I despise the term "founding Fathers" so patriarchal...
Well it is a historical fact that they were entirely male, and they had an important role in the creation of a nation.
... so overly reverent. It's reminiscent of fascist hero worship.
So you are taking one of "those" classes in college:-). There is absolutely nothing inherently fascist about revering a "hero". "Heroes" of both sexes exist, of nearly all political schools of thought, of nearly all philosophies, of nearly all disciplines of science, or nearly all the arts, etc.
Mob rule is another term for the sam fallacy. Basically you're too stupid to make your own decision,...
That is what a mob often is. Surrendering yourself to a charismatic leader(s) or to group thought.
... you should only choose which one of us will make them for you. An easy argument to sell and maintain when you look at the standard of American political debate.
And sophomoric political advocacy and debate as well.:-)
Aggregating/disaggregating voters based on social factors is an absolutely natural thing to occur when determining district boundaries using logical and reasonable methods. It is a big assumption on your part that these natural groupings should balance out. The world is far more complicated than that. Town and county lines and such do not necessarily map very well onto neighborhoods, business clusters, etc. Perhaps they did a couple of hundred years ago but today in much more heavily populated areas these natural boundaries are more often just lines on a map, a historical governmental administrative boundary. The boundaries defined by every day life and business are too fluid and changing in relatively small amounts of time.
Of course gerrymandering is a problem, re-read my first post.
It's lucky there's no fancy electronics involved in the engine, steering or weapons on a ship then.
I assume the Navy still have oars in the hold and cannons to fire when they arrive at their target?
The fancy electronics they are worried about are outside the ship, beyond their control, the GPS satellites. Electronics on board the ship are an entirely different story.
A non-gerrymandered congressional district, one with logical and natural borders -- say a town or county line, may split a cluster of people with like minded politics. Therefore you can't assume any such split is inherently gerrymandering, which is implied by your methodology.
Furthermore your notion that ideal districting preserves political blocks is flawed. Political blocks change with respect to locality, people migrate, neighborhoods evolve, etc.
However the most egregious assumption you have is that political affiliation and popular vote have some sort of 1:1 relationship. You are assuming that people vote strictly for their party's representatives. A district may be 55% Dem and 45% Rep, and the outcome of an election may be a Rep candidate with 55% of the vote. The outcome being the result of a large number of Dems voting for the Rep candidate.
I already told you how to get the numbers yourself - combine popular votes from each state with the number of seats won by party, and observe the difference between the two. The higher it is, the more gerrymandered the state is.
Thanks for the clarification, we now know your numbers are entirely bogus.
I don't think navigation on the ocean was very forgiving before modern electronics. And I gather you still do it the old fashioned way as a back up, in case you ever find yourself without them.
I saw a documentary on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier, it had a relevant incident. The carrier has GPS, LORAN, inertial navigation, etc. Yet every day a sailor steps outside the bridge with a sextant and takes readings on the horizon and sun. (does another sailor do so at night with the stars?). He then goes inside and using a WW2 manufactured mechanical chronometer calculates the position of the ship. When asked why the Navy still uses such ancient mechanical technology the sailor replied that this ship is a warship and is expected to be where it needs to be regardless of whether the fancy electronics is working or not.
You know who doesn't like the "tyranny of the majority"? The minority who are in power. The basic premise seems to be "you shouldn't make decisions because you might do something bad to someone else".
I think the basic premise of the founding fathers was to avoid mob rule.
A 68 mile altitude absolutely does help. Reduced gravity, reduced drag, etc. From that point 100% of a rocket's fuel payload can be devoted to achieving a low earth orbit. Engineering advances absolutely help because the payload, say a satellite, may be much smaller and lighter.
Gerrymandering is far more prominent in Republican-controlled states, actually. It's fairly easy to see if you put the popular votes from each state alongside seats that are assigned to that state, and then sort by disparity. Assuming that popular vote reflects the ideal districting arrangement, Republican-controlled gerrymandering accounted for 26 seats for them in the 2012 election that they would not otherwise get, while Democrat-controlled accounted for 3 such seats for Dems.
Definitely need a citation for those numbers. I live in a true blue state. The Democratic gerrymandering was done many decades ago and has persisted to this day. Studies can easily give an inaccurate impression if they only look at 2010 based redistricting. If there is less Democratic gerrymandering it is due to a lack of opportunity not a lack of will. The Democratic controlled state legislature in my state is absolutely corrupt, they would if they could.
That is actually just trivia since neither side is trying to achieve the popular vote....Losing sides like to bring up irrelevant statistics to console the fans.
Translation....nothing to see here with this gerrymandering, move along citizen. GOP-run legislature in Texas draws the maps so the party that got 56% of the vote gets 75% of the seats in Congress? Pay no attention to the gerrymandering behind the curtain!
