I'd rather take my time asking you your knowledge of key libraries and interfaces
What use is that? That is asking for rote memorization.
If you really wanted to test someone's rote memorization of the Big O notation values of various algorithms
Why would you want to test that? That's pointless. At the very least if you ask about complexity of common algorithms, you should also ask them to explain how they determined it, or could determine it. Even better, ask them to create an algorithm to solve a problem, then ask them about the complexity of that. Then they have to actually work out the complexity, demonstrating that they understand asymptotic complexity as a concept, rather than just regurgitating. Then take it one step further and see if they understand the difference between asymptotic and real-world complexity, and why the ideal algorithm for massive data sets may not be at all appropriate for small ones.
My goal in an interview is to make the candidate think, and to watch how they do it. How do they explore the solution space? Do they tend to get stuck on one unproductive line of inquiry, or can they step back and try another angle? Can they see ways to reformulate the problem to simplify it? Generalize it? Specialize it? Do they understand the tradeoffs of various design decisions? How effectively do they collaborate with me on the solution? Good engineers know when to ask for help.
Oh, and... can they write code? Because it's amazing how many people walk in fully able to talk the talk but when asked to produce some functional, reasonably-clean code fall flat on their faces.
Those are useful things to ask about. Memories of libraries and interfaces? Useless. Actually, probably counterproductive unless what you really want is someone who is deeply specialized, then you can ask about the relevant components in that specialty. But in the common case it's far more important to find out if they can reason, problem-solve, code and interact with you. They can google the specifics.
its stupid to demand or even ask a programmer to recall, from memory
Yes, this is why one of the requirements for good Google interview questions is that they not rely on specific knowledge. They tend to ask you to invent and implement a new algorithm, not remember an old one. Where interviewers do ask questions that require specific knowledge, they're happy to provide whatever you don't remember.
You end up with an interview process that, regardless of the actual work, the further away from school you are (ie: the older you are), the less likely you are to pass the interview, give or take people who worked as data or algorithm scientists in the recent past.
Nice theory, but as I understand it, higher percentages of candidates with professional experience are hired than of candidates fresh out of school. I'm 45 and was hired by Google four years ago. Most of my team was in the 40s, with several in their 50s and a few in their 60s.
There is an issue that older guys who haven't reviewed their algorithms, data structures, complexity, etc. recently may be a little rusty. Most of the time this doesn't actually create any issues, and it's pretty easy for older guys to address simply by brushing up before the interview. I did.
I see a company with cafeterias open late, games, etc, and I see a company that wants me to spend every waking hour at work.
Actually, Google doesn't. The cafes are open late because people work all sorts of odd schedules. Some don't come in until noon and leave late, some show up early and take off at 3. In the Mountain View office there's a lot of both of those patterns, mainly because traffic sucks so bad that people try to schedule around it.
As for the games and stuff, that's just recognition that taking a break is good for think time. Massage services, espresso bars, etc., are all parts of that.
I've been a Google software engineer for four years and there has never been the slightest pressure on me to work long hours. Not only has no one ever asked me to, no one has hinted, implied or anything else, and on a few occasions when I chose to work late my old manager noticed and told me to go home. I'm not saying every manager is that way, in fact I don't think my current manager would ever say anything to me about my work schedule, whether I worked around the clock or hardly at all. Eventually my lack of productivity would provoke a response, though it would probably take a quarter or so.
Now, there are people who work a lot of hours at Google. Mostly young people who don't have anything better to do and are really excited about what they're building. And mostly no one tells them not to. But there are plenty of others who work normal hours, and no one says anything to them, either.
It's not drilling, it's pumping very high pressure water into the cracks in the earth to release the gas. That's what fracking is, it is using water pressure to "crack" open the rock to release the natural gas.
So you're suggesting that the pumps are adding enough energy to move millions of tons of earth and rock? Really?
That's nonsense. All they're doing is breaking loose enormous energies that were already there.
We are talking about areas that until recently have been considered geologically stable
The fact that we were recently wrong about the stability of the area isn't really relevant. The drilling couldn't add enormous amounts of energy to the substrata, in the form of stresses that required shifting enormous amounts of rock to release, so you have to assume that the stresses were already present. When or how would they have been released without the drilling is an important question, but they would have been released eventually. Is this way of releasing them better or worse? I don't think we know that.
Don't you think that the USGS have taken that into account?
I don't see anyone claiming that they didn't. What would you expect?
