"On-line presence" = Wasting time on narcissistic, unproductive and ultimately useless activities.
I have an online presence. I post on Slashdot. I chat on IRC.
Not that I would dare provide a prospective employer with my pseudonyms, or dare post my real name (instead of an assumed name or
chosen nae) to my profile on Slashdot, Twitter, Facebook, or any other online service.
I *might* do a search of technical forums to see what kind of tech questions and answers my applicant is giving / asking.
The applicant probably have posted on such forums using a handle or assumed name. Many people don't use their real name
Furthermore, some unrelated person may have posted to tech forums and twitter using the same name as the prospective hire.
There may be unsettling tweets posted by a twitter or facebook account holder with the name of the prospective hire's real name, BUT the poster may be an unrelated person.
Even the far below-average programmer can still explain algorithms for trivial problems and write code that compiles. So such measures could only identify rather extremely poor performers....
Okay, then I suppose you will refuse to count "frequent inability to write code that even compiles" and "nigh continuous inability to describe an algorithm to solve even a trivial problem" as somehow not an objective sign of inferior developer performance?
Triviality is subjective. In my experience, people who are not programmers tend to greatly underestimate the complexity of certain programming and other technical tasks.
Someone who has an inability to write code that even compiles is probably a bad programmer.
But the ability to write code that compiles and describe algorithms to solve trivial problems is only sufficient to reject a hypothesis; it is not sufficient to imply that the person is a good or average programmer.
To be clear I believe she's telling the truth, but the chances that it can be proven to an extent that warrants an arrest, much less a conviction, are very low
Yes... but thievery is still a crime. And the ramifications are likely to be huge for all directly involved.
Suppose you were the guy's employer or prospective employer.
If charged with thievery. I for one would be suspending his employment on the spot.
If you are convicted of any crime, even thievery; as an Infosec worker, you are essentially tainted.
Frankly... even Georgia Weidman's accusation on her blog might make the guy unemployable.
Remember the whole Adria Richards PyCon fiasco... and that was just a tweet... and the offense alleged was minor and not a crime?
Yes; his blog doesn't say anything, but he does repudiate certain other tweets as lies.
He's not obliged to present any story in the public record, unless he is taken to stand trial.
He is known in the security community as having exposed certain vulnerabilities in network protocols.
He is has significantly more celebrity status than the person blogging the accusations.
The person blogging the accusations... well, I never heard of her. I think she is relatively obscure by comparison.
This may lead to the public having a certain default point of view, until/unless more evidence is presented;
there is a good chance that much of the community will be persuaded by the denial than by the accuser's version of events.
The article said she was attacked. Not that she was raped (she wasn't raped), according to her story, she alleges attempted rape.
Evidence of assault and robbery, which are very different from rape.
Assault and robbery would be an attack, and a serious crime....
Also, the idea that it's just his word against hers, is that the two are equally credible
If there's evidence that he committed any serious crime, then his denial of a rape charge would be less-believable than her story,
because that would make him non-credible, due to the history of robbery charges; that is evidence of (and/or guilt of) other crimes at the scene ---- in other words, supporting evidence for her story of a crime supports her entire version of events.
I believe that person could be objectively assessed to be a developer with inferior performance.
That's not developer performance. That is participation as an employee and degree of conformance with expectations.
If you're hired as a developer, and not writing any code when directed to, then you're not doing a job -- which is different from doing the job but performing poorly.
By the way, you could have a highly performing developer or designer frequently not showing up for work, for no reason other than laziness, and despite that, it's possible their development performance and total contribution to the effort will still exceed that of 10 other developers' combined.
Mainly because development work is highly mental; some people's level of ability is 20x that of the average developer's.
And you can do a lot of work when not actually "working". For example... a designer might have missed a day of "work" at the office, but been thinking about the design off and on throughout the weekend for 16+ hours, that the employer cannot hope to measure.
My main point is: when you have a developer that is actually working though. Performance measurement is too hard.
You can't count how much code they write -- because writing more code is not good, and counting code provides a perverse incentive for mediocre developers to strive to be more mediocre, while incentivizing more skilled developers to waste time and resources.
Furthermore, writing less code is not always good in some cases.
