I'm not sure how what you wrote is in any way a reply to me... but there are better spots to reply off topic to get higher on the page so I'll assume you actually think what you wrote had something to do with what I did.
Nowhere in my post did I ever say anything about not commenting code. The article is not about commenting code it is about documenting code. If you do not know the difference between those two things, please learn it before writing another line.
I've never had a problem of incentive or motivation to document my code; my problem is and always has been time.
Documenting anything other than conceptual stuff from the beginning is a bit of a waste (though far from a complete one) because the final product (due to bug fixes/spec changes/etc) never matches what you set out to do.
So when you do get to the point of post-testing where the code has stabilized and it's time to really sit down and document everything fully you're being given new stuff to work on. Sure I can (and do) raise a bit of a fuss about it and explain that if it doesn't get documented *now* it'll never get documented *well*. That always seems to fall on deaf ears though.
I think a lot of it is that the deserved biting in the ass never comes. Shortened product life cycles and customers that have become (wrongly) more tolerant of buggy software in production environments means that you can stumble through with a vague knowledge of the product and never really get fucked. It's the same basic reason that so many bad programmers have jobs.
Perhaps a lousy programmer eventually thinks "what did I miss" all the time. I know I've been coding for a long, long time and approximately 95% of the bugs that I'm informed of (in production stuff) are not bugs but functioning exactly as documented and specced.
So my first thought: "Find the specs" as all competent programmers do. Once you've found the specs you can assess what "should" be happening and then you can start discussing what *should* be happening. They're rarely the same because users/sales/management can't seem to think ahead but it's important to know what was decided on the first time and why before you go fixing things that may not be broken.
Brain teasers have one answer (or at the very least a small set of reasonable and correct answers). Grading you on a short story is so riddled with problems I can't even begin to imagine how you would effectively employ it in interviews.
I don't even disagree that puzzles and teasers are ineffective. The summary is talking about it purely in the context of programming ability and I wanted to point out that isn't the metric they're testing for.
You're information is only somewhat accurate. A typical interview path for Google consists of about 7 interviews during which you're interviewed by at least a couple different people and although there is no official stance on asking such questions there are most definitely interviewers that do.
You know that one good scene from that shitty Adam Sandler movie about him going back to school; the one where the contest judge gives the whole long speech about everyone being dumber having heard what Sandler has just said?
Google isn't giving brain teasers to find good programmers. They're giving brain teasers to find creative technical people who can come up with the next big ideas.
I'd add a little note to your 1: Nothing we currently produce economically replaces 100% of the effectiveness of leather for motorcycle gear.
There are most certainly replacements available that are good, though quite objectively not as good.
There are also various things that can replace leather for that purpose that are simply far to expensive (on the order of 100x the cost of a leather suit).
Your point is valid but I wasn't happy with your wording of it; I fully support the continued pursuit of entirely artificial armor because it will eventually be cheaper and better (I'm more interested in better than I am cheaper).
I do find it interesting that you link to the very point in the w3 standard that refutes your "error" in IE9's handling. The processing rules about white-space are specifically mentioned to be unclear about where line breaking opportunities occur.
Note the actual definition of the property you are using:
pre-wrap This value prevents user agents from collapsing sequences of white space. Lines are broken at preserved newline characters, and as necessary to fill line boxes.
If you carry on to read the rest of the specification for the whitespace property there is nothing that specifically states that multiple newlines must be preserved.
This is actually a common problem with web standards; people assuming that browsers are violating the standard simply because they don't all agree when in fact the issue is that the standard itself is simply incomplete.
Of course it's going up, NASA has confirmed that with satellite information as well as several other sources all showing quite clearly that the temperature is rising.
Basing models on data that is at least 1/3 bogus is fucking stupid; NOAA puts a LOT of weight on the land-based temperature data in their models.
What I said is that maybe the should find out why a large (huge in terms of science) amount of their data is invalid before they go about throwing huge amounts of power at more models.
You misread intense anger at the stupidity and political motivation as trolling. I would like nothing more than accurate climate models but we'll never get them until people admit that the data we have is shit.
You'll find that people smarter than you often seem narcissistic. The truth though is that you just don't have the capacity for debate and thus can't form coherent thoughts.
Next time you're browsing post histories take a look at your own; if there is any hope for you at all you'll be horrified.
Hopefully with all that extra cpu power they can finally explain why a good third of the temperature readings in any given area over the last 70 or so years show a decline in temperature instead of an incline.
I mean, it seems like the sort of thing they should sort out before using too much of that data for already-questionable models
You clearly don't know anything passed high school physics; that's fine but you shouldn't try to correct people who do.