Did you fail to read my final paragraph? Here it is for your convenience:
"(*) Note that we are talking about the nationwide results, the results in all districts, not the results in one particular district. Gerrymandering is a problem, it is a local phenomena, and both parties actively engage in it. Gerrymandering is done at the state level, so whatever party controls the state legislature gets to gerrymander to give their party an advantage in federal elections. Thus there is a certain amount of canceling out in the US congress. In no way should this be interpreted to say gerrymandering is not a problem, it is"
It doesn't matter if SpaceShip Two is suborbital, it provides a 4 minute launch window at 68 miles altitude. With respect to the 1980's ASM-135 being suborbital, that it when launch from an F-15 at 7 miles altitude. A microgravity environment at 68 miles is a very different starting point. Plus we have 30 years of additional engineering advances since those launches.
Moments after my first post I had an idea. Some of my favorite homework assignments or lab projects were those that were steps towards a larger whole.
Maybe an A* based pathing implementation for a game should be the final result. Individual assignments steps along the path to this end result.
Arrays could implement static objects (obstacles) on a map.
Link lists could implement temporary objects (units, subject to destruction when they fire upon each other).
Maybe sort units in a linked list based on their position with respect to a line of movement, ex moving up sort by y position. As they move into range of enemy units those units at the front of the linked list are the first to come under fire, usually. When hit, destroyed, removed from list. List shorter for next round of fire.
Since its a class project keep things simple. Perhaps something similar to 1970s/80s tank arcade games. The map is a grid. Motion is only up, down, left, right. Obstacles are like walls, filling in an entire grid element or leaving it open. Units take up one grid element each.
Profile performance, before and after some improvement. Textbook A* vs modified A* using special info. Linked list search with and without sorting in direction of movement.
Speaking of profiling, that is something very important to mention in an interview. Attempts to optimize must be based on profiling. Both to make sure one is optimize the code path where cpu cycles are being spent and to confirm that a modification to the algorithm if in fact helping.
I'm not sure if a good fit can be found between the class topics and the components of such a minigame but it might be something worth taking a quick look at.
How to do punish everyone at the same time? By voting for the opposition, which incidentially, will do the exact same thing that resulted in punitive voting? The next election, switch back? All I see are circles.
Its darwinian. By repeatedly removing the misbehaving incumbents the politicians learn and adapt. The circles are not endless. Politicians will adapt, they will find a way to win a re-election, the goal is to create and environment that punishes those who diverge too far from the interests of the people. To create an environment where there is no loyal base they can count on.
Evaluation is done on coding style and the thoughts of the implementor as much as getting a correct solution.
Consider a simple problem. Detecting if a point is in a rectangle. The textbook answer is quite simple. The game implementation is not necessarily simple. Keep in mind that textbook answers have lots of preconditions, random data, neutral circumstances, etc. Actual implementation may not, leverage any knowledge of the data or circumstances. For example what is the likely case, point inside or outside; is the rectangle relatively small compared to the screen. Like the SAT pay attention to the details of the question. If the question states that the point is a missile and the rectangle is an enemy unit then the missile probably spends more time outside the rectangle than within, so optimize detection for the miss case. Also since the rectangle represents a unit it will be relatively small compared to the screen. Now think about the screen, is it wider than taller. Probably, if so further optimize your test for misses by comparing against the vertical edges first. Assuming firing takes place from any angle. The really important thing here is to show that you were thinking beyond the textbook and leveraging information about data and circumstances. Such thinking should be explained in comments.
So you've implemented some special purpose variant of an algorithm. You might want to implement the general case too. You might want to add a unit test that verifies that the special purpose case yields correct results for specific known inputs, edge cases etc, and that it matches the results of the generic implementation for some appropriate number of randomly generated cases. Of course doing so would be more appropriate it the evaluation is not timed. But if you finished early and have checked your work...
When implementing code consider performance. For example if you need to test the distance between two points a classic implementation might use the distance formula, desired_dist >= sqrt((x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2). Note we don't need the actual distance and we can square both sides, desired_dist^2 >= (x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2, replacing a square root operation with a multiply operation. Be sure to comment the code when doing something like this.
Did I mention that comments should be explaining your motivations, what you are thinking, what you are trying to accomplish? Not simply restating in english what code does.
Knowing how to implement data structures like a doubly linked list would be a good idea, however knowing how to do so in a multithreaded environment is even better. It might be a bit beyond what is expected for students in a lower division class but it would definitely be important at the time of a job application. Perhaps a brief mention in class might be useful, a little hand waiving and telling them to call placeholders lock() / unlock() would be fine. No need to have them actually implement calls to pthreads if their prerequisites don't warrant it.
So, an overall theme. Questions may be less about "regurgitating" the correct answer and more about showing how you think about problems and how you implement solutions, and how well you leverage any additional information available.
It wasn't at a game company but I once had a question during an interview that was very illustrative of what I'm trying to get across. The question listed 6 sorting algorithms and asked for the run time complexity. I answered bubble sort and qsort and then wrote "I own Knuth vol 3 Sorting and Searching so I don't have to memorize this sort of trivia". After this written test the project lead asked why I thought this question a "trivia question". I explained that the textbook run time complexity answers assume random data, and that if your data is not random the run time for these algorithms can change wildly. One algorithm may be the best choice for random data, another for mostly sorted data and still another for mostly unsorted data. I go
The objections you offer are meaningless. Its not about finding and electing good candidates. Its about punishing bad representatives. Instilling fear into representatives that if they go too far they will loose their office. Punitive voting, i.e. discipling the elected, is a far simpler matter than finding the ideal and proper candidates. It doesn't rely on what they say, it only relies on what they do.
