the UK *is* a world leader in surveillance of their own citizens
Despite not exactly new, and also a bit debatable (I'd argue China or NK come to mind), I always find it perplexing that the country that output Nineteen Eighty-Four is a top contender to this particular title. I'd say the self-exemption goes to show how hard they must have thought this through, and explain their deep background on possible loopholes of being a lawmaker in a Big Brother state.
Google comes to mind. Not sure why though, and that's the gist of it really - you can't be hurt by what you can't feel. Much like initial agencies snooping around secretively, indiscriminately.
1. place those 10x devs in rooms WITHOUT the opposite sex (because we are talking about the 10x, right? It's such a better name than HPE...) 2. remove all forms of entertainment of that office (from consoles to rubik cubes, ban personal mementos in the office desk, personal phones, etc etc) 3. invest in some active noise cancelling gear for them for good measure 4. get a full-time psychologist to assess those with actual asperger's on the office, so they get special needs taken care of
And to the 4% that answered no to "distracting offices" but answered yes to "need private space" (58% - 54%), get them an individual office or cubicle and also invest in some active noise cancelling. If they are 10x and manage to be this consistent, THEY DESERVE IT. Being in such a group means they get to be well performant and still not entire douches. All they want is to procrastinate without the alt-tabbing gimmicks they need to keep making themselves look workaholic (like ALL OF US), and trust me, they will be more productive without having to resort to those. They won't stop being 10x because you gave them more privacy: they will still get the work done if pressure is still applied with non-presential peer pressure (e.g. emails, issue trackers...).
Well, if you're on iOS, that's a completely different story. But on Android, after Marshmallow those 7 prompts are not unusual. You mentioned an update and multiple dialogs asking permission, and it sounded very familiar, as it is exactly what happens in Marshmallow-bound or newer apps that need a lot of permissions.
Nevertheless, saying "no" and it asking again is pretty "sucky", UI-wise, and that is indeed a fault, but we all know most tech companies these days are about exit strats, and most exists either come from heavy data mining, ad-based revenue or a combination of both, and it's nothing specific to Facebook (e.g.: Google, Apple, Microsoft... they all do it now)
It asking for all those permissions is not their problem, it came bundled with the Marshmallow update, and you probably noticed it in all other apps that started targeting Android Marshmallow.
Basically, your previous version of the app (and all other apps in this scenario) showed those permissions at install time (and simply didn't install if you denied any of them), but developers were forced to ask explicitly during app use for individual permissions. Devs now have the option to either keep "permission-asking" as a big block of subsequent "yes/no" dialogs at first boot, or request individual permissions with those dialogs when the permission is first needed (e.g.: first time taking a picture induces storage and camera permissions).
In short: most if not all that changed permission-wise was that instead of restricting installs to people who granted permission for EVERYTHING they needed, they now have to ask individually per permission. Blame Google on that one, but as an Android dev who is also a user, it looks sleeker to me like this, but unlike Messenger apps should use the later paradigm of asking when features actually need a permission, not in bulk.
And it's Facebook's obsession with the "don't leave the app" paradigm. Youtube links, html5 video links, gifs and even common pic format links, they're all messed up both on preview and on the follow up link. Youtube is particularly obnoxious, you have to click twice: click once and the video preview disappears, gets replaced by the lone link itself, which on second click actually opens something else (which also inconsistently fluctuates between a chrome tab inside Messenger running html5 Youtube, an external similar Chrome tab, or the Youtube app itself).
But the worst of all, even Facebook's own links are f'd up - I'd love it if I could get an FB link from a post, user, comment or live vid link on Messenger that actually previews, loads and/or opens consistently IN THE FB APP instead of the browser or messenger itself. They just got it real bad on the Android implementation. It just seems to behave differently depending on: 1. the device you're using; 2. the device people are using; 3. the way people copied/shared the item on their side. It's stupid, as in pre-html5, pre-Android stupid. There is only one thing that nags me even more tha this Messenger quirks on Android, and it's the share location function of Google Maps, which deliberately ignores providing standardized location data anywhere it goes, only providing links to a gmaps-centered position, without even a pin or "navigate to" options.
And yes, I have messed around with both Messenger and Facebook apps' "always open externally", "don't use internal browser" or "whatever da fck it's called this week's update so we have a reset justification and you get it back again". It still sux, and always falls back to Chrome who will not redirect it to the app Intent because it was already redirected.
Thanks for that. I have been attempting to get to know a bit more about meditation.
A lot of people close to me (both in similar and very different professional paths), and other notoriously famous I really appreciate have bragged about meditation helping them a lot. Just this past month I saw a stand up session of Jerry Seinfeld on a meditation dinner party, and he said he's been doing it for decades ever since he started his (weekly?) "Seinfeld", and it really helped him keep up with both pressure, full schedules and work-life balance, and overall focus on discerning important tasks and getting them sorted out in due time.