The second run they did to look into the FTL neutrinos was science. They took something they believed to be happening and looked for exactly that observation. Now it rests on others (who have in fact done so already) to refute or otherwise explain those results.
If CERN was doing real science (at the LHC) they would have been able to say with confidence that they were going to find (or not find) this "new" "particle" months ago and give reasons for exactly where and how they expected to find it.
Instead, what they're doing is the same crap science we see so much of these days; gather a bunch of data and look at it for all kinds of things after the fact. There's value to that, because it can tell you what you should look for next time; but it should never be confused with science.
It's all very newtonian. Gravity can be explained by these equations but I don't know how it works or why. It's useful, but it's inaccurate and it's not science.
The laws are pretty easy to find, so the confusion is the fault of the drivers not the government(s).
In Ontario (my locale) it is very legal for one person to enter an intersection to start a left turn regardless of oncoming traffic.
At that point, the intersection is no longer clear and anyone else entering it behind them is breaking the law.
It's a very appropriate, logical and clear law that very few people are able/care to understand. I'm not surprised since most people also don't know how to actually control a vehicle.
The issue with left-on-yellows is not the one legally allowed driver, it's the subsequent people that entered despite the intersection being clear.
If you have a witness, which you will, you will not be charged in that instance.
The person who went into the unsafe gap will be charged with at the very least following to close (probably a lot more depending on the officer) and you will be fine. If the officer does happen to charge you, you only need to go to traffic court and when the judge reads the officers report (ie. 3 cars involved) they will throw it out.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how what you wrote is in any way a reply to me... but there are better spots to reply off topic to get higher on the page so I'll assume you actually think what you wrote had something to do with what I did.
Nowhere in my post did I ever say anything about not commenting code. The article is not about commenting code it is about documenting code. If you do not know the difference between those two things, please learn it before writing another line.
I'd be a lot happier if even a tenth of the programmers I meet these days knew how to dynamically manage memory.
Unfortunately the article is true, you could easily learn enough in a year (or probably a month) to get through an interview and get a job.
I've never had a problem of incentive or motivation to document my code; my problem is and always has been time.
Documenting anything other than conceptual stuff from the beginning is a bit of a waste (though far from a complete one) because the final product (due to bug fixes/spec changes/etc) never matches what you set out to do.
So when you do get to the point of post-testing where the code has stabilized and it's time to really sit down and document everything fully you're being given new stuff to work on. Sure I can (and do) raise a bit of a fuss about it and explain that if it doesn't get documented *now* it'll never get documented *well*. That always seems to fall on deaf ears though.
I think a lot of it is that the deserved biting in the ass never comes. Shortened product life cycles and customers that have become (wrongly) more tolerant of buggy software in production environments means that you can stumble through with a vague knowledge of the product and never really get fucked. It's the same basic reason that so many bad programmers have jobs.
You clearly have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
You should actually learn something about mobile phone OSes before you claim that Microsoft was late to the game.
Perhaps a lousy programmer eventually thinks "what did I miss" all the time. I know I've been coding for a long, long time and approximately 95% of the bugs that I'm informed of (in production stuff) are not bugs but functioning exactly as documented and specced.
So my first thought: "Find the specs" as all competent programmers do. Once you've found the specs you can assess what "should" be happening and then you can start discussing what *should* be happening. They're rarely the same because users/sales/management can't seem to think ahead but it's important to know what was decided on the first time and why before you go fixing things that may not be broken.
Well you just proved you have nothing to do with Google.
You answered your own question actually:
Brain teasers have one answer (or at the very least a small set of reasonable and correct answers). Grading you on a short story is so riddled with problems I can't even begin to imagine how you would effectively employ it in interviews.
I don't even disagree that puzzles and teasers are ineffective. The summary is talking about it purely in the context of programming ability and I wanted to point out that isn't the metric they're testing for.
Also apparently my brain doesn't know your from you're today
You're information is only somewhat accurate. A typical interview path for Google consists of about 7 interviews during which you're interviewed by at least a couple different people and although there is no official stance on asking such questions there are most definitely interviewers that do.
You know that one good scene from that shitty Adam Sandler movie about him going back to school; the one where the contest judge gives the whole long speech about everyone being dumber having heard what Sandler has just said?
Google isn't giving brain teasers to find good programmers. They're giving brain teasers to find creative technical people who can come up with the next big ideas.
"Lines are broken at preserved newline characters" is absolutely completely ambiguous.
"Lines are broken at newline characters" would be unambiguous.