Again, the "bribery" you refer to is a secondary issue. It can only be effective when the candidate does not fear the voter. Create a fear of the voter, a fear of losing office due to punitive voting, and that bribe from the 1% loses its value. For example Mayor Bloomberg can offer millions to Democratic representative to support gun control but if the district has a sufficient number of NRA members and similarly minded voters then that candidate won't support additional gun control laws. Punitive voting trumps money. It happens all the time, term after term. What I am proposing is apply this punitive voting on a larger scale.
Again, I have never disagreed with the notion that different generations may have different reactions. If someone is missing the point every single time it is you. If you think I have argued the "inverse" you are thoroughly confused.
My disagreement is entirely with your notion that horror movies explain you and your friend's reaction to gross images compared to a WW2 vet. That statement was absurdly naive. The "contradiction" I referred to is you complaining that others did not properly account for other variables and yet you do the same in the WW2 vet vs your friends example.
You missed an important point, punitively voting against an incumbent who misbehaved or went against the interests of the people regardless of whether he represents your party or not.
Voting doesn't do any good unless you can put people in who will behave differently. And you can't.
You fail to understand the process. It is a darwinian process. After repeated instances of punitive voting elected officials will adapt. The politician's goal is re-election, if punitive voting threatens re-election politicians will avoid angering the voters. As they currently avoid angering organizations like the NRA and AARP whose members apply punitively voting tactics. My argument is basically taking the tactics of these very successful lobbying organizations and having them applied by the voters en mass.
You are making a classic mistake by focusing on money. Votes are the true currency of politics
lol. The innocence of a child. Let me explain it to you.
You are unable to explain anything since you don't understand the facts. If voters decide to vote in a punitive manner then no amount of money can save a candidate. Whether one candidate puts on a better campaign to dress himself or herself up as more attractive is not relevant. The voter is voting punitively due to past actions. The current election theatre is irrelevant.
a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er, its still a one person one vote system
Voting for who gets in office does nothing. The only people who get in are people who will take benefits in return for taking specific positions.
Nearly all politicians desire re-election. Fear of punitive voting will moderate this behavior to acceptable levels.
The NRA and the AARP. These organization do not wield immense power because of their financial contributions. Their true power lies in their literal millions of highly motivated members who will show up on election day and will vote their particular interest over all other considerations.
They don't wield ANY power other than financial and sweetheart deals.
You are woefully misinformed about these organizations. Their power, and what politicians fear, is angering their members. And politicians moderate their behavior accordingly.
Money only appears to dominate because voters do not exercise their power
Read your own sentence. "Appears" to dominate? No, it DOES dominate. Your contention that the voters could turn that around is entirely speculative.
Wrong. Voters voted in a punitive manner and unseated the well known and powerful House Minority leader. The winning candidate spent less the 1/10th the money of the incumbent. Votes trump money. Plus there are the examples of the NRA and AARP validating the punitive voting threat that moderates a politicians behavior throughout their term.
I'm not reading anything that says you know how to change the status quo
The fist step is to recognize the true nature of the problem. Its not money, its an abdication of power by the 99%. People who focus on money are in denial about the true problem, they are focusing on a symptom not the disease. They enable the status quo by doing so.
You want a plan, its simple. If you think a politician misbehaved or voted against your interests. Then vote against them. Repeat as necessary. The process is darwinian and does not yield results overnight. Convince others to behave likewise.
The alternative is the status quo and the theatre of reform that is campaign finance reform.
Sorry, but you are the one missing the point. Its not about your grandfather, about one individual vet. Its about the erroneous notion that you put forward that you and your friends are somehow less likely to be grossed out by an image because of growing up on horror movies. That is such a simplistic and superficial analysis.
It even contradicts the point you attempt to make. You fail to consider that the vets reactions are not necessarily due to a lack of horror movie exposure. It is far more likely based on an entirely different set of life experiences. It is well established that memories of combat are some of the most vivid and persistent, and these memories can be triggered for recall even by quite tangential events. A gross image can trigger such a recollection and motivate a reaction.
You are correct that life experiences can influence reactions, and that there can be a generational aspect to this. However to suggest a vet reacts differently that you due to horror movie exposure is absurd. That is my point.
And your guess about my not spending time around different generations, that is quite mistaken. I grew up in fairly small town with multiple generations of my family in relatively close proximity. I know very few people who spent more time around several different generations. This includes the WW2 generation.
In politics, votes are the true currency, the primary source of power. Money is a secondary source of power, a tool of persuasion to get votes, nothing more.
