How are a CS major and understanding big O efficiency related? A smart person will quickly grasp this concept. End of story. If you NEED a CS major to get such a simple concept, I really don't want you writing code.
You might think so, but in my experience this is simply not true. I've met many many many people who write code that purport to understand these topics (who can answer simple interview questions about this as well) but then write code that clearly indicates that they don't. CS majors with experience is the best filter I've found for understanding this topic and even that's a bit weak depending on the school. My hypothesis is that there is a certain number of iterations you need to do before you understand most topics and being self taught somehow doesn't ensure those number of repetitions. I do know however that the most efficient large pieces of code I've ever seen were all written by people with CS degrees and experience.
My bent $0.02, having a CS degree is a better indicator of understanding these complex topics and not having it is a poor indicator as such. I think most (not all) people who understand complex topics, like big O, could be either CS graduates or non graduates. But the CS degree helps to indicate a person who can learn this. However there are people who don't understand it and skirt through graduation, just like there are people who never took a formal course but have the ability to learn these topics.
Yep, good computer scientists need very broad understanding of software development. Unfortunately many companies prefer a very specific understanding optimized to the current job and dropped as soon as the job is complete for someone else with a very specific understanding of the next job.
Instead of "very low", perhaps "very broad" is a more appropriate guarantee from a school. Companies on the other hand often want a very specific set of skills for the job they want. Too specific to make sense to teach in a school, without making, say, 1000 students with skills specific to 100 jobs.
Or a degree tries to prove an ability to learn complex skills. On the job is when real skills are actually learned and it takes someone who can learn them to do the job.
Of course many companies want to hire people who already have the skills these days, rather than training people up. This despite the fact that few to no colleges can give a student years of experience with ARINC 429, MIL 1553, military GPS or TACAN radios to name a few possible things I've seen companies looking for experience on.
You're making some assumptions about things you can't know. For instance, what if your dog is looking at you for some indication about what to do next and not looking at you to ask why you turned off the toy.
Well I can expand on that. When she wants to play with the laser she looks at the ground and her tail wiggles, often the result when she sees us pick up the laser too. When the laser shuts off and she wants to play more she glares up at us, whines and then stares back at the ground and her tail wiggles. I know my interpretation, make of it what you will.
I think some people just want learning to end with college. I look at code review comments as a chance to learn something new, even after 10+ years in this business (which sadly makes me almost senior where I work but not superior in any way). The day an engineer stops learning is the start of the end of their career, IMHO.
I guess this goes along with the madness that is college students' belief that disagreement is innately hurtful and may even extend to the level of hate speech or threats. Young people seem to be taught that conflict is necessarily aggressive and wrong, and if someone else's opinions conflict with theirs, then those people are also aggressive and wrong (and their own side is blameless and innocent). And, apparently having lost the capacity for friendly competition, all that's left is ugly, go-for-the-jugular, all-out destruction of the other side. We see the same thing in our government, where compromise is now a craven weakness.
It isn't just college students. When I first started working full time development over 10 years ago I noticed a lot of people getting offended when code reviews come back with findings. I'm not talking about offensively phrased findings, just pointing out simple bugs or asking if they considered other approaches. People who can't cope with differences or mistakes are often attributed to the next generation but have been around forever.
Well SCADE does embedded DO-178b qualified model based development. I've used it in airplane hydraulic software. Not sure how it compares with Simulink though.
Yep, people are always asking why aviation software costs so much. It isn't the development cost it is the verification and validation cost. MCDC coverage (see link below) for the most stringent level of testing requires a lot of test development for each software module. This isn't even all the work. The company needs to define exactly what the software needs to do, preferably before the software is written, so that tests confirm the software is doing what it should do, not simply verifying the program does what the code says it should (we don't need to verify the compiler). All of the documentation costs a lot.
My preference has always been to test such a system by entering all equivalence classes of all inputs to the system and verify the appropriate outputs. However this seems to throw an additional wrench of cost and difficulty to properly define how all the system inputs connect to all the system outputs without getting badly mangled along the way (at least with a sufficiently complex system).
TLDR: Yeah, ensuring guaranteed operation of a piece of equipment costs a LOT.
