It's not so much recommending that the use continue, as explaining how the apparent "dilution" has occurred.
You stated your own take earlier, that a hack needs to be clever and inspiring. This requres suitable domain knowledge. again, when the baseline level of domain knowledge is very low, the conception of the idea to try something will not occur, and so even what to use appears to be a "No shit, idiot." suggestion can in fact be a "wow! COOL! I had no idea!" thing to a lot of people.
Sadly, this includes doing dumbshit things with popcicle sticks, like most "Life Hacks" are.
It is not a dilution of what at the core is the basis for the word "hack" or "hacker", it is a narrowing of the knowledgebase, and the subsequent dilution of what is considered state of the art in terms of "clever."
People dont know that some things have been discovered/known about, and known about for a very long time--- because they are outside their knowledge domain. They independently discover it again, post a "hack" article, and other people in their social domain-- who likewise are intellectually starved-- find it amazing and cool. Yet, for old bastards like us, who have wider knowledge bases, the idea is "No shit. Tell me when you discover the wheel-- this is some old shit bro. Show me something really clever."
This issue of the "wow" factor being such low fruit is how all that clickbait shit like "One weird trick!" is so powerful, and why the internet gets plastered with it like shit in a monkey pen.
They are using the word properly. The problem, is that they are ignorant idiots that are easily impressed.
When I think of "Hacker"-- the thing that immediate comes to mind is the august usenet/bbs article known as "Smashing the stack for fun and profit", which details the finer points of identifying a section of code that can be used for a buffer overflow/stack smash attack, how to create a payload to get executed, and how to implement the attack-- in general terms, rather than specific instances.
Very informative, but not for the novice. In many respects it is just as applicable today as it was when it was written, albeit with some caveats about heap randomization and some other modern features intended to frustrate this kind of attack.
Maybe I am just old and don't realize it?
I know, it became "Cool" (ahem) to become a "Hacker" in the 90s and 2000s, and now there are all sorts of people who believe (falsely) that they are real hackers. But they really are not. No, if you want to find those, (real hackers) look for the people who bust open game consoles, and who do the actual research and development of the tools all the kiddies use. Using the tools others made does not make you a hacker. Knowing how to make those tools, and how those tools actually work-- that is what makes you a hacker. You need to have the domain knowledge needed to have a firm grasp of a system and its architecture to identify and then exploit potential areas where "unanticipated" behavior can occur, then be clever enough to engineer reliable circumstances to trigger those "unanticipated" behaviors. Without that, you cannot perform the task, and so-- not a hacker.
It does not matter if you are hacking a payphone with a home-made bluebox, of if you are hacking your microwave oven to be able to produce high intensity plasma balls, or hacking a security system to gain privileged access. All of those things require domain knowledge that is not widespread, and is often controlled in its distribution. (which is why I used the word "obscure" in my definition.) Hacking can be enjoyable and easy, if you possess that knowledge. That knowledge is not easily obtained. It is at once difficult to obtain in the first place, and secondly, requires a specific kind of intellect to grasp fully. Hackers are basically masterful system users, that understand the systems they interact with better than their designers, and enjoy getting those systems to perform tasks the designers did not envision, or actively sought to prevent.
This whole "Life hack" stuff is a result of previously widespread domains of knowledge becoming obscure.
You know, like cooking. Can you produce a reduction glaze for your duck l'orange? Most people can't. For those people that know how to cook, it is a fun thing to make some time. Not something you want to do all the time, but if you want duck l'orange, you are not forced to go to a fancy french place and pay 200$. You can make it at home for closer to 15$. In this case, the "system" being exploited is the modern societal system, where the domain knowledge for being a good cook is becoming more rare, and the ability to gain the knowledge is becoming more difficult, (due to increasing time demands on people, so they lack the time or energy to develop the skill sets), and much like script kiddies using "quick and easy" methods produced by real hackers to accomplish tasks, there are "Life hacks" that allow people who haven't got a clue about something that used to be "ordinary to the point of banality", but are now the subject of ever more restricted domain knowledge and skill sets.
It is not so much that the word is diluted; It is that the scope of what constitutes a system that can be exploited has been expanded, as people's domains of knowledge become smaller and smaller, (and as such, more and more previously banal domains of knowledge become obscure), and the upcoming generations simply do not know how to do something, do not really know w
I would go with an amalgam of my personal internal definition (used below) and their "Skillful and clever" verbiage.
I think that would neatly cover nearly all computer/tech-circle definitions of hack.
To circumvent a restriction imposed on a system in a clever or skillful way using obscure knowledge or by exploitation of unexpected behaviors of that system.