I guess that's why so many Sillicon Valley top brass go on Indian/Tibethan pillgrimage:D
Nah but taking it seriously, I have no idea how Budhist teachings work. I have stepped aside of serious religion self-thinking for the past 10 years or so. I just failed to see the point in believing in something that so many respected minds have... (pun incoming) lost faith in.
And despite keeping up to speed a fair share with philosophy and psychology topics on my spare time, I fail to grasp scientific ways to really get to (and alter) the root causes of the human existence. I am a deep believer in Nietzches "wille zur macht", and with that I admit, I don't trust too much on altruistic behavior, especially the type that is self-imposed. But I believe ethical and moral compasses are the only path to really shine individually, and eventually that leads to real, untainted altruism, one that needs no mention because it just feels right and deserves external appreciation. And in that respect, Elon Musk is pretty much my God.
Unless FB went on a hiring spree, they are probably just rerouting permanent workers that they hired long ago for their core features into these. And since Facebook has pretty much no competition on their core business segment itself, neglecting core features right now and for the past 2-3 years has probably taken no hit at all. They chose the best out of 2 options, and the one that makes their talent happier: They kept personnel on the pay-role by implementing a competing strategy, and kept handing out normal wages, in contrast to laying off no-longer-needed core periphery personnel by paying likely the same in severances.
Why would Facebook have wanted to throw money to the bin when they could (and did) manage to keep people on the pay-role longer. This is always a betetr roadmap than severances, and severances are not only a sign of bankruptcy - if they happen for no financial reason, they are a sign of bad management. And that is where the investor downward spiral starts.
Probably, but I doubt anyone ever really achieves pure change. Urges can be mitigated by habit, but they are genetically instilled - they will come back if left "unattended".
Most people simply don't need photographic memory in their daily tasks, and the brain in most of us, as the sophisticated piece of evolution it is, will just rewire itself dynamically with the environment.
I'm not very savvy on the internals of the brain, but my calculated guess is that brain cells and links mold themselves (chemically? electrically?) either for short-term storage (like nand memory), long-term (flash, optical, magnetic...) or, and here's the kicker, for multi-field optimization/performance. Maybe even some more exotic things like keeping themselves transient, volatile, so they can be used for general purpose on demand, ad hoc (a task commonly required for astronauts, for instance, who need to be prepared to MacGyver the shit out when shit hits the... water recycler fan?).
Now given this opinion, maybe training yourself for memory isn't such a bad thing regardless of your personal or professional goals. It is a known fact most of us have an easily distracted mind, especially in current times. Surrounded by information and "drives", we can't really decide over the most interesting "blobs" of data to pursue, to store, or to decode. It's like a chronic form of ADD, induced by the rapid evolution of communication and societal patterns, one that was once largely specific and even documented in Japanese urban areas even causing psychological disturbs, but now very common across the developed world due to entertainment, the internet and smart device ubiquity.
We were once forced to read books as no alternative was present, now we can learn ALL educational subjects in the same place we watch videos, listen to music, make, share and experience most art, virtually travel, and of course play games (what I call the "combined experience"; what actually is the least prone to raise your IQ, especially with the cesspool that plagues most multiplayer games). And guess what: from all those things we can do with a connected smart device, the human psyche is largely biased towards all but the first one, the only one that really mattered for anything relevant in society. Unless you're a movie critic, game tester, DJ or a professional traveler of course.
We can't really change our physiological drives, but we can certainly fool them and improve something we need but can't reach sporadically with that guidance. Making ourselves a little more prepared for memorization, especially if you have a job that benefits from it, like most here probably do. Fast and efficient programming does require a certain amount of recollection: most people will reach a better sorting algorithm, and/or will get to it faster if they remember the "basic moves" (like chess or rubik cube openings and strategies).
But I believe the jury is still out on "the perfect human mind". And that is, by association, the reason we must also not dwell into A(s)I yet. If anything, I believe perfection for the human species comes in collective form and not individual, so there's nothing wrong to have different ways of thinking, we just need to make sure we have enough diversity (and of course, VALUE that diversity). Maybe these last two should really be the foundations for AI development. Unless you voted for the Dolan.
people probably aren't going to ask you those questions! Imagine that!
They really shouldn't, but you keep telling yourself they should and I'm still waiting for a consistent reason. Companies allot 30 to 90min for technical interviews (most candidates won't submit to more), and if they focus on requesting proof of unnecessary long-term memorization skills, of stuff you're really not supposed to memorize because you have references at hand at all times, they're wasting your time and taking the wrong conclusions. You don't need to "play code by ear", you don't do auditions when programming, other than interviews in the status quo.
Some software companies, like some painters, are successful through making horrible, under-performing software that happens to work. Likewise some horrible programmers end up developing great code that works even though they don't use best practices. Quality isn't on the product, it's on the audience.