The word preserved is absolutely meaningful. The fact that the standard then fails to layout the preservation of newlines is a problem.
I'd add a little note to your 1: Nothing we currently produce economically replaces 100% of the effectiveness of leather for motorcycle gear.
There are most certainly replacements available that are good, though quite objectively not as good.
There are also various things that can replace leather for that purpose that are simply far to expensive (on the order of 100x the cost of a leather suit).
Your point is valid but I wasn't happy with your wording of it; I fully support the continued pursuit of entirely artificial armor because it will eventually be cheaper and better (I'm more interested in better than I am cheaper).
I do find it interesting that you link to the very point in the w3 standard that refutes your "error" in IE9's handling. The processing rules about white-space are specifically mentioned to be unclear about where line breaking opportunities occur.
Note the actual definition of the property you are using:
pre-wrap
This value prevents user agents from collapsing sequences of white space. Lines are broken at preserved newline characters, and as necessary to fill line boxes.
If you carry on to read the rest of the specification for the whitespace property there is nothing that specifically states that multiple newlines must be preserved.
This is actually a common problem with web standards; people assuming that browsers are violating the standard simply because they don't all agree when in fact the issue is that the standard itself is simply incomplete.
You should go and hit yourself with a hammer, I swear to god you're so dumb it'd make you smarter.
You're a moron, go and actually LOOK at the NOAA data. A cluster of stations within a 50 mile radius at about 2/3 warming and 1/3 cooling.
Stop being a retard, do some fucking research and piss off you gnat.
Of course it's going up, NASA has confirmed that with satellite information as well as several other sources all showing quite clearly that the temperature is rising.
Basing models on data that is at least 1/3 bogus is fucking stupid; NOAA puts a LOT of weight on the land-based temperature data in their models.
What I said is that maybe the should find out why a large (huge in terms of science) amount of their data is invalid before they go about throwing huge amounts of power at more models.
You misread intense anger at the stupidity and political motivation as trolling. I would like nothing more than accurate climate models but we'll never get them until people admit that the data we have is shit.
You'll find that people smarter than you often seem narcissistic. The truth though is that you just don't have the capacity for debate and thus can't form coherent thoughts.
Next time you're browsing post histories take a look at your own; if there is any hope for you at all you'll be horrified.
Oh how I weep for humanity that factual and useful statements are avoided and shunned by morons.
Hopefully with all that extra cpu power they can finally explain why a good third of the temperature readings in any given area over the last 70 or so years show a decline in temperature instead of an incline.
I mean, it seems like the sort of thing they should sort out before using too much of that data for already-questionable models
You clearly don't know anything passed high school physics; that's fine but you shouldn't try to correct people who do.
The second run they did to look into the FTL neutrinos was science. They took something they believed to be happening and looked for exactly that observation. Now it rests on others (who have in fact done so already) to refute or otherwise explain those results.
If CERN was doing real science (at the LHC) they would have been able to say with confidence that they were going to find (or not find) this "new" "particle" months ago and give reasons for exactly where and how they expected to find it.
Instead, what they're doing is the same crap science we see so much of these days; gather a bunch of data and look at it for all kinds of things after the fact. There's value to that, because it can tell you what you should look for next time; but it should never be confused with science.
It's all very newtonian. Gravity can be explained by these equations but I don't know how it works or why. It's useful, but it's inaccurate and it's not science.
One of us doesn't understand what science is; you're just wrong about who.
You actually believe that happening upon something by accident is science, and that is a very telling comment on the world today.
Well you're right about that, but for all the wrong reasons.
What CERN is doing is in fact not science, really. They're smashing shit together and looking at the results and going "woo! found something"
That's not science. Science requires a hypothesis and a test, not just digging around until you find something.
Sometimes they do flirt with science, the hunt for the higgs for instance is essentially science based.
The laws are pretty easy to find, so the confusion is the fault of the drivers not the government(s).
In Ontario (my locale) it is very legal for one person to enter an intersection to start a left turn regardless of oncoming traffic.
At that point, the intersection is no longer clear and anyone else entering it behind them is breaking the law.
It's a very appropriate, logical and clear law that very few people are able/care to understand. I'm not surprised since most people also don't know how to actually control a vehicle.
The issue with left-on-yellows is not the one legally allowed driver, it's the subsequent people that entered despite the intersection being clear.
If you have a witness, which you will, you will not be charged in that instance.
The person who went into the unsafe gap will be charged with at the very least following to close (probably a lot more depending on the officer) and you will be fine. If the officer does happen to charge you, you only need to go to traffic court and when the judge reads the officers report (ie. 3 cars involved) they will throw it out.