You know, the kind of thing mentioned in "Smashing the stack for fun and profit"
1) To circumvent a restriction (usually technical) through the application of obscure knowledge or by exploitation of unexpected behaviors of a system.
"This stupid thing's security routine has tripped again-- Can you hack it for me Bob?"
Hack (n):
1) An implementation of an exploit or technical circumvention of an imposed restriction on a system. Usually technical.
"I wrote a dirty hack to get root access to fix Steve's login problem; The security model of this system needs some serious revision."
2) A person who is unqualified for their current vocational position.
"I met the new database administrator today. The guy is a total hack; could not put together a tuple query to save his own ass."
So-- Am I using these words wrong in terms of modern parlance?
I suggest that you review the definition of the word "Compulsory."
It means you don't have a choice in the matter. Or, that the tests are applied to *ALL MALE CITIZENS*. Since this is literally a sample size of "All male citizens of service age in Norway from the start year, to the terminus year", you are talking a very large and unbiased (by ethnicity, race, cultural upbringing, religious practice, affluence level,... etc.) sample. The only demographic excluded is likely to be female gender, which I explicitly lamplit. Unless you want to make a compelling argument that women are intellectually inferior to men (*gigglesnort*) in the face of a wide number of well reviewed studies to the contrary of that assertion, there is no grounds to claim systemic bias of the sample.
1) Timed test. This measure the "how quickly" aspect.
2) Mathematics-- Math is about relationships between quantities. Many questions in math test batteries involve well known sequences (Fibonacci and pals), but this does not explicitly require you to know about fibonacci, since the sequence is readily identifiable-- eg, pattern recognition, and application.
3) redundant, just optical instead of abstract.
So--- really-- EXACTLY what I said it tests for? Hmm?:P
Unless there is something VERY special about Norway, a wide-spread trend that cannot be attributed to education, gender, religion, or other environmental factor has pretty good predictive qualities, since the sample size is large, and unbiased (Only males tested most likely, but the service is compulsory, not voluntary. That means *All male citizens*, not "Those that show up to the recruitment office".
It means the sample is very very large, and that the trend is pervasive and wide-spread is pretty interesting.
To rule out that something is indeed special about Norway, it needs to be replicated with data from other geographic regions-- but so far it is a pretty compelling argument using raw statistics.
I would like to see the same analysis performed in several geographic regions as well, then correlated against geological data for atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time.
I suspect that there is a connection. Just evaluating from multiple localities over time would do well to establish the trend as a real trend, and not just a large anomaly.
IQ tests no such thing, and this study does no such thing.
This study shows a persistent trend in the cogitative capacity of enlistees in the general Norwegian population over several decades using a (mostly) consistent measurement battery of standardized test scores.
It makes no connection to education level.
IQ measures how quickly a person is able to grasp a concept or detect a pattern, and how well they are then able to apply that concept or make use of that pattern to solve a problem. It does little else. Its main detraction is that there are issues in communication, since the tests are tailored for people who are English speakers, and who are literate, which biases the results of illiterate people who are otherwise VERY intelligent. It itself does not actually measure your education level.
In the early 20th century, human living conditions, including improvements in sanitation, hygiene, and dietary needs being met likely all contributed to a net rise in human cogitative performance, however atmospheric CO2 levels have also been steadily rising in that time.
Simply because one CAN do something, does not mean that they SHOULD.
There are very real consequences for the whole society, that WILL eventually come home to roost, from trying to take everything you can, because you can.
Labeling people that see the bigger picture, and say "Whoa, Hold up there buddy!" as "Suckers", is how you end up with a world where 1% of people own 99% of resources, and where most people live either impoverished, or close to impoverished.
No, you are not justified in demanding wages that high. You just are not. I can see MAYBE wages that are 2 to 5 times median, for very special vocations that are not possible for most people, and are indespensible--- but not 10, not 100, and certainly not 1000 or "100000000000000000 times"
Money is a tool Roman. Like a screwdriver, or wrench. You use it to accomplish things. If you are hoarding money as a status symbol, you are not actually using that money for any real purpose, other than to make your dick feel hard. If you are making more money than you can possibly spend, while other people are literally starving to death, you really cannot justify that.
When your conspicuous spending and hoarding habits, after having secured obscene quantities of the stuff that you can simply not spend fast enough, causes a systemic imbalance in the economy, you have become a problem, and you really are not justified in insisting that you continue in that direction.
But asking the "haves" to realistically evaluate the consequences of their privilege and act appropriately is like asking a 2 year old to not eat cookies before dinner, while leaving the cookies out on the table.