Quality of comments and variable names is subjective.
You can't measure how many features they add -- perverse incentive to work on the easiest features; and add as many unnecessary features as possible.
You can't measure how many bugs they fix or comits -- perverse incentive to ignore the issues that are the hardest to deal with, and concentrate on the unimportant.
There are serious difficulties just taking a commit or day's coding work and attempting to measure how productive or performant the developer was.
Because there are all these hidden characteristics and mental iteration that go behind every piece of code, that you cannot measure without getting into the developer's brain.
The security footage indicates he visited her, not the other way around. She was not in his room to leave things there. Why are you ignoring all the evidence to support rapists? Are you one of the nutjobs that thinks the world is out to keep the innocent white man down?
Did you see any evidence he wasn't just a burglar attempting to steal things and committing battery in the process?
Like her iPad, passport, that staff found in his room.
What happens when a robber attempts to forcibly remove someones clothing, to search for valuables under it, in its pockets, or to gather the article of clothing itself?
Since rape did not occur; I for one cannot gather intent. Although authorities might have more facts available to do so,
if she will stick around in Poland for a few years get formal charges filed and court proceedings...
Given that her allegations present a clear story explaining how these things happened, and his version of the story seems to contradict the actual facts and photographic evidence available - I'd say it's a good bet that he DID attempt to rape her.
No... i'd say it's a good bet they were in an altercation, AND he has not (that we have seen) blogged a satisfactory explanation for it.
Not that he has to. She may have exagerated or overreacted to something that was less than she blogged, and and an altercation doesn't necessarily mean attempted rape.
No reasonable person would draw such conclussions based only on her word and images of injury (both easy to create falsely)
A reasonable person would not assume the images were created falsely; in the absence of evidence to show images were created falsely.
She could easilly have been the attacker and he defending himself
The reasonable conclusion is he injured her -- regardless of who was attacker, and who was defender;
that her injury was received in an encounter with him.
A reasonable person would draw the conclusion that he must have injured her; if she was observed/not injured/, and he was observed not injured, prior to him entering her room.
And she and he were observed injured shortly afterwards.
Say what? According to the account she wrote on her blog, she had a black eye. Something physical went down. Has the guy she's accused written up any rebuttal to her charges?
The law enforcement officers' ought to have interviewed him for his side of the story.
I think all that's been reported that I have been able to find with Google is a denial; not an alternative version of events.
This world is a complex place, and one should be surprised to find someone with such a mental disorder to come up with such a number of blatant lies. It's sad, frustrating, and annoying... but not surprising.
Indeed.... perhaps there is a way to answer this. A full psychological evaluation of both bloggers, might shed some light as to whether none, one, or both, have a 'mental disorder'.
Bloggers cannot both be telling the truth, or can they?
It's interesting that you said 'her word against his' instead of 'his word against hers'
Does this express a bias in favor of his point of view; his word against hers, that there was no attempted assault, burglary, or rape?
Contrary to the physical damage to the both of them.
There is some evidence of attempted wrongdoing; or battery, at least, due to the physical wounds, and her missing stuff that was miraculously found to be in his possession.
Reportedly, he denies it. She presented no evidence. He presented none either, even though he is under no obligation to. No charges files. Her word against his.
Reportedly, he was in her room. They were both injured.
Reportedly, He took her stuff (passport, iPad).
Strong circumstantial evidence.
I understand, the evidence isn't strong enough to throw him in jail; however, it's not merely his word against hers.
So I guess the real conclusion is to hire as many candidates as you can as contract to hire or other temporary positions so you can rate their performance for a few months and easily drop them if they aren't cutting it.
Uh oh... you've stumbled upon the other farce and total pool of snake oil.... besides the technical interview.
"Code Metrics"
Every project is unique, and developer performance is entirely subjective... any attempts to measure it, so far, have been inherently flawwed.
Of course they may also be using such flawwed data to decide that the technical interview has no value
I thought that only those with something to hide needed privacy?
It's in order to make sure the accused cannot fight the accusations in court or in public, because the accusations won't be disclosed to the accused for national security reasons.
I do believe that has been reported to be the standard practice.
