These hash twins would probably have failed at an interview where, rather than just setting a programming test, they were asked "how would you solve this problem?", and as they flapped their arms and talked about inline assembler (I'd have booted them out of the door by that stage), they could be probed "so, what kind of data structure would you use?". You wouldn't need to see them write the syntax for the associative array, but you could tell whether they were familiar with the concept. Of course, such an interactive setup gives them the chance to ask back "what are the access patterns like? ratio of reads to writes? are some elements accessed very frequently compared to others? would those access patterns change over time, or be time independent?" which would show that they didn't just know about the general concept of such data structures, but that there were many many implementation choices.
That set-up can also help the guy who chokes under the spotlight, but does actually know his stuff - you can gently squeeze the knowledge out of him.
But as a further handy hint, don't waste time uglifying your code with constructs such as '(0 == expr)'. It is more important that code be readable, and "if zero is..." is not a useful thing to read.
> If you want to evaluate his skill, ask him to do something that's relevant to the added value that's making you hire him in the first place.
This is good.
At one interview, I got asked to review a page of real code from their current development tree. Asked for three to five things, I spotted half a dozen major things, the same number of minor things, and a few cosmetic ones too.
I was on my first company social later that evening.
Being a skeptical engineer, I wouldn't parrot a misleading figure like "22364 miles". I wouldn't even use a more appropriate figure like "22000 miles", I'd use the original figure, in its original units - "36000 km". Of course, being an engineer, I'd want to attach a standard error to that measurement too, which seems to be about 10-20%.
But yes, gravitational systems can behave stochastically. However, there are no objects heavy enough to tug on Apophis enough to perterb its orbit enough before 2029. Our slingshot on it could have an wide range of possible outcomes, of course.
I heard of one respected hi-tech company giving a 3 hour C programming task. I scribbled my solution on the back of a beermat in about 3 minutes. Were I to have been able to do it in a functional language, it would have been a 1-liner.
I can only imagine that a 45 minute test would be "write a program which says 'hello' to the world".
It does indeed invite that question. Perhaps if people aim at an infrastructure which can juggle 2160p's easily, they'll see less need to cut corners (e.g. squeezing 3 stations down the bandwidth that ought to carry one high quality transmission) when juggling 1080p?
> I think you're underestimating the scale of the switch from B&W to color. I still remember when my parents got a color TV (we had a B&W set far longer than most people) and the difference was amazing and quite apparent to everyone.
I'm guessing from your spelling that you were watching a puke-tastic NTSC signal. Those who didn't let their colour channels drift out of control by alternating the phase on each line had an altogether less psychadelic TV experience. (Modulo TV presenters clothes, of course.)
So it might have been a very noticeable difference you were seeing, but it the change wasn't all improvement.
If you're mentioning physical media and renting, then clearly you don't view "TV" viewing as something that needs to be done in real time simultaniously. In that case, why did you not consider simply downloading at 1/nth speed, and watching later? What is it about 4K that excludes it from that usage pattern? If anything, it seems to encourage a "just torrent it afterwards, and watch it later" attitude due to the difficulty (i.e. cost) of streaming it. And for that, this is nothing but an evolution of what people are currently doing, not a revolution. 4 times the bandwidth is just a small constant factor (either in your patience, or your ISP connection).
And in raped altarboys, and throughout Westboro Baptist Church.
You can't be selective with the data, and simply through away the data points you don't like. Well, you can, as you've clearly lost all your critical thinking skills.
As someone who lost his job because of Elop, and I think he's definitely vying for a top-5 slot, you have to remember that Tomi Ahonen (behind that blog) is a total loon who is completely obsessed with Nokia, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
They are the middle and the endpoint. Without any proxying, you only have to trust their client on your terminal. With the proxy, you also have to trust their proxy on their server.
Fortunately, no servers have ever been hacked, and nobody's ever written an insecure proxy, so that worry can be dismissed.
Theorem: In a time-independent stochastic system, extremal events occur less and less frequently over time.
