to most people in society, not just to a like-minded few (unless you want to make less of a contribution to society from the same amount of work - which is actually fine for a hobby, don't get me wrong). Wikim/pedia isn't a geeks-for-geeks niche project! It's a mainstream product, and should as such offer what most people want, in terms of formats.
And why shouldn't they, is my point. The system is working fine if people get convenience and entertainment. Freaking out over DRM etc on principle is irrational. If it blocks normal people just trying to watch/play/shift/whatever their paid-for entertainment, as game DRM has a habit of doing, then it's a problem. But we've seen companies get bitchslapped by their customer base when they cross that line, and accepted when they only cross obsessive geeks making philosophical points. I see no problem with this.
You can't sure society's ills, further it's not your duty. Your arms aren't long enough. But you can be the best you you can be, and maybe that will change some attitudes. Obsessing over racism only cements it in society - treat it like it's unimportant and make it unimportant.
Sure, sure, the NSA hire every "math" phd they can find, but only those with precisely a "Math" degree, not any related field. Did that make sense when you said it?
Again, you're talking past me. There are advantages and disadvantages we each are born with. But mostly we all have some of each, and can pick a career where our advantages are useful. There are advantages and disadvantages that are an accumulation of the choices we have made in life, but we deserve those. Natural skill at "getting help form other people" is certainly one part of that, for which you may have an advantage or disadvantage, both from factors beyond and under your control.
As time goes on, the accumulation of your choices matters more and more, but the factors beyond your control will always be there too. Playing to one's strengths is therefore wise.
You're talking about obstacles you've never faced. I can't respect that.
What obstacles do you have in mind? You know nothing about me. Growing up in poverty? Yup (as much as what we have in America can be called poverty - a trailer sure beats a tin shanty). Schooled in an area with the one of highest illiteracy rates in the country? Sure. Worked in environments where those of my ethnicity were quite rare, and watched managers who didn't match the dominant ethnicity get pushed out one by one until all the managers looked the same? You bet. Terrible, terrible people skills? You would not believe the asshole I was at 20.
Not smart enough to be a programmer? Lacking fingers with which to type? Nope, I didn't face those obstacles, but this wasn't my first choice of career either. I was not very wise in my youth, but I eventually ended up in a field where I had something going for me.
Well, my actual question was whether the non-google contributors had reached critical mass, such that the project could practically be sustained without Google.
Before the financial bubble, the NSA was the largest employer of math phds in the world. Even with their current recruiting problems, they may still be (they're only off by 1/3rd so far on hiring).
Why? I can watch and rip to H.264 with free (as in beer) tools. Is this some political thing? My tools don't convert to *.BasementVirgin, or whatever format this is. Just Works wins for me, sorry.
The "next format" is H.265, as far as I care, but only when that Just Works.
Oh, I agree - there's a very minimal set there that's currently done well. But it's not enough where I don't also need my remote handy at some point, and really I find a button on a remote easier than talking to the TV, once the remote is already handy.
Some combination of vice and gesture where I never needed the remote at all would really be great, but we're far from that.
My Samsung TV has both voice and gesture controls, but neither is quite good enough - good idea, poor execution.
My Xbone has both voice and gesture controls, but neither is quite good enough - good idea, poor execution.
If these guys got it right, then I can see the value. I'd love voice control for my TV and attached devices that actually worked worth a damn, and didn't false-positive on the audio coming out of the TV! (C'mon guys, how hard could that be to filter?) But I'm guessing these are hard problems, and that both Samsung and MS threw adequate money at them, so I'm highly skeptical here.
Insurance companies aren't exactly known for playing nice in a lot of cases.
Which is why "suing insurance companies" is the national sport of the American court system.