Likewise, society needs to take that privilege away from the have frequently, because leaving that privilege in their hands has without exception resulted in systemic collapse of society. Great leaps forward in the human condition have all come from periods where everyone has been brought low by such collapses, and everyone has to proceed from merits again.
The continual slide of wages vs inflation, the endless fun-ride of being 'obsoleted', being excluded through ageism, the effective death of the pension, and a bevy of other factors all align to basically ensure that nobody aside from people on the far upper end of middle class and the wealthy are able to retire.
Everybody else is just ignored by the system, and when the time comes, those that "have theirs" will fail to comprehend why they (everyone else) failed to save for retirement, will blame the victims who really would have loved to save for retirement, will refuse to take up the slack in society, because "they have theirs", and through it all, the people that have been systematically shafted because they were not born rich enough to get a suitable head start on this fun-ride will become an epicenter for systemic illnesses, and societal drains that the others will refuse to pay for.
But dont let that bother your little heads too much. Because the downward pressure of this disadvantaged class will further pull the upper middle class down, due to mandated tax increases and a yawning social welfare crisis caused by the earning gap, which will further push the next generation of upper middle class into serfdom.
Want to prevent this horrible nightmare future? It's really easy in principle, but impossible to implement in reality: Put a stop to the ever increasing wage gap, drive up baseline wages, and drive down top earnings, so that the middle class grows again instead of shrinks.
No. You are not such an amazing talent that you "deserve" to earn 100 times or more than the average person.
I have a repurposed consumer grade NAS. It lacks any special bells or whistles. It has no sound hardware. It has only a small list of services that I want it to run. It has no god-damned-need for systemD.
Finally, I can use something reasonably mature (like debian), without SystemD's clusterfuckery.
(Because frankly, I fail to see why I need to carry all that shit around just to boot a minimalistic embedded linux, M'kay?)
Considering that the NSA has done very little to re-earn that trust and respect, and has instead doubled down on the blanket spying, improper handling of classified data, and in general has been in denial about how it is improper of them, even if the congress has made it legal, to conduct such actions against the US's native population.
So, take a moment to reflect. What possible reason does the US public have to respect this agency, when this agency openly mocks the public's demands for redress of grievance, when this agency repeatedly lies to congress about the necessity for "encryption back doors", when this agency repeatedly lobbies congress to make more and more atrocious data collection legal, etc?
Simply because they are the government, does not mean they are immediately deserving of respect or trust. Simply because they have made their actions legal, does not make them morally justifiable. (Neither does it being the easiest or most efficent solution make it so.)
Snowden revealed what people had been suspicious of for decades. While before, the NSA could say that people who were distrustful were just paranoid cranks, now the dirty laundry is out, and they cannot be so dismissive. They are angry that they are being called to task for their undesired actions by the people who (per our constitution) hold the real political power of this country, and instead of altering their behavior and methods, they have doubled down on the lobbying pressure against the legislative and judicial branches of government to MAKE their invasions of privacy legal.
So, in all seriousness-- what has the NSA done, post Snowden, to warrant even a tiny bit of return of trust and respect, given the clear and present disrespect that the agency shows for the American public?
Given that the heart of android is FOSS, if sufficient information about the hardware is known, then it seems perfectly reasonable for an android port to that hardware to exist, barring some really strange hardware related situations that would make that more trouble than it is worth. (say, the custom ARM CPU is missing some really important instructions or features.)
See also-- AOSP, and derivatives, like LineageOS.
The real reason is that the hardware makers dont want people poking about with unfettered OS level control over their chips and radios, because a lot of those are fully software controlled, and with a modified binary blob, features that they charge extra for can be turned on easily.
They cuddle up to the FCC, and complain that these experimenters and hackers (oh my!) are theoretically able to violate the transmit power restrictions, frequency band restrictions, and other restrictions put in place to comply with FCC regulations, and so the end user needs to be prevented from having access to that level of control over the hardware at all costs.
In reality, it is simply so the handset maker can market their new 5G! enabled handset. (when the changes that enable that communication mode are mostly just software, and the older handset can often communicate at that rate just fine with the right blob being pushed into it.)
Really, I had this idea a very long time ago. You don't need the full 300kw power system if you use a pulsed maser instead of a constant broadcast. That means you can use some kind of storage system with a smaller input, such as an air-coil resonant tank, or a super-capacitor array. You just need to be able to deliver the 300kw on each pulse. It takes time for the ICM to reboot; you dont have to keep roasting its ground lanes with signal. You just have to make it malfunction and restart in a reasonable interval. 1hz pulse width would be sufficient.