What reseller gives you 65% off? I priced out an R815 with those specs and the cheapest configuration I could come up with was around $13,500. (but they didn't have 500GB 15K SAS drives, so I used 600GB 10K)
You can lease it used fro a Dell reseller for a little more than $1000 a month, I believe.
But you're still paying a premium.
You don't have to go Dell though; there are plenty of whitebox server vendors.
Wow, DNR regulates hunting of mosquittos & houseflies?!?
No, but mosquittos and houseflies are very small, and not particularly vulnerable to being irradiated with X-rays. Although it may be more effective against the pupae.
See this article on the eficacy of Gamma Radiation against the housefly.
The dose-mortality was found to be, essentially 10 Gy fatal to 50%, and 8 Gy to sterilize them.
This is an incredible amount of exposure, considering half that absorption kills a human, predictably, within 14 days.
You could infer... that the weapon is potentially more dangerous to the human, than to the fly.
The department of game and wildlife might like to have a few words with you, about that device that is not a lawful hunting weapon:)
You do realize: what kind of weapons you can use to hunt with are highly regulated?
They want to make sure the hunter doesn't have an unfair advantage / 'cheat' by using a weapon such as an automatic firearm with high-capacity magazine that guarantees them a kill.
Generally in most states you are limited to bows and arrows and rifles that carry 5 rounds per magazine or less.
The end-point could be AT&T, Comcast, or even another Cogent customer
Generally no. Backbone peering agreements generally say traffic destined to my customers only.
That is to say, on non-transit (settlement free) peering sessions between Tier1 providers, Verizon would advertise only Verizon's customers' IP space.
And the providers' peering agreements specifically include a rule that traffic may not be routed across the link, except according to the BGP advertisements.
So a packet destined from Cogent to an ATT destination, would not be eligible to be sent over the Verizon peering link (since advertisements for ATT and ATT customers' IP address space would not be propagated to the Cogent-Verizon bgp session).
then you can actually try guessing, and executing next step an all possible outcomes of previous step, then throwing away every result but one as previous step completes.
However... this requires power consumption, and it still does take time and tie up your infrastructure working on the 'guess'. Meanwhile, the previous step completes, and your CPUs are all still busy working on guessing the previous step, and you need additional sequential overhead to initiate and terminate the guessing process.
You show 'CPU usage' on your 'idle cores', but it's 99% waste heat.
claim that the portion running under the boosted clock somehow beats the bounds predicted by Amdahl's law.
Right... their system cannot 'break' Amdahl's law. They bypass it by allowing the sequential portion of the workload to run on faster hardware, and the parallel portion of the workload to run on the massively parallel (but slower) architecture.
Designing an approach that allows better parallel computing despite Amdahl's law, does not imply necessarily breaking the law.
It's more like: working cleverly within the constraints of Amdahl's law, to evade the issue.
For it to work, they have to have that super-fast sequential platform though.
Unless there continue to be linear speed performance improvements in the fast sequential execution architecture (and not just more cores on the commodity PCs), they will still run into Amdahl's law.
With peering to ISPs it isn't about equal traffic in both directions, that is more when Tier 1 companies peer.
Actually... "traffic ratios" are more about what large ISPs use as a tool to prevent smaller ISPs from peering with them settlement-free, as a substitute from purchasing transit.
Other than traffic ratios are an illustrative tool, that beancounters can understand.
They kind of fall apart in a sense, when there are "one of a kind" destinations that aren't on your network -- that your own subscribers demand access to.
Whatever ISPs have the best connectivity to Netflix, Google, and the top CDNs, have a sizable advantage, in terms of their end users' perception of performance.
Verizon (Formerly UUnet) is Tier1. Cogent is a "wannabe" Tier1; that likes to get into 'peering disputes' with other providers, as a way of strong-arming in attempt to claw its way from transit-free to Tier1 status.
So "Verizon vs Cogent" is a Tier1 matter.
Cogent's transit-free status, does prevent them from paying, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
"On-line presence" = Wasting time on narcissistic, unproductive and ultimately useless activities.
I have an online presence. I post on Slashdot. I chat on IRC.