Input: We're seeing no fewer extremal data points than before, typically more.
Conclusion: Therefore we are not in a time-independent stochastic system. I.e. something is changing over time.
Note - I agree with you and I would *not* count Sandy as being a datapoint for extreme weather. It had lucky/unlucky, depending on your perspective, landfall, that's all. There's no reason not to expect real hurricanes (Sandy was a TS), to make landfall in the same place in the future. Hopefully fewer people have their generators in their basements next time.
> Religion does not require logic, except the self-reinforcing circular kind in a vacuum of un-reality
But do you really have evidence that SCOTUS is any different? I know people like to *believe* it's *infallible*. But that's what others say about religion too, using identical terms. It's even got an old document, written in several phases, which (apart from revisions) is considered the absolute truth to support itself.
Here's a similar situation - the capital city of Estonia, Tallinn, has just announced free public transport for all city residents. This altruistic move will make the city money, not cost them anything. How, I hear you ask? Because the Estonian government finance towns in proportion to their registered population, and amazingly the registered population has just jumped by 10% since the announcement of the scheme. (Which of course means I'm paying more for my free public transport than I ever did when it cost me money.)
Where does it come from? From tax-payers, via Little Men who like to shuffle bits of paper around.
"Their system" *includes* the badges themselves, not just the detectors and the centralised server.
The badges (at least the ones without RFID tags, which seems to be all of them, as a non-RFID one seems to have been offered, but declined), and therefore their system, thus do permit tracking of students off-campus by a sufficiently motivated party.
Do paragraphing not often, but only as often as makes sense. One-sentence paragraphs are for those with grade 2 reading and writing level.
See Anna Merkin.
See Anna Merkin paragraph.
Paragraph, Anna Merkin, paragraph.
And commit Strunk and White to the *bin*, not to memory. See the many comments by Pullum on Language Log and elsewhere, for example, for reasons why. Pay special attention to the fact that White apparently doesn't even know what the passive voice is before deciding you should follow anything he recommends.
That doesn't work so well when people from your original country have defiled the country you're moving to by treating it just as a stag-party destination where they just go for cheap beer and cheap strippers.
I think I'm an odd case as I was born into an F-using environment, dropped it for C at an early age, and then never took my temperature since then. I don't have a medical thermometer in my home, and haven't done for decades. So I don't even know what's a high temperature or a low temperature, as it basically means nothing to me. It's not an input I ever need to process. I can parrot "98.4", as some magical incantation from youth, but it's nothing more than shamanistic babble to my adult self.
As someone in Alaska, I presume that your nose will tell you the outside winter temperature to within a couple of degrees? Here in the European north I've become pretty accurate. So I do take a sniff and say to my g/f "it's only about -8 today", knowing pretty much for certain that it's not -10, or -6. Accuracy disappears a bit below -20, though, but such days are rare (and I stay indoors!).
> Unless somehow your version control system somehow magically achieves the ability to imbue the knowledge of all the things that you tried and failed, and why they failed.
Give up programming now, please, for the sake of all customers of any products you may be involved in, and those poor souls you work with or who may have to maintain your slop in the future. It is *your* job to ensure that you include a sensible commit message with your code deletion. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be programming.
Version control is your friend. If you're a dick, then you're a dick, and nothing will help you.
> deleting old code to hide it epic fails the DRY principle
Bollocks. Leaving redundant code in epically (notice that's an adverb, rather than an adjective) fails the DRY principle.
No wonder you posted as AC. You should be embarrased of what you wrote.
The guy who does "just removing the code with one cut" rather than "commenting out the code, then later removing the commented out code" can happily take a third as much time and be more efficient, as he's only doing half the number of changes. 1.33 < 2
Slashdot Mirror
These hash twins would probably have failed at an interview where, rather than just setting a programming test, they were asked "how would you solve this problem?", and as they flapped their arms and talked about inline assembler (I'd have booted them out of the door by that stage), they could be probed "so, what kind of data structure would you use?". You wouldn't need to see them write the syntax for the associative array, but you could tell whether they were familiar with the concept. Of course, such an interactive setup gives them the chance to ask back "what are the access patterns like? ratio of reads to writes? are some elements accessed very frequently compared to others? would those access patterns change over time, or be time independent?" which would show that they didn't just know about the general concept of such data structures, but that there were many many implementation choices.
