Philosophy major here. I specialized in formal logic systems, computational thinking, and neural networks. Now I am a software architect building very math heavy software (geospatial analytics) for Fortune 500 companies using many of those same concepts. I took several CS courses towards the end of school. What I noticed of most CS guys was that they: had a poor grasp of logic (discrete mathematics brushes over the fundamentals far too quickly), had poor reading comprehension skills (which is unfortunate when the job requires you to read technical specs and manuals a good bit of the time), and had poor communication skills (which is why someone like me was able to sneak my way into the job market in the beginning without a CS degree, since I was able to get through an interview without making people uncomfortable). I know some great people who came out of the CS program, but those people probably would have been great had they just gone the self teaching route and majored in Anthropology. CS and programming are evolving. Someone who cannot teach themselves will be terrible at both before long, because they will be left in the dust.
That seems to be a commonality among most CS academics. The real world is a cruel, cruel place for your code. Pie in the sky perfectionists need not a apply.
Buddhism does tend to have less magic than many western religions. Buddhist do not believe in an invisible man in the sky or human sacrifice like Judeo-Christian religions. Not all religions are created equally from a critical thinking perspective. Many Buddhists actually reject all supernatural claims and hold a view that closely resembles materialism. Of course, many Buddhists do believe in stuff like reincarnation or miracles, but I guess nobody is perfect. lol
According to all known studies on happiness, there are only 2 things that affect happiness overall - everything else people adapt to after a while and get back to their normal levels of happiness.
1. Get a pet dog - people are always happier with this on average and the buzz doesn't wear off.
2. Get a pet cat - people are always unhappy with this on average and they never get used to it.
If there is a strong correlation between online friends and their party affiliations then it may make sense.
Would this not be expected. Predicting party affiliation by who someone interacts with is pretty reliable (not 100%, obviously, but definitely high enough to be relevant).
Half a percent is an enormous effect! Think about it. Both sides have their base in place already. Most people who have not decided already will not vote at all. Polling is inconclusive and this election could go either way. You better believe the campaigns will be fighting over the scraps, however small.
Get a sample group large enough (61 million users), and you'll find many things to be statistically significant.
I think you pretty much explained the goal here. Is this meant to detract from statistical methodologies? Small sample size is generally more inaccurate, not the other way around.
Yeah right. Young people would hardly bother voting on a "Kill the Young Bill". I like my generation in general, but we have to be the most apathetic in history.
Our system just so happens to be setup in a directly inverse fashion of the one you suggest. The bagboy gets drug tested every two months, while the guy managing your entire retirement account starts every morning with a healthy dollop of cocaine.
Criminal Scriminals! They won't even exist anymore. Get-away cars will drive their occupants straight to the slammer. Your care won't let you drive to the shady side of town. Even speeding will be impossible!
Senior devs are often worse than the juniors IME. As the saying goes, "some people have 10 years of experience, and some people have 1 year of experience 10 times". That 1.5x productivity boost does not look so good when it was multiplied by the dev's productivity in 1982. Juniors have an almost automatic productivity boost over those types because of the new tools and tech that they were brought up in. Of course, if the junior does not learn and grow actively, they will be in the same spot in 10 years anyway.
Sometimes having specialized people who do not code a whole lot is necessary. I work with a lot of Phd folks who can crank out some really powerful algorithms, but their code leaves... something to be desired. I do work in a pretty edge case kind of field though (geospatial analytics), that has a good bit more math than your average business dev work. Those devs do go off the reservation, but that is pretty much the nature of the work, and its better them than me. I am more than happy to interpret their algos and architect them into a maintainable solution. We also have worker bees who write reports and do basic data processing code. I live happily in between (my title is software architect (which I realize everyone thinks is bullshit, but I think it fits pretty well)), writing the most code, designing the "big picture" of the applications, and piecing everyone's work into one unified product. TLDR: Every type has a place, even the people who cannot grok the complex design patterns AND the people who are too smart for their own good and can be focused in on particular difficult-to-design modules.