Not that I would dare provide a prospective employer with my pseudonyms, or dare post my real name (instead of an assumed name or chosen nae) to my profile on Slashdot, Twitter, Facebook, or any other online service.
I *might* do a search of technical forums to see what kind of tech questions and answers my applicant is giving / asking.
The applicant probably have posted on such forums using a handle or assumed name. Many people don't use their real name
Furthermore, some unrelated person may have posted to tech forums and twitter using the same name as the prospective hire.
There may be unsettling tweets posted by a twitter or facebook account holder with the name of the prospective hire's real name, BUT the poster may be an unrelated person.
Even the far below-average programmer can still explain algorithms for trivial problems and write code that compiles. So such measures could only identify rather extremely poor performers....
Okay, then I suppose you will refuse to count "frequent inability to write code that even compiles" and "nigh continuous inability to describe an algorithm to solve even a trivial problem" as somehow not an objective sign of inferior developer performance?
Triviality is subjective. In my experience, people who are not programmers tend to greatly underestimate the complexity of certain programming and other technical tasks.
Someone who has an inability to write code that even compiles is probably a bad programmer.
But the ability to write code that compiles and describe algorithms to solve trivial problems is only sufficient to reject a hypothesis; it is not sufficient to imply that the person is a good or average programmer.
To be clear I believe she's telling the truth, but the chances that it can be proven to an extent that warrants an arrest, much less a conviction, are very low
Yes... but thievery is still a crime. And the ramifications are likely to be huge for all directly involved.
Suppose you were the guy's employer or prospective employer. If charged with thievery. I for one would be suspending his employment on the spot.
If you are convicted of any crime, even thievery; as an Infosec worker, you are essentially tainted.
Frankly... even Georgia Weidman's accusation on her blog might make the guy unemployable. Remember the whole Adria Richards PyCon fiasco... and that was just a tweet... and the offense alleged was minor and not a crime?
Yes; his blog doesn't say anything, but he does repudiate certain other tweets as lies.
He's not obliged to present any story in the public record, unless he is taken to stand trial.
He is known in the security community as having exposed certain vulnerabilities in network protocols. He is has significantly more celebrity status than the person blogging the accusations.
The person blogging the accusations... well, I never heard of her. I think she is relatively obscure by comparison.
This may lead to the public having a certain default point of view, until/unless more evidence is presented; there is a good chance that much of the community will be persuaded by the denial than by the accuser's version of events.
The article said she was attacked. Not that she was raped (she wasn't raped), according to her story, she alleges attempted rape.
Evidence of assault and robbery, which are very different from rape.
Assault and robbery would be an attack, and a serious crime....
Also, the idea that it's just his word against hers, is that the two are equally credible
If there's evidence that he committed any serious crime, then his denial of a rape charge would be less-believable than her story, because that would make him non-credible, due to the history of robbery charges; that is evidence of (and/or guilt of) other crimes at the scene ---- in other words, supporting evidence for her story of a crime supports her entire version of events.
I believe that person could be objectively assessed to be a developer with inferior performance.
That's not developer performance. That is participation as an employee and degree of conformance with expectations. If you're hired as a developer, and not writing any code when directed to, then you're not doing a job -- which is different from doing the job but performing poorly.
By the way, you could have a highly performing developer or designer frequently not showing up for work, for no reason other than laziness, and despite that, it's possible their development performance and total contribution to the effort will still exceed that of 10 other developers' combined.
Mainly because development work is highly mental; some people's level of ability is 20x that of the average developer's. And you can do a lot of work when not actually "working". For example... a designer might have missed a day of "work" at the office, but been thinking about the design off and on throughout the weekend for 16+ hours, that the employer cannot hope to measure.
My main point is: when you have a developer that is actually working though. Performance measurement is too hard.
You can't count how much code they write -- because writing more code is not good, and counting code provides a perverse incentive for mediocre developers to strive to be more mediocre, while incentivizing more skilled developers to waste time and resources.
Furthermore, writing less code is not always good in some cases.
Quality of comments and variable names is subjective.
You can't measure how many features they add -- perverse incentive to work on the easiest features; and add as many unnecessary features as possible.
You can't measure how many bugs they fix or comits -- perverse incentive to ignore the issues that are the hardest to deal with, and concentrate on the unimportant.