I've mostly ignored my right to vote because I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils and can't seem to find any somewhat neutral candidates that have a chance in hell of getting voted in. So my lack of vote is my opinion of the available candidates.
Read Dennis E Taylor's Outland, liked We Are Legion, We Are Bob better.
Just finished Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon, always like his writing in any book.
Now reading Revenger by Alastair Reynolds. Kind of slow starting but the ideas and descriptions of an existence in space without planets is pretty interesting.
Don't even need drugs to have a similar effect. I can't say how many times I wake up with a brilliant idea from a dream, and a few minutes later go, that was really stupid...
Um. Thermostats controlled by the utility are optional. You can go your own way if you want. The reason they are good is not that they are cheating, but rather than it's to everybody's benefit not to overload the grid: if you overload it, it goes down, and then everybody loses. It's called cooperation. This is not what Stallman and Doctorow are talking about. Open source software in those devices would be great, and indeed there are some pretty nice open source home energy control systems available today.
It is true that keeping the grid up is important. But where I live, that isn't a problem. We don't get black outs unless a storm rolls though, we don't get brown outs. This may change in the future but isn't happening now. Utility controlled thermostats are currently a way for the energy company to save millions while the consumers save a couple dollars each.
you can get a CS degree at any state school and they are far cheaper and just as good.
No, they are not just as good. A degree from Harvard will open a lot of doors. Not only because of the reputation, but also because of the alumni network.
It's not as if the faculty at Harvard are somehow better
It is not the faculty that is better, or the instruction, but the classmates. They learn a lot from each other. Which is why the restrictions on "collaboration" are so stupid. They are taking away the very thing that makes Harvard special.
And yet my degree from my local state college has kept me well employed at one of the top engineering firms in the country. It only cost me ~$20k which I paid off in the first year of employment. This same degree gave me entrance to start PHD work at one of the top colleges in the country and they only require me to take two additional classes, the rest I gained credit from my graduate studies at the same state college.
In July the Auroras were visible as far south as Colorado I believe so it is possible for quite a bit of the US to see Auroras. Though an event like that doesn't come along very often but there is a chance any major Aurora event could appear further south than usual.
did a company that does no provide transit services even manage to send a route table that was accepted for use? Just seems like a very exploitable issue there. Does google have authority or permissions that allows this, even though they don't actually have the capabilities?
For 2% cash back I use my card for pretty much everything. At least until some places started adding the transaction fee to the card purchase, good incentive to go back to cash.
Get your lazy ass on deck and watch for trouble, or go back to land and fuck off.
Nope, no excuse. Just like falling asleep while driving or just not seeing another car and hitting them is no excuse, but it happens all the time. We are human and make mistakes. This is why automation is replacing humans in so many places.
This seems like a bit of a problem with the method of two factor authentication. One factor should only ever possibly be in one place, on your phone in your hand. This works well with RSA tokens as the only way to use them is to be able to see the display. Not saying I have a solution but it doesn't seem right to be able to use the two factor authentication without the phone in your hand.
My breadth of specific technical knowledge is what makes me valuable to my company. I'm not saying I can't be replaced, I'm saying my unique set of knowledge that covers several different needed areas would make it difficult. That makes my "specialty" the broad range of things I can do. That specific breadth makes me valuable to my company... but unfortunately, only to my company.
Yep, good systems engineers for example may not have the depth of knowledge the guy implementing the software has, but they know enough to put the pieces together in the right order.
Thinking logically and understanding processes is something that isn't taught well enough at any age. As a developer one of my biggest problem is the people giving me the requirements to develop from almost always miss very important conditions of what the software needs to do. The solution is almost always to guess what they want and have them come back and tell me I got it wrong.
To me there is no age too young to start to teach students how to create a process (not just how to follow it). Understanding all of the steps necessary to do something is a useful skill for all points in life. This to me is how you write a program before you find a specific programming language and should form the basic for learning to program. This skill can apply to nearly everything a person can do.
Slashdot Mirror
How are a CS major and understanding big O efficiency related? A smart person will quickly grasp this concept. End of story.
If you NEED a CS major to get such a simple concept, I really don't want you writing code.