You are describing a cowboy coder, not a rock star. The two could not be further apart. Rock stars are the ones who, by definition, get shit done right. If they cannot write maintainable code, then they are not a rock star, plain and simple. Maintainability is almost always the number one most important quality of any project. Anybody can get v1 out quickly. A cowboy does it by cutting corners and rushing. A rock star does it fast and right, which is what makes them a rock star. If your good, solid, dependable devs can do that, you might have a couple rock stars without knowing it. Remember that skill and ego rarely match up. Joel Spolsky's definition of a rock star is still the best one IMHO: smart and gets things done.
That kind of attitude will not hold up in industries where talent is difficult to find (aka tech). I will work where management respects me and is willing to discuss decisions that affect my life. In fact, I will actually work in that sort of environment for way less money. Douchey companies get the "FU price" from me and most other devs I know.
It would be a laugh if Surface turned out to be 100% vaporware just to get the OEMs to actually do something. More like a "design standard" than an actual product.
I would not say there are "a lot". More like "a few". I am not saying that I agree with the US' treatment of people like Assange. In fact, I find it detestable. At the same time, incidents like these are not going to affect me or most other people in the tech community ever. Censorship happens everywhere in the world, but the US happens to have way less than nearly every other country. I am all for bringing the amount of censorship to zero, but it is not like there are loads of tech oriented countries that have less censorship. Gotta live somewhere.
Do people in the UK regularly sign non-competes? They exist in the US, of course, but I do not know a single person that would ever actually sign one (unless they will pay you full salary while you are off the market).
Slashdot Mirror
If we wanted to do that then we would say "ok /.ers. Europeans are like Magic the Gathering and Asians are like Pokemon".
Philosophy major here. I specialized in formal logic systems, computational thinking, and neural networks. Now I am a software architect building very math heavy software (geospatial analytics) for Fortune 500 companies using many of those same concepts. I took several CS courses towards the end of school. What I noticed of most CS guys was that they: had a poor grasp of logic (discrete mathematics brushes over the fundamentals far too quickly), had poor reading comprehension skills (which is unfortunate when the job requires you to read technical specs and manuals a good bit of the time), and had poor communication skills (which is why someone like me was able to sneak my way into the job market in the beginning without a CS degree, since I was able to get through an interview without making people uncomfortable). I know some great people who came out of the CS program, but those people probably would have been great had they just gone the self teaching route and majored in Anthropology. CS and programming are evolving. Someone who cannot teach themselves will be terrible at both before long, because they will be left in the dust.
That seems to be a commonality among most CS academics. The real world is a cruel, cruel place for your code. Pie in the sky perfectionists need not a apply.
I always assumed that most /. users were commenting from the prison library computer system.
Buddhism does tend to have less magic than many western religions. Buddhist do not believe in an invisible man in the sky or human sacrifice like Judeo-Christian religions. Not all religions are created equally from a critical thinking perspective. Many Buddhists actually reject all supernatural claims and hold a view that closely resembles materialism. Of course, many Buddhists do believe in stuff like reincarnation or miracles, but I guess nobody is perfect. lol
Don't be too hard on yourself. Perl looks like that even to Perl programmers.
It could be. Whether or not the statement is a fact has nothing to do with whether or not it is an ad hominem.
You are correct, however, when choosing party affiliation friends/family affiliation is at the top of the list for most people.
According to all known studies on happiness, there are only 2 things that affect happiness overall - everything else people adapt to after a while and get back to their normal levels of happiness.
1. Get a pet dog - people are always happier with this on average and the buzz doesn't wear off.
2. Get a pet cat - people are always unhappy with this on average and they never get used to it.
FTFY
If there is a strong correlation between online friends and their party affiliations then it may make sense.
Would this not be expected. Predicting party affiliation by who someone interacts with is pretty reliable (not 100%, obviously, but definitely high enough to be relevant).
