No, the problem is know-it all, under-socialized people who think their simplistic explanations are genius, and who think women "don't like intense thinking", and who moderate as troll anyone who calls out their misogyny.
People like this are intolerable for women to work with.
I sure hope you're not a doctor. Or a mechanic. Or an engineer. Or in IT. Or any field that requires solving problems for that matter.
Oh, no, someone thinks you and your like are under-socialized, misogynist, delusional dumbasses. However will you deal with that? That's right, you'll make a determination of my job-worthiness from two sentences I wrote.
No, the problem is know-it all, under-socialized people who think their simplistic explanations are genius, and who think women "don't like intense thinking", and who moderate as troll anyone who calls out their misogyny.
People like this are intolerable for women to work with.
I sure hope you're not a doctor. Or a mechanic. Or an engineer. Or in IT. Or any field that requires solving problems for that matter.
Oh, no, someone thinks you and your like are under-socialized, misogynist, delusional dumbasses. However will you deal with that? That's right, you'll make a determination of my job-worthiness from two sentences I wrote.
I don't like the term Rockstar because it implies I have lots of bad habits and that I need special treatment, but I'm most definitely top talent who isn't asking for top talent salary.
It appears you have 11 months professional experience since graduating in 2003, and the rest is personal projects. Part of being able to get interviews, and turn them into job offers, is being able to realistically describe what you've done. "I'm too good even for the term rockstar" isn't reflected in your resume.
You've got about eight years of time to account for. Do your two bitly links realistically account for three of those years? Do you even have a name for the 2006-2009 project that supposedly accounts for four more? Did any of your independent experience result in a completed project? Anything marketable? Did you solve any problems for anyone? Was any of it purposefully designed? Did anyone earn any money? Did you work with anyone? Did you have to follow anyone else's spec, take direction from anyone, accept suggestions from users, work with someone else's code?
"I can write a game of my own design for an audience of me" isn't terribly impressive experience. You'll have to show you've worked with and for other people, and that what you've created is useful for someone other than yourself.
It's apparent both from your resume and your post that any conversation with you turns into a discussion of gaming. If you're serious about this post and if this is a real resume, consider removing most references to gaming and see if you still have a page of useful info to write. Describe your experience in terms of technologies, skills, projects and business results.
Programming for someone else is about solving someone else's problems. If you've never done that, or if you don't even want to do that, then you have no real experience to offer.
"4 participants did not get back to us with their dates"
In other words, they asked of volunteers "when did you receive it?", rather than tracking the packages. Way too much room for bias and manipulation in this experiment. Even if you trust that they even did the experiment.
I don't know how to do this experiment fairly, since tracking the packages might make delivery more reliable so it'd spoil the test, but as performed, it was certainly a very flawed experiment.
They have sufficient data to conclude there is a correlation. They do not have enough data to conclude "atheist-branded packages were 10 times more likely to disappear", let alone state it to three significant digits in the fine print.
But again, the experiment is far more flawed than taking liberties with converting mathematical results to language. Also in the fine print is a clue they relied on the reporting of biased reporters:
"4 participants did not get back to us with their dates"
That is, they asked of volunteer atheists "when did you receive it?". Way too much possibility for bias in this experiment.
The packages reportedly traveled in pairs, one marked and one unmarked, but both had the same shipper and the same recipient. If there was malice, wouldn't to perp toss both?
They sent two packages to people in 49 of 50 states, all on the same day. That sounds like test packages, not product deliveries, or am I to believe they had orders from 49 states to ship out? Two pairs to each recipient, no less.
How did they choose recipients? Volunteers? Would volunteers not be motivated to skew the results?
Were the results gathered from tracking info? Do deliveries of German post packages by USPS get tracking info in the States, and did they pay for that option, or did they rely on reporting by the participants?
The only way to do this test without predetermining the outcome is to not rely on reporting of the recipients, and to ship identical packages except for labeling. And, of course, the test should be done by someone who does not stand to gain from the controversy.