That set-up can also help the guy who chokes under the spotlight, but does actually know his stuff - you can gently squeeze the knowledge out of him.
But as a further handy hint, don't waste time uglifying your code with constructs such as '(0 == expr)'. It is more important that code be readable, and "if zero is ..." is not a useful thing to read.
> If you want to evaluate his skill, ask him to do something that's relevant to the added value that's making you hire him in the first place.
This is good.
At one interview, I got asked to review a page of real code from their current development tree. Asked for three to five things, I spotted half a dozen major things, the same number of minor things, and a few cosmetic ones too.
I was on my first company social later that evening.
Being a skeptical engineer, I wouldn't parrot a misleading figure like "22364 miles". I wouldn't even use a more appropriate figure like "22000 miles", I'd use the original figure, in its original units - "36000 km". Of course, being an engineer, I'd want to attach a standard error to that measurement too, which seems to be about 10-20%.
But yes, gravitational systems can behave stochastically. However, there are no objects heavy enough to tug on Apophis enough to perterb its orbit enough before 2029. Our slingshot on it could have an wide range of possible outcomes, of course.
> The real probability is either 0 or 100%.
That's not how probability works. The same could be said about *anything* in the future or is currently unknown. So it's basically meaningless.
So yes, they are valid.
I heard of one respected hi-tech company giving a 3 hour C programming task. I scribbled my solution on the back of a beermat in about 3 minutes. Were I to have been able to do it in a functional language, it would have been a 1-liner.
I can only imagine that a 45 minute test would be "write a program which says 'hello' to the world".
It does indeed invite that question. Perhaps if people aim at an infrastructure which can juggle 2160p's easily, they'll see less need to cut corners
(e.g. squeezing 3 stations down the bandwidth that ought to carry one high quality transmission) when juggling 1080p?
> I think you're underestimating the scale of the switch from B&W to color. I still remember when my parents got a color TV (we had a B&W set far longer than most people) and the difference was amazing and quite apparent to everyone.
I'm guessing from your spelling that you were watching a puke-tastic NTSC signal. Those who didn't let their colour channels drift out of control by alternating the phase on each line had an altogether less psychadelic TV experience. (Modulo TV presenters clothes, of course.)
So it might have been a very noticeable difference you were seeing, but it the change wasn't all improvement.
If you're mentioning physical media and renting, then clearly you don't view "TV" viewing as something that needs to be done in real time simultaniously. In that case, why did you not consider simply downloading at 1/nth speed, and watching later? What is it about 4K that excludes it from that usage pattern? If anything, it seems to encourage a "just torrent it afterwards, and watch it later" attitude due to the difficulty (i.e. cost) of streaming it. And for that, this is nothing but an evolution of what people are currently doing, not a revolution. 4 times the bandwidth is just a small constant factor (either in your patience, or your ISP connection).
And in raped altarboys, and throughout Westboro Baptist Church.
You can't be selective with the data, and simply through away the data points you don't like. Well, you can, as you've clearly lost all your critical thinking skills.
As someone who lost his job because of Elop, and I think he's definitely vying for a top-5 slot, you have to remember that Tomi Ahonen (behind that blog) is a total loon who is completely obsessed with Nokia, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Sheesh, ignore the witty final comment - the above is informative, not funny.
They are the middle and the endpoint. Without any proxying, you only have to trust their client on your terminal. With the proxy, you also have to trust their proxy on their server.
Fortunately, no servers have ever been hacked, and nobody's ever written an insecure proxy, so that worry can be dismissed.
Theorem: In a time-independent stochastic system, extremal events occur less and less frequently over time.
Input: We're seeing no fewer extremal data points than before, typically more.