FYI, my G Watch R regularly gets better than 24 hours on a charge. I mean, the battery is at like 5% the next morning if I forgot to put it on the charger the night before, which means it's useless until it's charged a bit, but it does last a full day.
At least with google it works reasonably well (even outside the US) without having to install another layer of poop in my phone. Was surprised to see my bank name showing up on an incoming call.
I think the two are complementary. Google's reverse lookups often don't find matches for personal numbers, but do a great job with businesses -- it's particularly cool if the business has actually set up their Google page; you get not just the business name, but imagery chosen by the business. For personal numbers, I think Google only finds people who have their number in the Google profile. Given that most people don't bother to configure their Google profile, there are a lot of misses.
FB, of course, is the dominant social network and thus it's much more likely that their lookup for any person that calls you will find a match.
Of course, in both cases you have to balance the convenience of the feature against the privacy implications. Personally, I trust Google far more than I do Facebook to behave responsibly with my data, and for that reason I'm heavily invested in the Google ecosystem (I also work for Google) while I deleted my Facebook account years ago after they unilaterally changed my privacy settings without informing me. In fairness to Facebook, I think they've gotten somewhat better about such things, but I still don't use them. Others feel the same way about Google, and if so they should disable Caller ID by Google.
Have you actually used an Android Wear device, rather than just reading the docs? If not, your comments about battery life also have to be called into question -- particularly since you have to be comparing against Apple's claims, which are almost certainly optimistic. Most everything else in your list is of subjective value. The two factual complaints are incorrect.
FWIW, I have used a Moto 360, and have an LG G Watch and an LG G Watch R. The G Watch R is what I'm currently wearing.
I should also point out that I'd actually like to see the Apple Watch succeed. I'm an Android engineer, but I'm a big fan of competition, and I think Google is far more effective when it's being challenged. But at least so far what I see in the Apple Watch is a few differences which are irrelevant, and a few which appear to be bad ideas.
I have no doubt that Apple will sell a fair number of watches on the strength of their brand, but that sort of competition doesn't benefit consumers. Good ideas, well-executed, that make the device better than the competition in important practical ways are what we need... and I don't see them in the first generation Apple Watch. I don't think Jobs would have launched this device as it is were he alive.
I hope I'm proved wrong.
The Pebble Time, however, really does look interesting. I guess that's my biggest complaint about the Apple Watch... it's eating market and mind share that could go to more interesting and innovative devices that really could push Google.
How can you block a notification for Android Wear for an app that does not have a corresponding Wear app? Blocking of notifications seemed to require that.
Nope, you can mute any app. There are two ways to do it. If you swipe left on the notification you get a screen (possibly after a couple of swipes; depends on the type of notification) that offers to mute app. Tap that. Alternatively, if you open the Android Wear app on your phone, go into settings and tap "Block app notifications", you can add apps to block.. and remove blocks, too.
Texas is a big place. If you want to go practically anywhere out of your town and back again in the same day, it will take you a lot longer than four hours.
Sure. The same is true in many places in the western US, and some much more so than Texas. But if that's your normal driving routine, that sucks, and not being able to use an EV is the least of your problems. Unless you're a professional driver, that is. In that case spending all day driving isn't a waste of time, it's a living.
For the vast majority of people in the US who own two or more vehicles, choosing an EV for one of them works very well. Whether or not it's more economical depends on many factors. I'll tell you, though, once you get used to the way an EV drives, it's hard to go back. When I bought mine, it made perfect sense financially. I moved and things changed so that it may no longer be such a great deal... but I really don't like it when I have to drive the ICEV.
So... when you have to relocate, how does it feel to have to ship your car across the country instead of driving it there?
It's not so bad. I paid $75 to rent a car carrier to tow behind the moving truck. Frankly, I'd have had to do the same if my car could drive that far, because we had three vehicles to move (including the moving truck) and only two drivers.
You know, your rant would have a lot more meaning if it weren't based entirely on a flawed assumption: that Google is changing non-mobile search ranking based on mobile site quality. They're not. Google is only changing the ranking of results delivered to mobile devices. The goal is to give people searching on mobile devices results that will work better on their devices.
But then Google would need to know you're a desktop, otherwise they're going to have different set of search results. And they don't want that.
They do know, and they do want that. That's the whole point.
How about doing this ONLY when the person is using a mobile device?
That's exactly what Google is doing. It's pretty clear in Google's announcement: "We’re boosting the ranking of mobile-friendly pages on mobile search results" (emphasis mine). See for yourself http://googlewebmastercentral....
I think it's time to get a crowdfunding scheme going. Maybe we can at least buy one congressman who's working for "the people".