However the voters have this terrible habit or returning incumbents to office no matter how they act. Voters rarely vote punitively to remove a politician who misbehaves or votes against the interests of the people. By failing to vote punitively the 99% abdicate their power. This opens a windows for the 1% to have undue influence. However when the politicians go against the interests of the 1% the 1% will active punitively and direct their money to the opposition. And again, why does this have undue influence? Because the 99% do not vote punitively. 1/3 vote their party, and sufficiently disinterested and uninformed others exist that can be persuaded and this is where money comes in. Emphasize that money only has this undue influence because of a failure to vote punitively, even against one's own party.
Party loyalty makes a voter irrelevant. Your party has your vote so they can ignore you. The other party can not get your vote so they can ignore you. Want politicians to pay attention to you? Want them to keep your interests in mind? Then we need voters to demonstrate a willingness to vote punitively even against their own party. Votes are the true currency of politics, threaten to deprive a politician of votes and no amount of money can save him/her. This happens on rare instances. For example where the House Minority leader lost a recent election to a local professor who spent less than 1/10th what the high profile and powerful incumbent did. We need more of this on both ends of the political spectrum. This is the only way voters can regain control, by instilling fear into politicians.
Examples of such fear do exist. Consider the two most powerful lobbies in the country, the NRA and AARP. Their power is not in money, rather it is in the literal millions of members who will show up on election day and vote their interests, who have little to no party loyalty and will vote punitively. Politicians fear these groups because they deliver ***voters***, and politicians act according, careful not to anger these two groups.
Because it's not possible to run for the offices of power without money.
Untrue. Though out their term nearly all politicians will fear the NRA and AARP.
You logic fails quite easily. Why do they need that money? It is for the next election. They want to be re-elected. However if voters develop the habit of voting punitively, of kicking out an incumbent who misbehaves and goes against the people's interest, then politicians will avoid angering the people so they vote punitively. No amount of money will save a candidate when voters demonstrate a willingness to vote punitively.
Again, votes are of primary importance. Money is of secondary importance. There is merely a false impression that money is primary because voters do not exercise their power. They overwhelmingly return incumbents to office regardless of their conduct. This is what needs to change. Focusing on money is focusing on a symptom not the underlying disease.
The system was specifically designed to thwart the tyranny of the majority who could just ignore any minority. The system was specifically designed to encourage compromise. Today we have little compromise, so nearly nothing gets done. The system is working as designed. You really don't want straight majority rule. Minority groups of all kinds would have little to no protection.
The proportional representation that you refer to is how the House of Representatives works. The House is supposed to represent the people. The founders recognized that states as a whole also had interests, so the Senate was designed to represent state interests. Hence two senators from every state, so big states can not ignore the little states. Such an arrangement was absolutely necessary to get small states to ratify the constitution.
That said, the will of the people can still largely be enacted, within reason and protection of minority groups, in the current system. The problem is the people who are being elected to the House and Senate, they don't fear the voters. They know that about 1/3 will vote for them merely because of party. They know another 1/3 are ill-informed and persuadable by fair means and foul. The problem is with the voters, not the design of the system. Seriously, you want a system with competing centers of power that have to cooperate to get things done.
As I said, the problem is with the voters. Politicians do **not** fear the voters Fear of the voters is at the heart of keeping politicians honest and responsive to the interests of the people. Votes are the true currency of politics and a 1%'er have no more votes than a 99%'er. If the 99% ignored party and voted for the more capable and voted punitively against the misbehaving and those that go against the people's interest politicians would start to pay attention to the 99%. Politics is darwinian. Getting into office requires votes. Deprive a politician of votes and no amount of money makes a difference. The Republican House Minority leader recently lost an election where he spent millions and his opponent spent $150,000. This was a rare instance where the voters voted in a punitive manner. Much more of this is needed against members of both parties.
Also, lobbyist and special interest can be helpful here. Many put out a report card. So, have an issue you care about, go to the biggest special interest group for that issue. It doesn't matter if you agree with their position or not. If you agree with them their high rating are a good sign, if you disagree with them then their low ratings are a good sign.
Nice theory, but the problem is (and has been for some time) that no matter *who* you vote for, you get the same type of person: one who follows the path the money lays out. There will be no reform. It's over. Welcome to the oligarchy.
Wrong. You missed an important point, punitively voting against an incumbent who misbehaved or went against the interests of the people regardless of whether he represents your party or not. This will discipline politicians, this will bring about reform.
You are making a classic mistake by focusing on money. Votes are the true currency of politics, a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er, its still a one person one vote system. Money is just a tool to persuade the uninformed in search of those votes. The fallacy of money controlling politicians, the true secondary status of money in politics, is evidenced by the two most power lobbies in the US. The NRA and the AARP. These organization do not wield immense power because of their financial contributions. Their true power lies in their literal millions of highly motivated members who will show up on election day and will vote their particular interest over all other considerations.
Money only appears to dominate because voters do not exercise their power. Basically voters are currently creating a power vacuum by abdicating their power of control. It is truly as simple as this: a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er. Money can not control things unless the 99% allows it too. True reform will only come when voters exercise their power, especially so in a punitive manners.