Assuming these tools are driving their emitter nonstop, that would let you use 1/60th of the power generation hardware, or ~5kw power system. Even less if you use a 2sec interval instead of 1.
For some variations of the pulse timing, a second alternator on the delivery vehicle would be sufficient; the bulky part would be the super capacitor array, which could be installed in the trunk, or in the rear seats.
The referenced idea I had called for a klystron resonant cavity with a pulsed electron beam, and a low power reference microwave signal produced by a small magnetron. As long as pulse duration time is some whole integer product of the reference signal frequency, it should work fine.
Hilarious that an idea I had as a teenager in the 90s is being seriously considered here though. LOL.
Again, the quality applicant and the code monkey both have something the fakers do not-- Actual comprehension of what a program is, and how to create one.
As Bill points out, this is not the final exam. This is the "Oh, I see you do actually know how to program-- show me more" portion of the process. This is the part that HR drones are not capable of performing, due to Dunning-Krueger. Those that are actually, REALLY competent will do more than just satisfy the requirements of the challenge, they will provide actually working solutions to the challenge that properly validate their input, and return proper error states if the input is invalid, etc-- You can learn a LOT about a potential hire by observing their work. *THAT* is what this is really about. The triviality of the problem is a necessity, because you ***DON'T*** try to get free solutions out of people.
I realize that may be difficult for you to comprehend, but you *DON'T* do that. The job fair is to let people know that you have a position available, and try to curry interest in people to apply. A successful pre-screening is confidence building, and helps the potential hire to feel that your company is actually interested in actually hiring somebody, and not just fucking off in the booth, to cover for "failing to find somebody" and then "Getting yet another H1B". It gives them a chance to show you what they can do. That is what it is for, and what it does. It also excludes the fakers that this article is about-- The ones that can talk a good talk, but could not program a simple boolean check condition if their life depended on it.
If it were not for the time constraints of a job fair (usually only 2 days, and in that time you need to try and pre-screen as many as possible), I would suggest a tiered challenge, with progressively harder challenges, where you hand out resumes to the ones that make it to the top 3 brackets, but that is not the way the world works.
(I am not even a professional programmer, but I can totally perform such a trivially easy task. The example tests basic understanding of loop construction, function construction, variable use, efficient sorting, and error correction-- especially with mixed type arrays. All of these are things any programmer SHOULD now how to do, without being overly complicated, or clearly a disguised occupational problem trying to get a free solution. Like I said, programmers hate being pimped, and will be turned off HARD by such a thing.)
Throw in some of that budgeted employer merch that makes its way around job fairs as fun prizes regardless of who succeeds or fails [as this is a low-stakes pre-screening that is intended to be fun, and situationally appropriate with tech-heads, and most booths just hand it out anyway], and it can even be popular with the crowd.
AC, you are just an idiot that can't comprehend how that was a contrived example case.
The idea is to switch it up over the course of the day, and have contrived, easily accomplished challenges. Of course, you focused exclusively on just the single suggested test case, and ran with it like you were in the Special Olympics.
Which of us is the lunatic again? Oh, right. The one that makes inappropriate inferences and pretends they are reality.
Many of these languages have an interactive interpreter. I know for a fact that Python does.
So, since job-fairs are an all day thing, and setup is already a thing for them-- set up a booth with like 4 computers at it, and an admin station. The 4 terminals have an interactive session with the interpreter of choice. Every 20min or so, have a challenge for "Solve this problem" (needs to be easy and already solved in general. Programmers hate being pimped without pay. They dont mind tests of skill, but hate being pimped. Something like "sort this array, while picking out all the prime numbers" or something.) and see who steps up. The ones that step up have confidence they can solve the problem, and you can quickly see who can do the work and who can't.
The ones that solve it, and solve it to your satisfaction, you offer a nice gig to.
Of course, it is never too late to realize your mistake in believing it was ever OK to give a soulless corporation access to your personal information, and thus also allow HR to look at all your party pics where you got drunk, and other things you really dont want your professional career life to know about-- but really, what ever made you guys think it was even a good idea to start with?
I remember when the very idea of using your real name online was a point and shame offense.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so much recommending that the use continue, as explaining how the apparent "dilution" has occurred.
You stated your own take earlier, that a hack needs to be clever and inspiring. This requres suitable domain knowledge. again, when the baseline level of domain knowledge is very low, the conception of the idea to try something will not occur, and so even what to use appears to be a "No shit, idiot." suggestion can in fact be a "wow! COOL! I had no idea!" thing to a lot of people.
Sadly, this includes doing dumbshit things with popcicle sticks, like most "Life Hacks" are.