Conclusion: Therefore we are not in a time-independent stochastic system. I.e. something is changing over time.
Note - I agree with you and I would *not* count Sandy as being a datapoint for extreme weather. It had lucky/unlucky, depending on your perspective, landfall, that's all. There's no reason not to expect real hurricanes (Sandy was a TS), to make landfall in the same place in the future. Hopefully fewer people have their generators in their basements next time.
> Religion does not require logic, except the self-reinforcing circular kind in a vacuum of un-reality
But do you really have evidence that SCOTUS is any different? I know people like to *believe* it's *infallible*. But that's what others say about religion too, using identical terms. It's even got an old document, written in several phases, which (apart from revisions) is considered the absolute truth to support itself.
Here's a similar situation - the capital city of Estonia, Tallinn, has just announced free public transport for all city residents. This altruistic move will make the city money, not cost them anything. How, I hear you ask? Because the Estonian government finance towns in proportion to their registered population, and amazingly the registered population has just jumped by 10% since the announcement of the scheme. (Which of course means I'm paying more for my free public transport than I ever did when it cost me money.)
Where does it come from? From tax-payers, via Little Men who like to shuffle bits of paper around.
"Their system" *includes* the badges themselves, not just the detectors and the centralised server.
The badges (at least the ones without RFID tags, which seems to be all of them, as a non-RFID one seems to have been offered, but declined), and therefore their system, thus do permit tracking of students off-campus by a sufficiently motivated party.
Pah. You should have left it at 4 points.
Do paragraphing not often, but only as often as makes sense. One-sentence paragraphs are for those with grade 2 reading and writing level.
See Anna Merkin.
See Anna Merkin paragraph.
Paragraph, Anna Merkin, paragraph.
And commit Strunk and White to the *bin*, not to memory. See the many comments by Pullum on Language Log and elsewhere, for example, for reasons why. Pay special attention to the fact that White apparently doesn't even know what the passive voice is before deciding you should follow anything he recommends.
That doesn't work so well when people from your original country have defiled the country you're moving to by treating it just as a stag-party destination where they just go for cheap beer and cheap strippers.
In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass.
-- NIST
All of that makes sense.
I think I'm an odd case as I was born into an F-using environment, dropped it for C at an early age, and then never took my temperature since then. I don't have a medical thermometer in my home, and haven't done for decades. So I don't even know what's a high temperature or a low temperature, as it basically means nothing to me. It's not an input I ever need to process. I can parrot "98.4", as some magical incantation from youth, but it's nothing more than shamanistic babble to my adult self.
As someone in Alaska, I presume that your nose will tell you the outside winter temperature to within a couple of degrees? Here in the European north I've become pretty accurate. So I do take a sniff and say to my g/f "it's only about -8 today", knowing pretty much for certain that it's not -10, or -6. Accuracy disappears a bit below -20, though, but such days are rare (and I stay indoors!).
> Unless somehow your version control system somehow magically achieves the ability to imbue the knowledge of all the things that you tried and failed, and why they failed.
Give up programming now, please, for the sake of all customers of any products you may be involved in, and those poor souls you work with or who may have to maintain your slop in the future. It is *your* job to ensure that you include a sensible commit message with your code deletion. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be programming.
Version control is your friend. If you're a dick, then you're a dick, and nothing will help you.
> deleting old code to hide it epic fails the DRY principle
Bollocks. Leaving redundant code in epically (notice that's an adverb, rather than an adjective) fails the DRY principle.
No wonder you posted as AC. You should be embarrased of what you wrote.
Dan Bernstein has that approach. IPC is cheap nowadays, security and bugs are expensive, so it's a sensible trade.
The guy who does "just removing the code with one cut" rather than "commenting out the code, then later removing the commented out code" can happily take a third as much time and be more efficient, as he's only doing half the number of changes. 1.33 < 2
I'm talking about the skeumorphic icons in the MS interface which apparently you're too thick to recognise.
It always gives me pleasure to see people who gush with positive things to say about Microsoft products demonstrate how interminably dumb they are.