This is exactly the idea behind Lawrence Lessig's[*] brainchild: MAYDAY PAC. It's a PAC whose mission is to end all PACs (including itself). It raised some money and tried some things in the last election cycle, but didn't succeed. However, Lessig says they learned some lessons and are gearing up to try again.
[*] If you don't recognize that name it's because you haven't been paying attention to these issues. Among other things, Lessig is the founder of Creative Commons.
I believe the typical rule of thumb when buying/building a house (bubble aside) is that it's worth ten years rent
Cite?
I just did some searching and found dozens of articles that put that rule of thumb at 15 years, and a fair number that put it at 20, but none that said 10.
Granted that as applied to Lucas' development it's a distinction without a difference, because Lucas would have to use a rule of thumb of about 150 years.
Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally (because there is no way for them to immigrate legally, which is the case for most Mexicans). Would your opinion of them change?
A more interesting question for those who would say "yes", if you could get them to answer it, is "Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally, and they were white Canadians?". I think the truth that most who sneer at illegals won't admit to is that it's not just about their illegal status, and in fact it's not even mostly about their illegal status. It's mostly about race and culture.
If that weren't the case, why not fix the illegals' status by providing good options for them to get on the right side of the law? Because the law isn't really the issue.
The smartness of the meter isn't the expensive part, it's making sure that power fed back into the system matches frequency and phase and cuts off when the grid loses power. You are required not to directly screw up your competitor, or engage in unsafe practices.
Grid-tie inverters that do all of that are necessary for this to work at all, long before you get to questions about supply and demand management.
Where on a continuum is "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
I don't know, but it's certainly higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard for legal conviction.
With that said, if you want to establish "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as the standard for capital punishment, I'm good with it in theory. In practice it'll be even more expensive than what we do now, and odds are you'll never execute anyone because the standard is impossible to meet. Which I guess may make it inexpensive, because no one will bother trying. But I don't think abolishing capital punishment is what you actually want.
As to capital punishment being too expensive, that is because they can appeal for ten million years. Have the execution one year after conviction unless enough evidence comes forward to call the initial trail into question.
So you're recommending that we solve the problem that the standard of proof is uncomfortably low for taking irreversible action by lowering the standard of proof. Keep in mind that the standard includes not just the stated standard for the one trial, but also the structure of the system of appeals, etc., which is in place to ensure that that trial was conducted correctly, and the appellate process also deals in shades of gray.
Lowering the standard as a way to solve the cost problem is fine for you, since you apparently have no doubts about the possibility of convicting innocent people, but it will inevitably increase the percentage of the population that opposes capital punishment, because they do have doubts. Again, I think that's not what you want.
They want to control your actions by trolling you.
Bah. I form my own opinions, and my opinion is that the current process with all of the appeals in place is fairly good but very expensive. It's still not perfect, mind you, as evidenced by the number of death row convictions that have been overturned (often MUCH more than one year after the conviction), but I don't believe perfection is possible, and I don't believe that we should do nothing just because we can't do it perfectly. So, if cost is irrelevant, then I don't object overmuch to the system we have, and I also wouldn't object to your "beyond a shadow of a doubt" system, assuming you could build one that works.
You either have confidence in the system or you don't.
I'm largely in agreement with your arguments, but this claim is nonsense. Confidence isn't boolean, it's a continuum. It makes perfect sense to talk about degree of confidence, and one can have enough confidence to imprison but not to execute.
FWIW, my opinion is that I have no moral problem with execution following a proper trial with an appropriate standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt is good), but I'm opposed to capital punishment because it's a waste of money. It ought to be cheaper than life imprisonment, but because execution is final we add a raft of additional legal processes, with the idea that they help to raise our confidence in the correctness of the conviction enough that we're okay with taking this irreversible step. There are two problems with that: First, the additional processes still don't actually increase our confidence enough and second, they actually cost more than caring for the accused for the remainder of his or her natural life.
That second point is, IMO, fatal to the concept of capital punishment. If it's cheaper and easier to just lock them up until they die then the only possible justification for the death penalty is the theoretical deterrent effect, but no one has ever shown any compelling evidence that the effect is significant.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather take my time asking you your knowledge of key libraries and interfaces
What use is that? That is asking for rote memorization.