It is not a dilution of what at the core is the basis for the word "hack" or "hacker", it is a narrowing of the knowledgebase, and the subsequent dilution of what is considered state of the art in terms of "clever."
People dont know that some things have been discovered/known about, and known about for a very long time--- because they are outside their knowledge domain. They independently discover it again, post a "hack" article, and other people in their social domain-- who likewise are intellectually starved-- find it amazing and cool. Yet, for old bastards like us, who have wider knowledge bases, the idea is "No shit. Tell me when you discover the wheel-- this is some old shit bro. Show me something really clever."
This issue of the "wow" factor being such low fruit is how all that clickbait shit like "One weird trick!" is so powerful, and why the internet gets plastered with it like shit in a monkey pen.
They are using the word properly. The problem, is that they are ignorant idiots that are easily impressed.
When I think of "Hacker"-- the thing that immediate comes to mind is the august usenet/bbs article known as "Smashing the stack for fun and profit", which details the finer points of identifying a section of code that can be used for a buffer overflow/stack smash attack, how to create a payload to get executed, and how to implement the attack-- in general terms, rather than specific instances.
You know, this lovely thing:
http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley....
Very informative, but not for the novice. In many respects it is just as applicable today as it was when it was written, albeit with some caveats about heap randomization and some other modern features intended to frustrate this kind of attack.
Maybe I am just old and don't realize it?
I know, it became "Cool" (ahem) to become a "Hacker" in the 90s and 2000s, and now there are all sorts of people who believe (falsely) that they are real hackers. But they really are not. No, if you want to find those, (real hackers) look for the people who bust open game consoles, and who do the actual research and development of the tools all the kiddies use. Using the tools others made does not make you a hacker. Knowing how to make those tools, and how those tools actually work-- that is what makes you a hacker. You need to have the domain knowledge needed to have a firm grasp of a system and its architecture to identify and then exploit potential areas where "unanticipated" behavior can occur, then be clever enough to engineer reliable circumstances to trigger those "unanticipated" behaviors. Without that, you cannot perform the task, and so-- not a hacker.
It does not matter if you are hacking a payphone with a home-made bluebox, of if you are hacking your microwave oven to be able to produce high intensity plasma balls, or hacking a security system to gain privileged access. All of those things require domain knowledge that is not widespread, and is often controlled in its distribution. (which is why I used the word "obscure" in my definition.) Hacking can be enjoyable and easy, if you possess that knowledge. That knowledge is not easily obtained. It is at once difficult to obtain in the first place, and secondly, requires a specific kind of intellect to grasp fully. Hackers are basically masterful system users, that understand the systems they interact with better than their designers, and enjoy getting those systems to perform tasks the designers did not envision, or actively sought to prevent.
This whole "Life hack" stuff is a result of previously widespread domains of knowledge becoming obscure.
You know, like cooking. Can you produce a reduction glaze for your duck l'orange? Most people can't. For those people that know how to cook, it is a fun thing to make some time. Not something you want to do all the time, but if you want duck l'orange, you are not forced to go to a fancy french place and pay 200$. You can make it at home for closer to 15$. In this case, the "system" being exploited is the modern societal system, where the domain knowledge for being a good cook is becoming more rare, and the ability to gain the knowledge is becoming more difficult, (due to increasing time demands on people, so they lack the time or energy to develop the skill sets), and much like script kiddies using "quick and easy" methods produced by real hackers to accomplish tasks, there are "Life hacks" that allow people who haven't got a clue about something that used to be "ordinary to the point of banality", but are now the subject of ever more restricted domain knowledge and skill sets.
It is not so much that the word is diluted; It is that the scope of what constitutes a system that can be exploited has been expanded, as people's domains of knowledge become smaller and smaller, (and as such, more and more previously banal domains of knowledge become obscure), and the upcoming generations simply do not know how to do something, do not really know w
I would go with an amalgam of my personal internal definition (used below) and their "Skillful and clever" verbiage.
I think that would neatly cover nearly all computer/tech-circle definitions of hack.
To circumvent a restriction imposed on a system in a clever or skillful way using obscure knowledge or by exploitation of unexpected behaviors of that system.
You know, the kind of thing mentioned in "Smashing the stack for fun and profit"
1) To circumvent a restriction (usually technical) through the application of obscure knowledge or by exploitation of unexpected behaviors of a system.
"This stupid thing's security routine has tripped again-- Can you hack it for me Bob?"
Hack (n):
1) An implementation of an exploit or technical circumvention of an imposed restriction on a system. Usually technical.