I can believe packages labeled "atheist" go missing in the USA, but their numbers are both suspicious and convenient.
I would suggest that you take a relevant course in statistics. It is pretty obvious that you are rambling and reasoning without any understanding of the topic.
Always said by someone who has, themselves, no clue.
It's not as simple as the forty minutes of instruction you had in high school would lead you to believe. But if you're in a hurry, here's a sign your sample size was small: you found only one of what you were looking for, e.g. one missing unlabeled package.
Of course discussing the mathematics of an experiment performed by people with obvious motivation to skew the results is kinda silly.
Do they even get tracking info on international packages handled through post? If not, then they are relying on the reporting of people ordering atheist-logo'd shoes, who may have motivation to skew the reported outcome. Even if the shipper themselves have no such motivation. The reliability is even worse if these were test packages sent to consenting participants and not actual orders.
They performed control experiments where the destination went to other parts of the world without that problem.
Their control packages reportedly went to "Germany and Europe". A better control would have been Canada, China and Japan, as the processing for non-European, overseas countries is certainly different.
So, if the labeled and unlabeled packages traveled in pairs, why didn't the unlabeled package, coming from the same place and addressed to the same recipient, also get lost or delayed? If there was malice involved, wouldn't it affect both packages?
Packages were sent in matched atheist/non-atheist pairs.
Which means the un-marked package originating in the same place and addressed to the same recipient would also be delayed or lost if there was malice involved.
There are already excellent C++ and algorithm and CS books available at consumer (as opposed to university) prices. What are the chances a committee of non-authoring experts will better what's already available? If you produce "free" texts that aren't as good as inexpensive texts, you're doing a disservice to everyone who will spend time reading them.
Now if you're willing to toss out your work if it doesn't turn out to be excellent, then go for it. But if you're going to declare it better than what's already available because it's free, then you're just pawning reverse progress off as principle.
I've been doing that for more than ten years and I've never gotten a satisfactory response. Somebody will give your carefully-crafted letter fifteen seconds of thought and send you a form letter about phishing or clicking on sketchy links or whatever. They don't understand the dedicated email thing, or that they have a problem. So, you gave your explanation to some geeks you think will "get it", but ultimately they'll have to tell some non-geeks about it, and they'll give it fifteen seconds of consideration and dismiss it.
I've found three online flower sellers, one music equipment manufacturer, a credit reporting agency and a well-known seller of language instruction materials, and a couple I don't remember, have been compromised. Not a lot for more than a decade, but some notable failures.
Why would they want to? Is this how they've been told their salary can be made more competitive, and the alternative is to be underpaid? Is there implied coercion, as in "This is how we're going to try balancing the books. Who wants to participate?"
Exactly this. If the employer wants to take bitcoins as money, let the employer do the conversion. Why put that off on your employees unless you don't really have faith in it.
If it's so easy, then the employer can pay in REAL money.
If you read nothing else in TFA, read the sections "The technological determinism model" and "The sociotechnical model", and pretend it's written about computer tech, because it applies there, too. I believe we're getting near the end of "the computer revolution", because there is not a sufficient market to fund development at the rate we've seen in the past. I believe Ray Kurzweil will have to fund the singularity himself, because for the endpoint to happen, all points in between here and there have to be funded, and I don't see that happening. I think from a technical needs perspective, we are well into the point of diminishing returns, and the market is starting to reflect that.
Individuality is great, and you should have things that are meaningful close at hand and on display, but just recognize that to most people geek art has about as much class as dogs playing poker. If you have non-geeky visitors and want to be taken seriously, maybe find something you like that is more mainstream for the living room. Same for your cube at work. Something geeky on your monitor and on your desk, something more mainstream on the walls.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the problem is know-it all, under-socialized people who think their simplistic explanations are genius, and who think women "don't like intense thinking", and who moderate as troll anyone who calls out their misogyny.