If you really wanted to test someone's rote memorization of the Big O notation values of various algorithms
Why would you want to test that? That's pointless. At the very least if you ask about complexity of common algorithms, you should also ask them to explain how they determined it, or could determine it. Even better, ask them to create an algorithm to solve a problem, then ask them about the complexity of that. Then they have to actually work out the complexity, demonstrating that they understand asymptotic complexity as a concept, rather than just regurgitating. Then take it one step further and see if they understand the difference between asymptotic and real-world complexity, and why the ideal algorithm for massive data sets may not be at all appropriate for small ones.
My goal in an interview is to make the candidate think, and to watch how they do it. How do they explore the solution space? Do they tend to get stuck on one unproductive line of inquiry, or can they step back and try another angle? Can they see ways to reformulate the problem to simplify it? Generalize it? Specialize it? Do they understand the tradeoffs of various design decisions? How effectively do they collaborate with me on the solution? Good engineers know when to ask for help.
Oh, and... can they write code? Because it's amazing how many people walk in fully able to talk the talk but when asked to produce some functional, reasonably-clean code fall flat on their faces.
Those are useful things to ask about. Memories of libraries and interfaces? Useless. Actually, probably counterproductive unless what you really want is someone who is deeply specialized, then you can ask about the relevant components in that specialty. But in the common case it's far more important to find out if they can reason, problem-solve, code and interact with you. They can google the specifics.
its stupid to demand or even ask a programmer to recall, from memory
Yes, this is why one of the requirements for good Google interview questions is that they not rely on specific knowledge. They tend to ask you to invent and implement a new algorithm, not remember an old one. Where interviewers do ask questions that require specific knowledge, they're happy to provide whatever you don't remember.
You end up with an interview process that, regardless of the actual work, the further away from school you are (ie: the older you are), the less likely you are to pass the interview, give or take people who worked as data or algorithm scientists in the recent past.
Nice theory, but as I understand it, higher percentages of candidates with professional experience are hired than of candidates fresh out of school. I'm 45 and was hired by Google four years ago. Most of my team was in the 40s, with several in their 50s and a few in their 60s.
There is an issue that older guys who haven't reviewed their algorithms, data structures, complexity, etc. recently may be a little rusty. Most of the time this doesn't actually create any issues, and it's pretty easy for older guys to address simply by brushing up before the interview. I did.
I see a company with cafeterias open late, games, etc, and I see a company that wants me to spend every waking hour at work.
Actually, Google doesn't. The cafes are open late because people work all sorts of odd schedules. Some don't come in until noon and leave late, some show up early and take off at 3. In the Mountain View office there's a lot of both of those patterns, mainly because traffic sucks so bad that people try to schedule around it.
As for the games and stuff, that's just recognition that taking a break is good for think time. Massage services, espresso bars, etc., are all parts of that.
I've been a Google software engineer for four years and there has never been the slightest pressure on me to work long hours. Not only has no one ever asked me to, no one has hinted, implied or anything else, and on a few occasions when I chose to work late my old manager noticed and told me to go home. I'm not saying every manager is that way, in fact I don't think my current manager would ever say anything to me about my work schedule, whether I worked around the clock or hardly at all. Eventually my lack of productivity would provoke a response, though it would probably take a quarter or so.
Now, there are people who work a lot of hours at Google. Mostly young people who don't have anything better to do and are really excited about what they're building. And mostly no one tells them not to. But there are plenty of others who work normal hours, and no one says anything to them, either.
BTW, I'm 45.
Is this way of releasing them better or worse? I don't think we know that.
Let me guess, you're also a "climate skeptic"?
Not at all. Why do you ask?
It's not drilling, it's pumping very high pressure water into the cracks in the earth to release the gas. That's what fracking is, it is using water pressure to "crack" open the rock to release the natural gas.
So you're suggesting that the pumps are adding enough energy to move millions of tons of earth and rock? Really?
That's nonsense. All they're doing is breaking loose enormous energies that were already there.
We are talking about areas that until recently have been considered geologically stable
The fact that we were recently wrong about the stability of the area isn't really relevant. The drilling couldn't add enormous amounts of energy to the substrata, in the form of stresses that required shifting enormous amounts of rock to release, so you have to assume that the stresses were already present. When or how would they have been released without the drilling is an important question, but they would have been released eventually. Is this way of releasing them better or worse? I don't think we know that.
Don't you think that the USGS have taken that into account?
I don't see anyone claiming that they didn't. What would you expect?
FYI, my G Watch R regularly gets better than 24 hours on a charge. I mean, the battery is at like 5% the next morning if I forgot to put it on the charger the night before, which means it's useless until it's charged a bit, but it does last a full day.