There are serious difficulties just taking a commit or day's coding work and attempting to measure how productive or performant the developer was.
Because there are all these hidden characteristics and mental iteration that go behind every piece of code, that you cannot measure without getting into the developer's brain.
The security footage indicates he visited her, not the other way around. She was not in his room to leave things there. Why are you ignoring all the evidence to support rapists? Are you one of the nutjobs that thinks the world is out to keep the innocent white man down?
Did you see any evidence he wasn't just a burglar attempting to steal things and committing battery in the process?
Like her iPad, passport, that staff found in his room.
What happens when a robber attempts to forcibly remove someones clothing, to search for valuables under it, in its pockets, or to gather the article of clothing itself?
Since rape did not occur; I for one cannot gather intent. Although authorities might have more facts available to do so, if she will stick around in Poland for a few years get formal charges filed and court proceedings...
Given that her allegations present a clear story explaining how these things happened, and his version of the story seems to contradict the actual facts and photographic evidence available - I'd say it's a good bet that he DID attempt to rape her.
No... i'd say it's a good bet they were in an altercation, AND he has not (that we have seen) blogged a satisfactory explanation for it.
Not that he has to. She may have exagerated or overreacted to something that was less than she blogged, and and an altercation doesn't necessarily mean attempted rape.
No reasonable person would draw such conclussions based only on her word and images of injury (both easy to create falsely)
A reasonable person would not assume the images were created falsely; in the absence of evidence to show images were created falsely.
She could easilly have been the attacker and he defending himself
The reasonable conclusion is he injured her -- regardless of who was attacker, and who was defender; that her injury was received in an encounter with him.
A reasonable person would draw the conclusion that he must have injured her; if she was observed /not injured/, and he was observed not injured, prior to him entering her room.
And she and he were observed injured shortly afterwards.
Only unreasonable doubts could show otherwise.
Say what? According to the account she wrote on her blog, she had a black eye. Something physical went down. Has the guy she's accused written up any rebuttal to her charges?
The law enforcement officers' ought to have interviewed him for his side of the story. I think all that's been reported that I have been able to find with Google is a denial; not an alternative version of events.
Reportedly there is a blog post here:
Indeed.... perhaps there is a way to answer this. A full psychological evaluation of both bloggers, might shed some light as to whether none, one, or both, have a 'mental disorder'. Bloggers cannot both be telling the truth, or can they?
it's just her word against his
It's interesting that you said 'her word against his' instead of 'his word against hers'
Does this express a bias in favor of his point of view; his word against hers, that there was no attempted assault, burglary, or rape?
Contrary to the physical damage to the both of them.
There is some evidence of attempted wrongdoing; or battery, at least, due to the physical wounds, and her missing stuff that was miraculously found to be in his possession.
Reportedly, he denies it. She presented no evidence. He presented none either, even though he is under no obligation to. No charges files. Her word against his.
Reportedly, he was in her room. They were both injured.
Reportedly, He took her stuff (passport, iPad).
Strong circumstantial evidence.
I understand, the evidence isn't strong enough to throw him in jail; however, it's not merely his word against hers.
So I guess the real conclusion is to hire as many candidates as you can as contract to hire or other temporary positions so you can rate their performance for a few months and easily drop them if they aren't cutting it.
Uh oh... you've stumbled upon the other farce and total pool of snake oil.... besides the technical interview.
"Code Metrics"
Every project is unique, and developer performance is entirely subjective... any attempts to measure it, so far, have been inherently flawwed.
Of course they may also be using such flawwed data to decide that the technical interview has no value
I thought that only those with something to hide needed privacy?
It's in order to make sure the accused cannot fight the accusations in court or in public, because the accusations won't be disclosed to the accused for national security reasons.
I do believe that has been reported to be the standard practice.
, I think I can figure out that you are running almost no dynamic content
Personally... I interpreted it as: [] He's probably running the site on top of an ancient version of Joomla, Wordpress, or Sharepoint.
Under PHP; on hardware suitable for 1000 unique users hitting a day, not 1000 hits a minute by simultaneous visitors... hence the HTTP 503 errors.