"I wrote a dirty hack to get root access to fix Steve's login problem; The security model of this system needs some serious revision."
2) A person who is unqualified for their current vocational position.
"I met the new database administrator today. The guy is a total hack; could not put together a tuple query to save his own ass."
So-- Am I using these words wrong in terms of modern parlance?
I suggest that you review the definition of the word "Compulsory."
It means you don't have a choice in the matter. Or, that the tests are applied to *ALL MALE CITIZENS*. Since this is literally a sample size of "All male citizens of service age in Norway from the start year, to the terminus year", you are talking a very large and unbiased (by ethnicity, race, cultural upbringing, religious practice, affluence level, ... etc.) sample. The only demographic excluded is likely to be female gender, which I explicitly lamplit. Unless you want to make a compelling argument that women are intellectually inferior to men (*gigglesnort*) in the face of a wide number of well reviewed studies to the contrary of that assertion, there is no grounds to claim systemic bias of the sample.
Hence unbiased.
You just substituted "Norwegian" for "English"
Otherwise, let's break down what you said.
1) Timed test. This measure the "how quickly" aspect.
2) Mathematics-- Math is about relationships between quantities. Many questions in math test batteries involve well known sequences (Fibonacci and pals), but this does not explicitly require you to know about fibonacci, since the sequence is readily identifiable-- eg, pattern recognition, and application.
3) redundant, just optical instead of abstract.
So--- really-- EXACTLY what I said it tests for? Hmm? :P
Unless there is something VERY special about Norway, a wide-spread trend that cannot be attributed to education, gender, religion, or other environmental factor has pretty good predictive qualities, since the sample size is large, and unbiased (Only males tested most likely, but the service is compulsory, not voluntary. That means *All male citizens*, not "Those that show up to the recruitment office".
It means the sample is very very large, and that the trend is pervasive and wide-spread is pretty interesting.
To rule out that something is indeed special about Norway, it needs to be replicated with data from other geographic regions-- but so far it is a pretty compelling argument using raw statistics.
I would like to see the same analysis performed in several geographic regions as well, then correlated against geological data for atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time.
I suspect that there is a connection. Just evaluating from multiple localities over time would do well to establish the trend as a real trend, and not just a large anomaly.
IQ tests no such thing, and this study does no such thing.
This study shows a persistent trend in the cogitative capacity of enlistees in the general Norwegian population over several decades using a (mostly) consistent measurement battery of standardized test scores.
It makes no connection to education level.
IQ measures how quickly a person is able to grasp a concept or detect a pattern, and how well they are then able to apply that concept or make use of that pattern to solve a problem. It does little else. Its main detraction is that there are issues in communication, since the tests are tailored for people who are English speakers, and who are literate, which biases the results of illiterate people who are otherwise VERY intelligent. It itself does not actually measure your education level.
So, thats two strikes. Care to go for three?
In the early 20th century, human living conditions, including improvements in sanitation, hygiene, and dietary needs being met likely all contributed to a net rise in human cogitative performance, however atmospheric CO2 levels have also been steadily rising in that time.
Then there's this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
So yeah. Probably CO2 level rise has caught up to the benefits of improved standards of living.
Simply because one CAN do something, does not mean that they SHOULD.
There are very real consequences for the whole society, that WILL eventually come home to roost, from trying to take everything you can, because you can.
Labeling people that see the bigger picture, and say "Whoa, Hold up there buddy!" as "Suckers", is how you end up with a world where 1% of people own 99% of resources, and where most people live either impoverished, or close to impoverished.
No, you are not justified in demanding wages that high. You just are not. I can see MAYBE wages that are 2 to 5 times median, for very special vocations that are not possible for most people, and are indespensible--- but not 10, not 100, and certainly not 1000 or "100000000000000000 times"
Money is a tool Roman. Like a screwdriver, or wrench. You use it to accomplish things. If you are hoarding money as a status symbol, you are not actually using that money for any real purpose, other than to make your dick feel hard. If you are making more money than you can possibly spend, while other people are literally starving to death, you really cannot justify that.
When your conspicuous spending and hoarding habits, after having secured obscene quantities of the stuff that you can simply not spend fast enough, causes a systemic imbalance in the economy, you have become a problem, and you really are not justified in insisting that you continue in that direction.
But asking the "haves" to realistically evaluate the consequences of their privilege and act appropriately is like asking a 2 year old to not eat cookies before dinner, while leaving the cookies out on the table.
Likewise, society needs to take that privilege away from the have frequently, because leaving that privilege in their hands has without exception resulted in systemic collapse of society. Great leaps forward in the human condition have all come from periods where everyone has been brought low by such collapses, and everyone has to proceed from merits again.