Note that party loyalty is part of the problem with respect to money in politics. It takes away the punitive power of voters when an incumbent goes against the interests of the people in service to monied interests.
Slashdot Mirror
Those natural and reasonable boundaries are not being used.
I despise the term "founding Fathers" so patriarchal ...
Well it is a historical fact that they were entirely male, and they had an important role in the creation of a nation.
... so overly reverent. It's reminiscent of fascist hero worship.
So you are taking one of "those" classes in college :-). There is absolutely nothing inherently fascist about revering a "hero". "Heroes" of both sexes exist, of nearly all political schools of thought, of nearly all philosophies, of nearly all disciplines of science, or nearly all the arts, etc.
Mob rule is another term for the sam fallacy. Basically you're too stupid to make your own decision, ...
That is what a mob often is. Surrendering yourself to a charismatic leader(s) or to group thought.
... you should only choose which one of us will make them for you. An easy argument to sell and maintain when you look at the standard of American political debate.
And sophomoric political advocacy and debate as well. :-)
Aggregating/disaggregating voters based on social factors is an absolutely natural thing to occur when determining district boundaries using logical and reasonable methods. It is a big assumption on your part that these natural groupings should balance out. The world is far more complicated than that. Town and county lines and such do not necessarily map very well onto neighborhoods, business clusters, etc. Perhaps they did a couple of hundred years ago but today in much more heavily populated areas these natural boundaries are more often just lines on a map, a historical governmental administrative boundary. The boundaries defined by every day life and business are too fluid and changing in relatively small amounts of time.
Of course gerrymandering is a problem, re-read my first post.
It's lucky there's no fancy electronics involved in the engine, steering or weapons on a ship then.
I assume the Navy still have oars in the hold and cannons to fire when they arrive at their target?
The fancy electronics they are worried about are outside the ship, beyond their control, the GPS satellites. Electronics on board the ship are an entirely different story.
A non-gerrymandered congressional district, one with logical and natural borders -- say a town or county line, may split a cluster of people with like minded politics. Therefore you can't assume any such split is inherently gerrymandering, which is implied by your methodology.
Furthermore your notion that ideal districting preserves political blocks is flawed. Political blocks change with respect to locality, people migrate, neighborhoods evolve, etc.
However the most egregious assumption you have is that political affiliation and popular vote have some sort of 1:1 relationship. You are assuming that people vote strictly for their party's representatives. A district may be 55% Dem and 45% Rep, and the outcome of an election may be a Rep candidate with 55% of the vote. The outcome being the result of a large number of Dems voting for the Rep candidate.
I could go on but I think the point is made.
I already told you how to get the numbers yourself - combine popular votes from each state with the number of seats won by party, and observe the difference between the two. The higher it is, the more gerrymandered the state is.
Thanks for the clarification, we now know your numbers are entirely bogus.
I don't think navigation on the ocean was very forgiving before modern electronics. And I gather you still do it the old fashioned way as a back up, in case you ever find yourself without them.
I saw a documentary on a US Navy Aircraft Carrier, it had a relevant incident. The carrier has GPS, LORAN, inertial navigation, etc. Yet every day a sailor steps outside the bridge with a sextant and takes readings on the horizon and sun. (does another sailor do so at night with the stars?). He then goes inside and using a WW2 manufactured mechanical chronometer calculates the position of the ship. When asked why the Navy still uses such ancient mechanical technology the sailor replied that this ship is a warship and is expected to be where it needs to be regardless of whether the fancy electronics is working or not.
You know who doesn't like the "tyranny of the majority"? The minority who are in power. The basic premise seems to be "you shouldn't make decisions because you might do something bad to someone else".
I think the basic premise of the founding fathers was to avoid mob rule.
A 68 mile altitude absolutely does help. Reduced gravity, reduced drag, etc. From that point 100% of a rocket's fuel payload can be devoted to achieving a low earth orbit. Engineering advances absolutely help because the payload, say a satellite, may be much smaller and lighter.
Gerrymandering is far more prominent in Republican-controlled states, actually. It's fairly easy to see if you put the popular votes from each state alongside seats that are assigned to that state, and then sort by disparity. Assuming that popular vote reflects the ideal districting arrangement, Republican-controlled gerrymandering accounted for 26 seats for them in the 2012 election that they would not otherwise get, while Democrat-controlled accounted for 3 such seats for Dems.
Definitely need a citation for those numbers. I live in a true blue state. The Democratic gerrymandering was done many decades ago and has persisted to this day. Studies can easily give an inaccurate impression if they only look at 2010 based redistricting. If there is less Democratic gerrymandering it is due to a lack of opportunity not a lack of will. The Democratic controlled state legislature in my state is absolutely corrupt, they would if they could.
Translation....nothing to see here with this gerrymandering, move along citizen. GOP-run legislature in Texas draws the maps so the party that got 56% of the vote gets 75% of the seats in Congress? Pay no attention to the gerrymandering behind the curtain!