People like this are intolerable for women to work with.
Oh, no, someone thinks you and your like are under-socialized, misogynist, delusional dumbasses. However will you deal with that? That's right, you'll make a determination of my job-worthiness from two sentences I wrote.
Aren't you clever!
*You* are why women don't want to work in IT.
No, the problem is know-it all, under-socialized people who think their simplistic explanations are genius, and who think women "don't like intense thinking", and who moderate as troll anyone who calls out their misogyny.
People like this are intolerable for women to work with.
No, the problem is that engineering has people like you in it. What woman wants to deal with that?
I don't like the term Rockstar because it implies I have lots of bad habits and that I need special treatment, but I'm most definitely top talent who isn't asking for top talent salary.
It appears you have 11 months professional experience since graduating in 2003, and the rest is personal projects. Part of being able to get interviews, and turn them into job offers, is being able to realistically describe what you've done. "I'm too good even for the term rockstar" isn't reflected in your resume.
You've got about eight years of time to account for. Do your two bitly links realistically account for three of those years? Do you even have a name for the 2006-2009 project that supposedly accounts for four more? Did any of your independent experience result in a completed project? Anything marketable? Did you solve any problems for anyone? Was any of it purposefully designed? Did anyone earn any money? Did you work with anyone? Did you have to follow anyone else's spec, take direction from anyone, accept suggestions from users, work with someone else's code?
"I can write a game of my own design for an audience of me" isn't terribly impressive experience. You'll have to show you've worked with and for other people, and that what you've created is useful for someone other than yourself.
It's apparent both from your resume and your post that any conversation with you turns into a discussion of gaming. If you're serious about this post and if this is a real resume, consider removing most references to gaming and see if you still have a page of useful info to write. Describe your experience in terms of technologies, skills, projects and business results.
Programming for someone else is about solving someone else's problems. If you've never done that, or if you don't even want to do that, then you have no real experience to offer.
There is partial answer in the fine print:
"4 participants did not get back to us with their dates"
In other words, they asked of volunteers "when did you receive it?", rather than tracking the packages. Way too much room for bias and manipulation in this experiment. Even if you trust that they even did the experiment.
I don't know how to do this experiment fairly, since tracking the packages might make delivery more reliable so it'd spoil the test, but as performed, it was certainly a very flawed experiment.
They have sufficient data to conclude there is a correlation. They do not have enough data to conclude "atheist-branded packages were 10 times more likely to disappear", let alone state it to three significant digits in the fine print.
But again, the experiment is far more flawed than taking liberties with converting mathematical results to language. Also in the fine print is a clue they relied on the reporting of biased reporters:
"4 participants did not get back to us with their dates"
That is, they asked of volunteer atheists "when did you receive it?". Way too much possibility for bias in this experiment.
The packages reportedly traveled in pairs, one marked and one unmarked, but both had the same shipper and the same recipient. If there was malice, wouldn't to perp toss both?
You leave 18K systems on 24/7 so you can do a once-per-week virus scan and a twice per week backup? Really?
They sent two packages to people in 49 of 50 states, all on the same day. That sounds like test packages, not product deliveries, or am I to believe they had orders from 49 states to ship out? Two pairs to each recipient, no less.
How did they choose recipients? Volunteers? Would volunteers not be motivated to skew the results?
Were the results gathered from tracking info? Do deliveries of German post packages by USPS get tracking info in the States, and did they pay for that option, or did they rely on reporting by the participants?
The only way to do this test without predetermining the outcome is to not rely on reporting of the recipients, and to ship identical packages except for labeling. And, of course, the test should be done by someone who does not stand to gain from the controversy.
I can believe packages labeled "atheist" go missing in the USA, but their numbers are both suspicious and convenient.
I would suggest that you take a relevant course in statistics. It is pretty obvious that you are rambling and reasoning without any understanding of the topic.