You might think so, but in my experience this is simply not true. I've met many many many people who write code that purport to understand these topics (who can answer simple interview questions about this as well) but then write code that clearly indicates that they don't. CS majors with experience is the best filter I've found for understanding this topic and even that's a bit weak depending on the school. My hypothesis is that there is a certain number of iterations you need to do before you understand most topics and being self taught somehow doesn't ensure those number of repetitions. I do know however that the most efficient large pieces of code I've ever seen were all written by people with CS degrees and experience.
My bent $0.02, having a CS degree is a better indicator of understanding these complex topics and not having it is a poor indicator as such. I think most (not all) people who understand complex topics, like big O, could be either CS graduates or non graduates. But the CS degree helps to indicate a person who can learn this. However there are people who don't understand it and skirt through graduation, just like there are people who never took a formal course but have the ability to learn these topics.
Yep, good computer scientists need very broad understanding of software development. Unfortunately many companies prefer a very specific understanding optimized to the current job and dropped as soon as the job is complete for someone else with a very specific understanding of the next job.
Instead of "very low", perhaps "very broad" is a more appropriate guarantee from a school. Companies on the other hand often want a very specific set of skills for the job they want. Too specific to make sense to teach in a school, without making, say, 1000 students with skills specific to 100 jobs.
Or a degree tries to prove an ability to learn complex skills. On the job is when real skills are actually learned and it takes someone who can learn them to do the job.
Of course many companies want to hire people who already have the skills these days, rather than training people up. This despite the fact that few to no colleges can give a student years of experience with ARINC 429, MIL 1553, military GPS or TACAN radios to name a few possible things I've seen companies looking for experience on.
You're making some assumptions about things you can't know. For instance, what if your dog is looking at you for some indication about what to do next and not looking at you to ask why you turned off the toy.
Well I can expand on that. When she wants to play with the laser she looks at the ground and her tail wiggles, often the result when she sees us pick up the laser too. When the laser shuts off and she wants to play more she glares up at us, whines and then stares back at the ground and her tail wiggles. I know my interpretation, make of it what you will.
And my dog loves chasing the red dot around but as soon as I shut it off I get a dirty glance. She knows the source but still loves chasing it.
I think some people just want learning to end with college. I look at code review comments as a chance to learn something new, even after 10+ years in this business (which sadly makes me almost senior where I work but not superior in any way). The day an engineer stops learning is the start of the end of their career, IMHO.
I guess this goes along with the madness that is college students' belief that disagreement is innately hurtful and may even extend to the level of hate speech or threats. Young people seem to be taught that conflict is necessarily aggressive and wrong, and if someone else's opinions conflict with theirs, then those people are also aggressive and wrong (and their own side is blameless and innocent). And, apparently having lost the capacity for friendly competition, all that's left is ugly, go-for-the-jugular, all-out destruction of the other side. We see the same thing in our government, where compromise is now a craven weakness.
It isn't just college students. When I first started working full time development over 10 years ago I noticed a lot of people getting offended when code reviews come back with findings. I'm not talking about offensively phrased findings, just pointing out simple bugs or asking if they considered other approaches. People who can't cope with differences or mistakes are often attributed to the next generation but have been around forever.
Well SCADE does embedded DO-178b qualified model based development. I've used it in airplane hydraulic software. Not sure how it compares with Simulink though.
http://www.esterel-technologie...
Yep, people are always asking why aviation software costs so much. It isn't the development cost it is the verification and validation cost. MCDC coverage (see link below) for the most stringent level of testing requires a lot of test development for each software module. This isn't even all the work. The company needs to define exactly what the software needs to do, preferably before the software is written, so that tests confirm the software is doing what it should do, not simply verifying the program does what the code says it should (we don't need to verify the compiler). All of the documentation costs a lot.
My preference has always been to test such a system by entering all equivalence classes of all inputs to the system and verify the appropriate outputs. However this seems to throw an additional wrench of cost and difficulty to properly define how all the system inputs connect to all the system outputs without getting badly mangled along the way (at least with a sufficiently complex system).
TLDR: Yeah, ensuring guaranteed operation of a piece of equipment costs a LOT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I've mostly ignored my right to vote because I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils and can't seem to find any somewhat neutral candidates that have a chance in hell of getting voted in. So my lack of vote is my opinion of the available candidates.