The continual slide of wages vs inflation, the endless fun-ride of being 'obsoleted', being excluded through ageism, the effective death of the pension, and a bevy of other factors all align to basically ensure that nobody aside from people on the far upper end of middle class and the wealthy are able to retire.
Everybody else is just ignored by the system, and when the time comes, those that "have theirs" will fail to comprehend why they (everyone else) failed to save for retirement, will blame the victims who really would have loved to save for retirement, will refuse to take up the slack in society, because "they have theirs", and through it all, the people that have been systematically shafted because they were not born rich enough to get a suitable head start on this fun-ride will become an epicenter for systemic illnesses, and societal drains that the others will refuse to pay for.
But dont let that bother your little heads too much. Because the downward pressure of this disadvantaged class will further pull the upper middle class down, due to mandated tax increases and a yawning social welfare crisis caused by the earning gap, which will further push the next generation of upper middle class into serfdom.
Want to prevent this horrible nightmare future? It's really easy in principle, but impossible to implement in reality: Put a stop to the ever increasing wage gap, drive up baseline wages, and drive down top earnings, so that the middle class grows again instead of shrinks.
No. You are not such an amazing talent that you "deserve" to earn 100 times or more than the average person.
No. You arent.
No. NO YOU AREN'T.
I have a repurposed consumer grade NAS. It lacks any special bells or whistles. It has no sound hardware. It has only a small list of services that I want it to run. It has no god-damned-need for systemD.
Finally, I can use something reasonably mature (like debian), without SystemD's clusterfuckery.
(Because frankly, I fail to see why I need to carry all that shit around just to boot a minimalistic embedded linux, M'kay?)
Respect is EARNED, not given.
Considering that the NSA has done very little to re-earn that trust and respect, and has instead doubled down on the blanket spying, improper handling of classified data, and in general has been in denial about how it is improper of them, even if the congress has made it legal, to conduct such actions against the US's native population.
So, take a moment to reflect. What possible reason does the US public have to respect this agency, when this agency openly mocks the public's demands for redress of grievance, when this agency repeatedly lies to congress about the necessity for "encryption back doors", when this agency repeatedly lobbies congress to make more and more atrocious data collection legal, etc?
Simply because they are the government, does not mean they are immediately deserving of respect or trust. Simply because they have made their actions legal, does not make them morally justifiable. (Neither does it being the easiest or most efficent solution make it so.)
Snowden revealed what people had been suspicious of for decades. While before, the NSA could say that people who were distrustful were just paranoid cranks, now the dirty laundry is out, and they cannot be so dismissive. They are angry that they are being called to task for their undesired actions by the people who (per our constitution) hold the real political power of this country, and instead of altering their behavior and methods, they have doubled down on the lobbying pressure against the legislative and judicial branches of government to MAKE their invasions of privacy legal.
So, in all seriousness-- what has the NSA done, post Snowden, to warrant even a tiny bit of return of trust and respect, given the clear and present disrespect that the agency shows for the American public?
I had the "B-17 Bomber" cartridge back in the day. The voice synthesis could most certainly produce the "s" in "Seventeen".
It might have just been a glitch in Space Spartans.
Given that the heart of android is FOSS, if sufficient information about the hardware is known, then it seems perfectly reasonable for an android port to that hardware to exist, barring some really strange hardware related situations that would make that more trouble than it is worth. (say, the custom ARM CPU is missing some really important instructions or features.)
See also-- AOSP, and derivatives, like LineageOS.
The real reason is that the hardware makers dont want people poking about with unfettered OS level control over their chips and radios, because a lot of those are fully software controlled, and with a modified binary blob, features that they charge extra for can be turned on easily.
They cuddle up to the FCC, and complain that these experimenters and hackers (oh my!) are theoretically able to violate the transmit power restrictions, frequency band restrictions, and other restrictions put in place to comply with FCC regulations, and so the end user needs to be prevented from having access to that level of control over the hardware at all costs.
In reality, it is simply so the handset maker can market their new 5G! enabled handset. (when the changes that enable that communication mode are mostly just software, and the older handset can often communicate at that rate just fine with the right blob being pushed into it.)
Because "Client side processing" is soooo 90s and early 2000s!!
(rolls eyes)
Really, I had this idea a very long time ago. You don't need the full 300kw power system if you use a pulsed maser instead of a constant broadcast. That means you can use some kind of storage system with a smaller input, such as an air-coil resonant tank, or a super-capacitor array. You just need to be able to deliver the 300kw on each pulse. It takes time for the ICM to reboot; you dont have to keep roasting its ground lanes with signal. You just have to make it malfunction and restart in a reasonable interval. 1hz pulse width would be sufficient.