Did you fail to read my final paragraph? Here it is for your convenience:
"(*) Note that we are talking about the nationwide results, the results in all districts, not the results in one particular district. Gerrymandering is a problem, it is a local phenomena, and both parties actively engage in it. Gerrymandering is done at the state level, so whatever party controls the state legislature gets to gerrymander to give their party an advantage in federal elections. Thus there is a certain amount of canceling out in the US congress. In no way should this be interpreted to say gerrymandering is not a problem, it is"
It doesn't matter if SpaceShip Two is suborbital, it provides a 4 minute launch window at 68 miles altitude. With respect to the 1980's ASM-135 being suborbital, that it when launch from an F-15 at 7 miles altitude. A microgravity environment at 68 miles is a very different starting point. Plus we have 30 years of additional engineering advances since those launches.
Moments after my first post I had an idea. Some of my favorite homework assignments or lab projects were those that were steps towards a larger whole.
Maybe an A* based pathing implementation for a game should be the final result. Individual assignments steps along the path to this end result.
Arrays could implement static objects (obstacles) on a map.
Link lists could implement temporary objects (units, subject to destruction when they fire upon each other).
Maybe sort units in a linked list based on their position with respect to a line of movement, ex moving up sort by y position. As they move into range of enemy units those units at the front of the linked list are the first to come under fire, usually. When hit, destroyed, removed from list. List shorter for next round of fire.
Since its a class project keep things simple. Perhaps something similar to 1970s/80s tank arcade games. The map is a grid. Motion is only up, down, left, right. Obstacles are like walls, filling in an entire grid element or leaving it open. Units take up one grid element each.
Profile performance, before and after some improvement. Textbook A* vs modified A* using special info. Linked list search with and without sorting in direction of movement.
Speaking of profiling, that is something very important to mention in an interview. Attempts to optimize must be based on profiling. Both to make sure one is optimize the code path where cpu cycles are being spent and to confirm that a modification to the algorithm if in fact helping.
I'm not sure if a good fit can be found between the class topics and the components of such a minigame but it might be something worth taking a quick look at.
How to do punish everyone at the same time? By voting for the opposition, which incidentially, will do the exact same thing that resulted in punitive voting? The next election, switch back? All I see are circles.
Its darwinian. By repeatedly removing the misbehaving incumbents the politicians learn and adapt. The circles are not endless. Politicians will adapt, they will find a way to win a re-election, the goal is to create and environment that punishes those who diverge too far from the interests of the people. To create an environment where there is no loyal base they can count on.
Evaluation is done on coding style and the thoughts of the implementor as much as getting a correct solution.
...
Consider a simple problem. Detecting if a point is in a rectangle. The textbook answer is quite simple. The game implementation is not necessarily simple. Keep in mind that textbook answers have lots of preconditions, random data, neutral circumstances, etc. Actual implementation may not, leverage any knowledge of the data or circumstances. For example what is the likely case, point inside or outside; is the rectangle relatively small compared to the screen. Like the SAT pay attention to the details of the question. If the question states that the point is a missile and the rectangle is an enemy unit then the missile probably spends more time outside the rectangle than within, so optimize detection for the miss case. Also since the rectangle represents a unit it will be relatively small compared to the screen. Now think about the screen, is it wider than taller. Probably, if so further optimize your test for misses by comparing against the vertical edges first. Assuming firing takes place from any angle. The really important thing here is to show that you were thinking beyond the textbook and leveraging information about data and circumstances. Such thinking should be explained in comments.
So you've implemented some special purpose variant of an algorithm. You might want to implement the general case too. You might want to add a unit test that verifies that the special purpose case yields correct results for specific known inputs, edge cases etc, and that it matches the results of the generic implementation for some appropriate number of randomly generated cases. Of course doing so would be more appropriate it the evaluation is not timed. But if you finished early and have checked your work
When implementing code consider performance. For example if you need to test the distance between two points a classic implementation might use the distance formula, desired_dist >= sqrt((x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2). Note we don't need the actual distance and we can square both sides, desired_dist^2 >= (x2 - x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2, replacing a square root operation with a multiply operation. Be sure to comment the code when doing something like this.
Did I mention that comments should be explaining your motivations, what you are thinking, what you are trying to accomplish? Not simply restating in english what code does.
Knowing how to implement data structures like a doubly linked list would be a good idea, however knowing how to do so in a multithreaded environment is even better. It might be a bit beyond what is expected for students in a lower division class but it would definitely be important at the time of a job application. Perhaps a brief mention in class might be useful, a little hand waiving and telling them to call placeholders lock() / unlock() would be fine. No need to have them actually implement calls to pthreads if their prerequisites don't warrant it.
So, an overall theme. Questions may be less about "regurgitating" the correct answer and more about showing how you think about problems and how you implement solutions, and how well you leverage any additional information available.
It wasn't at a game company but I once had a question during an interview that was very illustrative of what I'm trying to get across. The question listed 6 sorting algorithms and asked for the run time complexity. I answered bubble sort and qsort and then wrote "I own Knuth vol 3 Sorting and Searching so I don't have to memorize this sort of trivia". After this written test the project lead asked why I thought this question a "trivia question". I explained that the textbook run time complexity answers assume random data, and that if your data is not random the run time for these algorithms can change wildly. One algorithm may be the best choice for random data, another for mostly sorted data and still another for mostly unsorted data. I go
I'm glad you agreed with everything I said then...