Read Dennis E Taylor's Outland, liked We Are Legion, We Are Bob better.
Just finished Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon, always like his writing in any book.
Now reading Revenger by Alastair Reynolds. Kind of slow starting but the ideas and descriptions of an existence in space without planets is pretty interesting.
Known as Kindle or a number of other options if you don't want to turn paper pages.
Don't even need drugs to have a similar effect. I can't say how many times I wake up with a brilliant idea from a dream, and a few minutes later go, that was really stupid...
Um. Thermostats controlled by the utility are optional. You can go your own way if you want. The reason they are good is not that they are cheating, but rather than it's to everybody's benefit not to overload the grid: if you overload it, it goes down, and then everybody loses. It's called cooperation. This is not what Stallman and Doctorow are talking about. Open source software in those devices would be great, and indeed there are some pretty nice open source home energy control systems available today.
It is true that keeping the grid up is important. But where I live, that isn't a problem. We don't get black outs unless a storm rolls though, we don't get brown outs. This may change in the future but isn't happening now. Utility controlled thermostats are currently a way for the energy company to save millions while the consumers save a couple dollars each.
you can get a CS degree at any state school and they are far cheaper and just as good.
No, they are not just as good. A degree from Harvard will open a lot of doors. Not only because of the reputation, but also because of the alumni network.
It's not as if the faculty at Harvard are somehow better
It is not the faculty that is better, or the instruction, but the classmates. They learn a lot from each other. Which is why the restrictions on "collaboration" are so stupid. They are taking away the very thing that makes Harvard special.
And yet my degree from my local state college has kept me well employed at one of the top engineering firms in the country. It only cost me ~$20k which I paid off in the first year of employment. This same degree gave me entrance to start PHD work at one of the top colleges in the country and they only require me to take two additional classes, the rest I gained credit from my graduate studies at the same state college.
So yeah, state college is no good.
And if that happens, I'll shut down my streaming subscription and maybe add a disk to my DVD subscription. No big loss.
In July the Auroras were visible as far south as Colorado I believe so it is possible for quite a bit of the US to see Auroras. Though an event like that doesn't come along very often but there is a chance any major Aurora event could appear further south than usual.
Thanks for letting me be lazy today
did a company that does no provide transit services even manage to send a route table that was accepted for use? Just seems like a very exploitable issue there. Does google have authority or permissions that allows this, even though they don't actually have the capabilities?
For 2% cash back I use my card for pretty much everything. At least until some places started adding the transaction fee to the card purchase, good incentive to go back to cash.
Bull Shit!
It's boring is no excuse.
Get your lazy ass on deck and watch for trouble, or go back to land and fuck off.
Nope, no excuse. Just like falling asleep while driving or just not seeing another car and hitting them is no excuse, but it happens all the time. We are human and make mistakes. This is why automation is replacing humans in so many places.
This seems like a bit of a problem with the method of two factor authentication. One factor should only ever possibly be in one place, on your phone in your hand. This works well with RSA tokens as the only way to use them is to be able to see the display. Not saying I have a solution but it doesn't seem right to be able to use the two factor authentication without the phone in your hand.
My breadth of specific technical knowledge is what makes me valuable to my company. I'm not saying I can't be replaced, I'm saying my unique set of knowledge that covers several different needed areas would make it difficult. That makes my "specialty" the broad range of things I can do. That specific breadth makes me valuable to my company... but unfortunately, only to my company.
Yep, good systems engineers for example may not have the depth of knowledge the guy implementing the software has, but they know enough to put the pieces together in the right order.
Thinking logically and understanding processes is something that isn't taught well enough at any age. As a developer one of my biggest problem is the people giving me the requirements to develop from almost always miss very important conditions of what the software needs to do. The solution is almost always to guess what they want and have them come back and tell me I got it wrong.
To me there is no age too young to start to teach students how to create a process (not just how to follow it). Understanding all of the steps necessary to do something is a useful skill for all points in life. This to me is how you write a program before you find a specific programming language and should form the basic for learning to program. This skill can apply to nearly everything a person can do.