Assuming these tools are driving their emitter nonstop, that would let you use 1/60th of the power generation hardware, or ~5kw power system. Even less if you use a 2sec interval instead of 1.
For some variations of the pulse timing, a second alternator on the delivery vehicle would be sufficient; the bulky part would be the super capacitor array, which could be installed in the trunk, or in the rear seats.
The referenced idea I had called for a klystron resonant cavity with a pulsed electron beam, and a low power reference microwave signal produced by a small magnetron. As long as pulse duration time is some whole integer product of the reference signal frequency, it should work fine.
Hilarious that an idea I had as a teenager in the 90s is being seriously considered here though. LOL.
Again, the quality applicant and the code monkey both have something the fakers do not-- Actual comprehension of what a program is, and how to create one.
As Bill points out, this is not the final exam. This is the "Oh, I see you do actually know how to program-- show me more" portion of the process. This is the part that HR drones are not capable of performing, due to Dunning-Krueger. Those that are actually, REALLY competent will do more than just satisfy the requirements of the challenge, they will provide actually working solutions to the challenge that properly validate their input, and return proper error states if the input is invalid, etc-- You can learn a LOT about a potential hire by observing their work. *THAT* is what this is really about. The triviality of the problem is a necessity, because you ***DON'T*** try to get free solutions out of people.
I realize that may be difficult for you to comprehend, but you *DON'T* do that. The job fair is to let people know that you have a position available, and try to curry interest in people to apply. A successful pre-screening is confidence building, and helps the potential hire to feel that your company is actually interested in actually hiring somebody, and not just fucking off in the booth, to cover for "failing to find somebody" and then "Getting yet another H1B". It gives them a chance to show you what they can do. That is what it is for, and what it does. It also excludes the fakers that this article is about-- The ones that can talk a good talk, but could not program a simple boolean check condition if their life depended on it.
If it were not for the time constraints of a job fair (usually only 2 days, and in that time you need to try and pre-screen as many as possible), I would suggest a tiered challenge, with progressively harder challenges, where you hand out resumes to the ones that make it to the top 3 brackets, but that is not the way the world works.
BINGO!
(I am not even a professional programmer, but I can totally perform such a trivially easy task. The example tests basic understanding of loop construction, function construction, variable use, efficient sorting, and error correction-- especially with mixed type arrays. All of these are things any programmer SHOULD now how to do, without being overly complicated, or clearly a disguised occupational problem trying to get a free solution. Like I said, programmers hate being pimped, and will be turned off HARD by such a thing.)
Throw in some of that budgeted employer merch that makes its way around job fairs as fun prizes regardless of who succeeds or fails [as this is a low-stakes pre-screening that is intended to be fun, and situationally appropriate with tech-heads, and most booths just hand it out anyway], and it can even be popular with the crowd.
AC, you are just an idiot that can't comprehend how that was a contrived example case.
The idea is to switch it up over the course of the day, and have contrived, easily accomplished challenges. Of course, you focused exclusively on just the single suggested test case, and ran with it like you were in the Special Olympics.
Which of us is the lunatic again? Oh, right. The one that makes inappropriate inferences and pretends they are reality.
Many of these languages have an interactive interpreter. I know for a fact that Python does.
So, since job-fairs are an all day thing, and setup is already a thing for them-- set up a booth with like 4 computers at it, and an admin station. The 4 terminals have an interactive session with the interpreter of choice. Every 20min or so, have a challenge for "Solve this problem" (needs to be easy and already solved in general. Programmers hate being pimped without pay. They dont mind tests of skill, but hate being pimped. Something like "sort this array, while picking out all the prime numbers" or something.) and see who steps up. The ones that step up have confidence they can solve the problem, and you can quickly see who can do the work and who can't.
The ones that solve it, and solve it to your satisfaction, you offer a nice gig to.
Of course, it is never too late to realize your mistake in believing it was ever OK to give a soulless corporation access to your personal information, and thus also allow HR to look at all your party pics where you got drunk, and other things you really dont want your professional career life to know about-- but really, what ever made you guys think it was even a good idea to start with?
I remember when the very idea of using your real name online was a point and shame offense.
We need to get back to that kind of thing,
Because they wanted it too. (Honestly-- do people really not understand that money grubbing corruption is not an exclusive to republicans?)
Do I need to pull out the youtube video were he waxes philosophical about how we don't need it anymore, or what?
Oh fuck, here it is anyway. But go right on blaming the repub congress for this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...