What reseller gives you 65% off? I priced out an R815 with those specs and the cheapest configuration I could come up with was around $13,500. (but they didn't have 500GB 15K SAS drives, so I used 600GB 10K)
You can lease it used fro a Dell reseller for a little more than $1000 a month, I believe.
But you're still paying a premium. You don't have to go Dell though; there are plenty of whitebox server vendors.
Wow, DNR regulates hunting of mosquittos & houseflies?!?
No, but mosquittos and houseflies are very small, and not particularly vulnerable to being irradiated with X-rays. Although it may be more effective against the pupae.
See this article on the eficacy of Gamma Radiation against the housefly.
The dose-mortality was found to be, essentially 10 Gy fatal to 50%, and 8 Gy to sterilize them.
This is an incredible amount of exposure, considering half that absorption kills a human, predictably, within 14 days.
You could infer... that the weapon is potentially more dangerous to the human, than to the fly.
These guys were just attempting to build a weapon, they aren't successful, they go to jail (good).
TSA agents are scanning people every day with harmful X-rays....
They're allowed to continue, and nothing bad happens to the people who allowed this.
My x-ray gun is purely for hunting.
The department of game and wildlife might like to have a few words with you, about that device that is not a lawful hunting weapon :)
You do realize: what kind of weapons you can use to hunt with are highly regulated?
They want to make sure the hunter doesn't have an unfair advantage / 'cheat' by using a weapon such as an automatic firearm with high-capacity magazine that guarantees them a kill.
Generally in most states you are limited to bows and arrows and rifles that carry 5 rounds per magazine or less.
The end-point could be AT&T, Comcast, or even another Cogent customer
Generally no. Backbone peering agreements generally say traffic destined to my customers only.
That is to say, on non-transit (settlement free) peering sessions between Tier1 providers, Verizon would advertise only Verizon's customers' IP space.
And the providers' peering agreements specifically include a rule that traffic may not be routed across the link, except according to the BGP advertisements.
So a packet destined from Cogent to an ATT destination, would not be eligible to be sent over the Verizon peering link (since advertisements for ATT and ATT customers' IP address space would not be propagated to the Cogent-Verizon bgp session).
then you can actually try guessing, and executing next step an all possible outcomes of previous step, then throwing away every result but one as previous step completes.
However... this requires power consumption, and it still does take time and tie up your infrastructure working on the 'guess'. Meanwhile, the previous step completes, and your CPUs are all still busy working on guessing the previous step, and you need additional sequential overhead to initiate and terminate the guessing process.
You show 'CPU usage' on your 'idle cores', but it's 99% waste heat.
claim that the portion running under the boosted clock somehow beats the bounds predicted by Amdahl's law.
Right... their system cannot 'break' Amdahl's law. They bypass it by allowing the sequential portion of the workload to run on faster hardware, and the parallel portion of the workload to run on the massively parallel (but slower) architecture.
Designing an approach that allows better parallel computing despite Amdahl's law, does not imply necessarily breaking the law.
It's more like: working cleverly within the constraints of Amdahl's law, to evade the issue.
For it to work, they have to have that super-fast sequential platform though.
Unless there continue to be linear speed performance improvements in the fast sequential execution architecture (and not just more cores on the commodity PCs), they will still run into Amdahl's law.
With peering to ISPs it isn't about equal traffic in both directions, that is more when Tier 1 companies peer.
Actually... "traffic ratios" are more about what large ISPs use as a tool to prevent smaller ISPs from peering with them settlement-free, as a substitute from purchasing transit.
Other than traffic ratios are an illustrative tool, that beancounters can understand. They kind of fall apart in a sense, when there are "one of a kind" destinations that aren't on your network -- that your own subscribers demand access to. Whatever ISPs have the best connectivity to Netflix, Google, and the top CDNs, have a sizable advantage, in terms of their end users' perception of performance.
Verizon (Formerly UUnet) is Tier1. Cogent is a "wannabe" Tier1; that likes to get into 'peering disputes' with other providers, as a way of strong-arming in attempt to claw its way from transit-free to Tier1 status.
So "Verizon vs Cogent" is a Tier1 matter.
Cogent's transit-free status, does prevent them from paying, by the way.