Half a percent is an enormous effect! Think about it. Both sides have their base in place already. Most people who have not decided already will not vote at all. Polling is inconclusive and this election could go either way. You better believe the campaigns will be fighting over the scraps, however small.
Get a sample group large enough (61 million users), and you'll find many things to be statistically significant.
I think you pretty much explained the goal here. Is this meant to detract from statistical methodologies? Small sample size is generally more inaccurate, not the other way around.
Yeah right. Young people would hardly bother voting on a "Kill the Young Bill". I like my generation in general, but we have to be the most apathetic in history.
When you have 28B, approximately 27.99B is petty cash.
Our system just so happens to be setup in a directly inverse fashion of the one you suggest. The bagboy gets drug tested every two months, while the guy managing your entire retirement account starts every morning with a healthy dollop of cocaine.
Criminal Scriminals! They won't even exist anymore. Get-away cars will drive their occupants straight to the slammer. Your care won't let you drive to the shady side of town. Even speeding will be impossible!
Sigh... What a relief!
Senior devs are often worse than the juniors IME. As the saying goes, "some people have 10 years of experience, and some people have 1 year of experience 10 times". That 1.5x productivity boost does not look so good when it was multiplied by the dev's productivity in 1982. Juniors have an almost automatic productivity boost over those types because of the new tools and tech that they were brought up in. Of course, if the junior does not learn and grow actively, they will be in the same spot in 10 years anyway.
Sometimes having specialized people who do not code a whole lot is necessary. I work with a lot of Phd folks who can crank out some really powerful algorithms, but their code leaves... something to be desired. I do work in a pretty edge case kind of field though (geospatial analytics), that has a good bit more math than your average business dev work. Those devs do go off the reservation, but that is pretty much the nature of the work, and its better them than me. I am more than happy to interpret their algos and architect them into a maintainable solution. We also have worker bees who write reports and do basic data processing code. I live happily in between (my title is software architect (which I realize everyone thinks is bullshit, but I think it fits pretty well)), writing the most code, designing the "big picture" of the applications, and piecing everyone's work into one unified product. TLDR: Every type has a place, even the people who cannot grok the complex design patterns AND the people who are too smart for their own good and can be focused in on particular difficult-to-design modules.
You are describing a cowboy coder, not a rock star. The two could not be further apart. Rock stars are the ones who, by definition, get shit done right. If they cannot write maintainable code, then they are not a rock star, plain and simple. Maintainability is almost always the number one most important quality of any project. Anybody can get v1 out quickly. A cowboy does it by cutting corners and rushing. A rock star does it fast and right, which is what makes them a rock star. If your good, solid, dependable devs can do that, you might have a couple rock stars without knowing it. Remember that skill and ego rarely match up. Joel Spolsky's definition of a rock star is still the best one IMHO: smart and gets things done.
That kind of attitude will not hold up in industries where talent is difficult to find (aka tech). I will work where management respects me and is willing to discuss decisions that affect my life. In fact, I will actually work in that sort of environment for way less money. Douchey companies get the "FU price" from me and most other devs I know.
It would be a laugh if Surface turned out to be 100% vaporware just to get the OEMs to actually do something. More like a "design standard" than an actual product.
I would not say there are "a lot". More like "a few". I am not saying that I agree with the US' treatment of people like Assange. In fact, I find it detestable. At the same time, incidents like these are not going to affect me or most other people in the tech community ever. Censorship happens everywhere in the world, but the US happens to have way less than nearly every other country. I am all for bringing the amount of censorship to zero, but it is not like there are loads of tech oriented countries that have less censorship. Gotta live somewhere.
This is legitimate like not going to San Fran to avoid seal attacks is legitimate.
Do people in the UK regularly sign non-competes? They exist in the US, of course, but I do not know a single person that would ever actually sign one (unless they will pay you full salary while you are off the market).