At least with google it works reasonably well (even outside the US) without having to install another layer of poop in my phone. Was surprised to see my bank name showing up on an incoming call.
I think the two are complementary. Google's reverse lookups often don't find matches for personal numbers, but do a great job with businesses -- it's particularly cool if the business has actually set up their Google page; you get not just the business name, but imagery chosen by the business. For personal numbers, I think Google only finds people who have their number in the Google profile. Given that most people don't bother to configure their Google profile, there are a lot of misses.
FB, of course, is the dominant social network and thus it's much more likely that their lookup for any person that calls you will find a match.
Of course, in both cases you have to balance the convenience of the feature against the privacy implications. Personally, I trust Google far more than I do Facebook to behave responsibly with my data, and for that reason I'm heavily invested in the Google ecosystem (I also work for Google) while I deleted my Facebook account years ago after they unilaterally changed my privacy settings without informing me. In fairness to Facebook, I think they've gotten somewhat better about such things, but I still don't use them. Others feel the same way about Google, and if so they should disable Caller ID by Google.
Have you actually used an Android Wear device, rather than just reading the docs? If not, your comments about battery life also have to be called into question -- particularly since you have to be comparing against Apple's claims, which are almost certainly optimistic. Most everything else in your list is of subjective value. The two factual complaints are incorrect.
FWIW, I have used a Moto 360, and have an LG G Watch and an LG G Watch R. The G Watch R is what I'm currently wearing.
I should also point out that I'd actually like to see the Apple Watch succeed. I'm an Android engineer, but I'm a big fan of competition, and I think Google is far more effective when it's being challenged. But at least so far what I see in the Apple Watch is a few differences which are irrelevant, and a few which appear to be bad ideas.
I have no doubt that Apple will sell a fair number of watches on the strength of their brand, but that sort of competition doesn't benefit consumers. Good ideas, well-executed, that make the device better than the competition in important practical ways are what we need... and I don't see them in the first generation Apple Watch. I don't think Jobs would have launched this device as it is were he alive.
I hope I'm proved wrong.
The Pebble Time, however, really does look interesting. I guess that's my biggest complaint about the Apple Watch... it's eating market and mind share that could go to more interesting and innovative devices that really could push Google.
How can you block a notification for Android Wear for an app that does not have a corresponding Wear app? Blocking of notifications seemed to require that.
Nope, you can mute any app. There are two ways to do it. If you swipe left on the notification you get a screen (possibly after a couple of swipes; depends on the type of notification) that offers to mute app. Tap that. Alternatively, if you open the Android Wear app on your phone, go into settings and tap "Block app notifications", you can add apps to block.. and remove blocks, too.
I'm a developer, so I understand both systems.
Are you sure?
Texas is a big place. If you want to go practically anywhere out of your town and back again in the same day, it will take you a lot longer than four hours.
Sure. The same is true in many places in the western US, and some much more so than Texas. But if that's your normal driving routine, that sucks, and not being able to use an EV is the least of your problems. Unless you're a professional driver, that is. In that case spending all day driving isn't a waste of time, it's a living.
For the vast majority of people in the US who own two or more vehicles, choosing an EV for one of them works very well. Whether or not it's more economical depends on many factors. I'll tell you, though, once you get used to the way an EV drives, it's hard to go back. When I bought mine, it made perfect sense financially. I moved and things changed so that it may no longer be such a great deal... but I really don't like it when I have to drive the ICEV.
So... when you have to relocate, how does it feel to have to ship your car across the country instead of driving it there?
It's not so bad. I paid $75 to rent a car carrier to tow behind the moving truck. Frankly, I'd have had to do the same if my car could drive that far, because we had three vehicles to move (including the moving truck) and only two drivers.
here in Texas, having 300 miles of range (without running the AC) is going to be a problem for most people
They often drive for 4+ hours per day? That's gotta suck.
Yes, all of those issues were discussed and considered.
You know, your rant would have a lot more meaning if it weren't based entirely on a flawed assumption: that Google is changing non-mobile search ranking based on mobile site quality. They're not. Google is only changing the ranking of results delivered to mobile devices. The goal is to give people searching on mobile devices results that will work better on their devices.
But then Google would need to know you're a desktop, otherwise they're going to have different set of search results. And they don't want that.
They do know, and they do want that. That's the whole point.
How about doing this ONLY when the person is using a mobile device?
That's exactly what Google is doing. It's pretty clear in Google's announcement: "We’re boosting the ranking of mobile-friendly pages on mobile search results" (emphasis mine). See for yourself http://googlewebmastercentral....