You have a persistent reading comprehension problem. :-)
The objections you offer are meaningless. Its not about finding and electing good candidates. Its about punishing bad representatives. Instilling fear into representatives that if they go too far they will loose their office. Punitive voting, i.e. discipling the elected, is a far simpler matter than finding the ideal and proper candidates. It doesn't rely on what they say, it only relies on what they do.
Again, the "bribery" you refer to is a secondary issue. It can only be effective when the candidate does not fear the voter. Create a fear of the voter, a fear of losing office due to punitive voting, and that bribe from the 1% loses its value. For example Mayor Bloomberg can offer millions to Democratic representative to support gun control but if the district has a sufficient number of NRA members and similarly minded voters then that candidate won't support additional gun control laws. Punitive voting trumps money. It happens all the time, term after term. What I am proposing is apply this punitive voting on a larger scale.
Again, I have never disagreed with the notion that different generations may have different reactions. If someone is missing the point every single time it is you. If you think I have argued the "inverse" you are thoroughly confused.
My disagreement is entirely with your notion that horror movies explain you and your friend's reaction to gross images compared to a WW2 vet. That statement was absurdly naive. The "contradiction" I referred to is you complaining that others did not properly account for other variables and yet you do the same in the WW2 vet vs your friends example.
Voting doesn't do any good unless you can put people in who will behave differently. And you can't.
You fail to understand the process. It is a darwinian process. After repeated instances of punitive voting elected officials will adapt. The politician's goal is re-election, if punitive voting threatens re-election politicians will avoid angering the voters. As they currently avoid angering organizations like the NRA and AARP whose members apply punitively voting tactics. My argument is basically taking the tactics of these very successful lobbying organizations and having them applied by the voters en mass.
lol. The innocence of a child. Let me explain it to you.
You are unable to explain anything since you don't understand the facts. If voters decide to vote in a punitive manner then no amount of money can save a candidate. Whether one candidate puts on a better campaign to dress himself or herself up as more attractive is not relevant. The voter is voting punitively due to past actions. The current election theatre is irrelevant.
Voting for who gets in office does nothing. The only people who get in are people who will take benefits in return for taking specific positions.
Nearly all politicians desire re-election. Fear of punitive voting will moderate this behavior to acceptable levels.
They don't wield ANY power other than financial and sweetheart deals.
You are woefully misinformed about these organizations. Their power, and what politicians fear, is angering their members. And politicians moderate their behavior accordingly.
Read your own sentence. "Appears" to dominate? No, it DOES dominate. Your contention that the voters could turn that around is entirely speculative.
Wrong. Voters voted in a punitive manner and unseated the well known and powerful House Minority leader. The winning candidate spent less the 1/10th the money of the incumbent. Votes trump money. Plus there are the examples of the NRA and AARP validating the punitive voting threat that moderates a politicians behavior throughout their term.
I'm not reading anything that says you know how to change the status quo
The fist step is to recognize the true nature of the problem. Its not money, its an abdication of power by the 99%. People who focus on money are in denial about the true problem, they are focusing on a symptom not the disease. They enable the status quo by doing so.
You want a plan, its simple. If you think a politician misbehaved or voted against your interests. Then vote against them. Repeat as necessary. The process is darwinian and does not yield results overnight. Convince others to behave likewise.
The alternative is the status quo and the theatre of reform that is campaign finance reform.
Sorry, but you are the one missing the point. Its not about your grandfather, about one individual vet. Its about the erroneous notion that you put forward that you and your friends are somehow less likely to be grossed out by an image because of growing up on horror movies. That is such a simplistic and superficial analysis.
It even contradicts the point you attempt to make. You fail to consider that the vets reactions are not necessarily due to a lack of horror movie exposure. It is far more likely based on an entirely different set of life experiences. It is well established that memories of combat are some of the most vivid and persistent, and these memories can be triggered for recall even by quite tangential events. A gross image can trigger such a recollection and motivate a reaction.
You are correct that life experiences can influence reactions, and that there can be a generational aspect to this. However to suggest a vet reacts differently that you due to horror movie exposure is absurd. That is my point.
And your guess about my not spending time around different generations, that is quite mistaken. I grew up in fairly small town with multiple generations of my family in relatively close proximity. I know very few people who spent more time around several different generations. This includes the WW2 generation.
In politics, votes are the true currency, the primary source of power. Money is a secondary source of power, a tool of persuasion to get votes, nothing more.
However the voters have this terrible habit or returning incumbents to office no matter how they act. Voters rarely vote punitively to remove a politician who misbehaves or votes against the interests of the people. By failing to vote punitively the 99% abdicate their power. This opens a windows for the 1% to have undue influence. However when the politicians go against the interests of the 1% the 1% will active punitively and direct their money to the opposition. And again, why does this have undue influence? Because the 99% do not vote punitively. 1/3 vote their party, and sufficiently disinterested and uninformed others exist that can be persuaded and this is where money comes in. Emphasize that money only has this undue influence because of a failure to vote punitively, even against one's own party.