Always said by someone who has, themselves, no clue.
It's not as simple as the forty minutes of instruction you had in high school would lead you to believe. But if you're in a hurry, here's a sign your sample size was small: you found only one of what you were looking for, e.g. one missing unlabeled package.
Of course discussing the mathematics of an experiment performed by people with obvious motivation to skew the results is kinda silly.
Do they even get tracking info on international packages handled through post? If not, then they are relying on the reporting of people ordering atheist-logo'd shoes, who may have motivation to skew the reported outcome. Even if the shipper themselves have no such motivation. The reliability is even worse if these were test packages sent to consenting participants and not actual orders.
If you have a particular problem with the statistical methods involved
His reservation is with the trustworthiness of the experimenters. He thinks they're making this shit up.
They performed control experiments where the destination went to other parts of the world without that problem.
Their control packages reportedly went to "Germany and Europe". A better control would have been Canada, China and Japan, as the processing for non-European, overseas countries is certainly different.
So, if the labeled and unlabeled packages traveled in pairs, why didn't the unlabeled package, coming from the same place and addressed to the same recipient, also get lost or delayed? If there was malice involved, wouldn't it affect both packages?
Packages were sent in matched atheist/non-atheist pairs.
Which means the un-marked package originating in the same place and addressed to the same recipient would also be delayed or lost if there was malice involved.
That's interesting. I'm not particularly sensitive to compression artifacts, but this is the effect I hear with satellite radio.
There are already excellent C++ and algorithm and CS books available at consumer (as opposed to university) prices. What are the chances a committee of non-authoring experts will better what's already available? If you produce "free" texts that aren't as good as inexpensive texts, you're doing a disservice to everyone who will spend time reading them.
Now if you're willing to toss out your work if it doesn't turn out to be excellent, then go for it. But if you're going to declare it better than what's already available because it's free, then you're just pawning reverse progress off as principle.
I've been doing that for more than ten years and I've never gotten a satisfactory response. Somebody will give your carefully-crafted letter fifteen seconds of thought and send you a form letter about phishing or clicking on sketchy links or whatever. They don't understand the dedicated email thing, or that they have a problem. So, you gave your explanation to some geeks you think will "get it", but ultimately they'll have to tell some non-geeks about it, and they'll give it fifteen seconds of consideration and dismiss it.
I've found three online flower sellers, one music equipment manufacturer, a credit reporting agency and a well-known seller of language instruction materials, and a couple I don't remember, have been compromised. Not a lot for more than a decade, but some notable failures.
Let me know when sites that are actually mainstream take donations or payment in bitcoin.
Why would they want to? Is this how they've been told their salary can be made more competitive, and the alternative is to be underpaid? Is there implied coercion, as in "This is how we're going to try balancing the books. Who wants to participate?"
Exactly this. If the employer wants to take bitcoins as money, let the employer do the conversion. Why put that off on your employees unless you don't really have faith in it.
If it's so easy, then the employer can pay in REAL money.
Why run a minecraft server if you're not going to let anyone else use it?
If you read nothing else in TFA, read the sections "The technological determinism model" and "The sociotechnical model", and pretend it's written about computer tech, because it applies there, too. I believe we're getting near the end of "the computer revolution", because there is not a sufficient market to fund development at the rate we've seen in the past. I believe Ray Kurzweil will have to fund the singularity himself, because for the endpoint to happen, all points in between here and there have to be funded, and I don't see that happening. I think from a technical needs perspective, we are well into the point of diminishing returns, and the market is starting to reflect that.
Individuality is great, and you should have things that are meaningful close at hand and on display, but just recognize that to most people geek art has about as much class as dogs playing poker. If you have non-geeky visitors and want to be taken seriously, maybe find something you like that is more mainstream for the living room. Same for your cube at work. Something geeky on your monitor and on your desk, something more mainstream on the walls.