I think it's time to get a crowdfunding scheme going. Maybe we can at least buy one congressman who's working for "the people".
This is exactly the idea behind Lawrence Lessig's[*] brainchild: MAYDAY PAC. It's a PAC whose mission is to end all PACs (including itself). It raised some money and tried some things in the last election cycle, but didn't succeed. However, Lessig says they learned some lessons and are gearing up to try again.
Check it out at http://mayday.us./
[*] If you don't recognize that name it's because you haven't been paying attention to these issues. Among other things, Lessig is the founder of Creative Commons.
Turn on subtitles. I almost always turn on subtitles for everything I watch, regardless of whether or not I speak the language.
Nope, I don't mean amnesty. Way to show you have zero understanding of the real problems with the immigration system.
I believe the typical rule of thumb when buying/building a house (bubble aside) is that it's worth ten years rent
Cite?
I just did some searching and found dozens of articles that put that rule of thumb at 15 years, and a fair number that put it at 20, but none that said 10.
Granted that as applied to Lucas' development it's a distinction without a difference, because Lucas would have to use a rule of thumb of about 150 years.
Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally (because there is no way for them to immigrate legally, which is the case for most Mexicans). Would your opinion of them change?
A more interesting question for those who would say "yes", if you could get them to answer it, is "Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally, and they were white Canadians?". I think the truth that most who sneer at illegals won't admit to is that it's not just about their illegal status, and in fact it's not even mostly about their illegal status. It's mostly about race and culture.
If that weren't the case, why not fix the illegals' status by providing good options for them to get on the right side of the law? Because the law isn't really the issue.
The smartness of the meter isn't the expensive part, it's making sure that power fed back into the system matches frequency and phase and cuts off when the grid loses power. You are required not to directly screw up your competitor, or engage in unsafe practices.
Grid-tie inverters that do all of that are necessary for this to work at all, long before you get to questions about supply and demand management.
Where on a continuum is "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?
I don't know, but it's certainly higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard for legal conviction.
With that said, if you want to establish "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as the standard for capital punishment, I'm good with it in theory. In practice it'll be even more expensive than what we do now, and odds are you'll never execute anyone because the standard is impossible to meet. Which I guess may make it inexpensive, because no one will bother trying. But I don't think abolishing capital punishment is what you actually want.
As to capital punishment being too expensive, that is because they can appeal for ten million years. Have the execution one year after conviction unless enough evidence comes forward to call the initial trail into question.
So you're recommending that we solve the problem that the standard of proof is uncomfortably low for taking irreversible action by lowering the standard of proof. Keep in mind that the standard includes not just the stated standard for the one trial, but also the structure of the system of appeals, etc., which is in place to ensure that that trial was conducted correctly, and the appellate process also deals in shades of gray.
Lowering the standard as a way to solve the cost problem is fine for you, since you apparently have no doubts about the possibility of convicting innocent people, but it will inevitably increase the percentage of the population that opposes capital punishment, because they do have doubts. Again, I think that's not what you want.
They want to control your actions by trolling you.
Bah. I form my own opinions, and my opinion is that the current process with all of the appeals in place is fairly good but very expensive. It's still not perfect, mind you, as evidenced by the number of death row convictions that have been overturned (often MUCH more than one year after the conviction), but I don't believe perfection is possible, and I don't believe that we should do nothing just because we can't do it perfectly. So, if cost is irrelevant, then I don't object overmuch to the system we have, and I also wouldn't object to your "beyond a shadow of a doubt" system, assuming you could build one that works.
You either have confidence in the system or you don't.
I'm largely in agreement with your arguments, but this claim is nonsense. Confidence isn't boolean, it's a continuum. It makes perfect sense to talk about degree of confidence, and one can have enough confidence to imprison but not to execute.
FWIW, my opinion is that I have no moral problem with execution following a proper trial with an appropriate standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt is good), but I'm opposed to capital punishment because it's a waste of money. It ought to be cheaper than life imprisonment, but because execution is final we add a raft of additional legal processes, with the idea that they help to raise our confidence in the correctness of the conviction enough that we're okay with taking this irreversible step. There are two problems with that: First, the additional processes still don't actually increase our confidence enough and second, they actually cost more than caring for the accused for the remainder of his or her natural life.
That second point is, IMO, fatal to the concept of capital punishment. If it's cheaper and easier to just lock them up until they die then the only possible justification for the death penalty is the theoretical deterrent effect, but no one has ever shown any compelling evidence that the effect is significant.