Party loyalty makes a voter irrelevant. Your party has your vote so they can ignore you. The other party can not get your vote so they can ignore you. Want politicians to pay attention to you? Want them to keep your interests in mind? Then we need voters to demonstrate a willingness to vote punitively even against their own party. Votes are the true currency of politics, threaten to deprive a politician of votes and no amount of money can save him/her. This happens on rare instances. For example where the House Minority leader lost a recent election to a local professor who spent less than 1/10th what the high profile and powerful incumbent did. We need more of this on both ends of the political spectrum. This is the only way voters can regain control, by instilling fear into politicians.
Examples of such fear do exist. Consider the two most powerful lobbies in the country, the NRA and AARP. Their power is not in money, rather it is in the literal millions of members who will show up on election day and vote their interests, who have little to no party loyalty and will vote punitively. Politicians fear these groups because they deliver ***voters***, and politicians act according, careful not to anger these two groups.
Because it's not possible to run for the offices of power without money.
Untrue. Though out their term nearly all politicians will fear the NRA and AARP.
You logic fails quite easily. Why do they need that money? It is for the next election. They want to be re-elected. However if voters develop the habit of voting punitively, of kicking out an incumbent who misbehaves and goes against the people's interest, then politicians will avoid angering the people so they vote punitively. No amount of money will save a candidate when voters demonstrate a willingness to vote punitively.
Again, votes are of primary importance. Money is of secondary importance. There is merely a false impression that money is primary because voters do not exercise their power. They overwhelmingly return incumbents to office regardless of their conduct. This is what needs to change. Focusing on money is focusing on a symptom not the underlying disease.
The system was specifically designed to thwart the tyranny of the majority who could just ignore any minority. The system was specifically designed to encourage compromise. Today we have little compromise, so nearly nothing gets done. The system is working as designed. You really don't want straight majority rule. Minority groups of all kinds would have little to no protection.
The proportional representation that you refer to is how the House of Representatives works. The House is supposed to represent the people. The founders recognized that states as a whole also had interests, so the Senate was designed to represent state interests. Hence two senators from every state, so big states can not ignore the little states. Such an arrangement was absolutely necessary to get small states to ratify the constitution.
That said, the will of the people can still largely be enacted, within reason and protection of minority groups, in the current system. The problem is the people who are being elected to the House and Senate, they don't fear the voters. They know that about 1/3 will vote for them merely because of party. They know another 1/3 are ill-informed and persuadable by fair means and foul. The problem is with the voters, not the design of the system. Seriously, you want a system with competing centers of power that have to cooperate to get things done.
As I said, the problem is with the voters. Politicians do **not** fear the voters Fear of the voters is at the heart of keeping politicians honest and responsive to the interests of the people. Votes are the true currency of politics and a 1%'er have no more votes than a 99%'er. If the 99% ignored party and voted for the more capable and voted punitively against the misbehaving and those that go against the people's interest politicians would start to pay attention to the 99%. Politics is darwinian. Getting into office requires votes. Deprive a politician of votes and no amount of money makes a difference. The Republican House Minority leader recently lost an election where he spent millions and his opponent spent $150,000. This was a rare instance where the voters voted in a punitive manner. Much more of this is needed against members of both parties.
Have you tried google? One of the interesting things that came up for me is http://www.opencongress.org./
Also, lobbyist and special interest can be helpful here. Many put out a report card. So, have an issue you care about, go to the biggest special interest group for that issue. It doesn't matter if you agree with their position or not. If you agree with them their high rating are a good sign, if you disagree with them then their low ratings are a good sign.
Nice theory, but the problem is (and has been for some time) that no matter *who* you vote for, you get the same type of person: one who follows the path the money lays out. There will be no reform. It's over. Welcome to the oligarchy.
Wrong. You missed an important point, punitively voting against an incumbent who misbehaved or went against the interests of the people regardless of whether he represents your party or not. This will discipline politicians, this will bring about reform.
You are making a classic mistake by focusing on money. Votes are the true currency of politics, a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er, its still a one person one vote system. Money is just a tool to persuade the uninformed in search of those votes. The fallacy of money controlling politicians, the true secondary status of money in politics, is evidenced by the two most power lobbies in the US. The NRA and the AARP. These organization do not wield immense power because of their financial contributions. Their true power lies in their literal millions of highly motivated members who will show up on election day and will vote their particular interest over all other considerations.
Money only appears to dominate because voters do not exercise their power. Basically voters are currently creating a power vacuum by abdicating their power of control. It is truly as simple as this: a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er. Money can not control things unless the 99% allows it too. True reform will only come when voters exercise their power, especially so in a punitive manners.
Note that party loyalty is part of the problem with respect to money in politics. It takes away the punitive power of voters when an incumbent goes against the interests of the people in service to monied interests.