Granted, chess and the other stuff are highly analytical, and in the end, skilled strategists are prone to rank up elo, yet even in chess the elo system is not fail-proof.
But get two guys in front of an internet-connected laptop: one who has been winning programming contests the past 5 years and an industry veteran developing for the web the past 5. Now tell them to build a simple, native mobile app in 1h with multiple features that take 3 hours to make together, without restricting access to any source material as long as they don't flat out copy-paste core functionality. Who do you think gets farther in the allotted time? I'm pretty sure it's not the whiz-dev.
Do you see a pattern here? I'm starting to think there is a bias on slashdot into bringing Uber down.
And no, I don't have any Uber shares, and I have used Uber in my (european) city exactly once. And I don't ride taxis as I rarely need them. I am as unbiased as can get.
Analogies are cool and dandy, but miss the point by far.
There are IT fields where you simply don't have to use specific algorithms for years. Hell, maybe even decades. Now you go on a job interview for the exact same field and interviewers throws around big O notation and critical system-level optimization questions, and obviously, even the non-Ivy league freshman who knows those like the back of his hand is gonna destroy any decades-experienced programmer.
Give the average dedicated programmer an internet connection and he'll get 90% of most needs sorted out, in reasonable time at a reasonable rate (in contrast to the industry), and here's the kicker: even if he never actually touched the subject at hand. Most people don't have photographic memory, and most programmers don't actually need it. Most certainly don't need it as much as experience, but man do they like to act like they do in interviews these days.
You did get the bubble sort being trivial part partially right: it is so trivial I actually have never written a bubble sort snipet ever, in my life, even managing to avoid it on most college assignments simply by going another work topic, or focusing on other exam subjects and still get an above-average mark. I happen to know the algorithm for one sole reason and that is I glanced at it for subjects college. And I work in a field that is as general as it goes.
Examples for wanting Rachmaninoff or Kasparov (them Russian geniuses...) expertise levels for IT are so remote they actually involve remote locations: programming in Africa or any region with a slow/non-existing internet connection. Or if I owned such a level of a sweatshop I couldn't allow my devs to lose 5min looking up common tasks through online APIs or programming communities. Also, did you notice all the fields you mention are actually very "like what you do" dependent? Most if not all "virtuosos" on board games, sports, music or theoretical (non-applied) STEM actually love what they do, not every coding one does, as this post actually proves it. Coding isn't a skill most of us like bringing home, it's not like it is a good party-conversation topic. I actually avoid making public I work in IT so people stop nagging me for all their computer basic needs (and other reasons, we all know the field is tainted socially). We charge our employers a fortune per hour and it would be insulting for them to provide such services to acquaintances for free.
Wow, that comment title. Now that I got you attention: it's exactly that.
Let unicorns be unicorns. If there is a market for it, let it be. There are investors, drivers, and passengers willing. So the company doesn't show a profit? Who cares. Do you know how many sports associations (with financial definitions) actually make a profit? I'll give you the European example: more than half, including the top-tier-most soccer clubs are technically bankrupt. Do you see them going down anytime soon? Hell no! And there are people investing like it's the risk capital panacea.
Now when I see an article bashing at a company with terms like "subprime", it reminds me of the 2007 real estate and mortgage crisis. Saying stuff like "fares are 40% subsidized by venture capitalists" is yet another great remark at the target of such bullshit. They WANT stock price to go down, it is widely known that saying shit about a company is the best way to bring it down. Why do you think Trump talks so much crap about China? This holds especially true when the company ahs no public stock but only a very speculative valuation, but it applies generally, and in some instances, it is considered a crime.
You're completely right and I read it awfully wrong on the article. The legal limit around here (Portugal) is indeed 0.05% (the separator we actually use being comma, not a dot, but that's another story).
We have 2 other levels at 0.08% (increased penalty), and 0.012%, at which point it becomes an actual crime just to drive at these levels, sans accidents in the mix (it can still be a crime, even below 0.05%, if there's an accident where liability is assessed from DUI).
I was induced to error by the fact the breathalyzers around here apparently show the per thousand (they actually show grams per kilogram, which is mathematically the same), so the 3 times I was tested I saw values on the 0.0x scale (I don't drink and drive). That last threshold here in my country would show as "1.20" on the display, and that's also what they use for news headlines (e.g. "guy caught with record 12.3 blood-alcohol level" - this actually happened and they had to take a blood sample to confirm the value, since the breathalyzer didn't support those units).
And of course, that changes the whole point of my question: the father certainly doesn't have a clue to blame it on the car. Nobody would deem the least safe to drive a tricycle at 0.21% (or 2.1), let alone a Model S.
Just getting a pulse of what the/. community makes of this reaction.
Blood-alcohol level aside (0.21, despite being illegal, is nothing in most scenarios; in my country the legal limit is 0.5, and I personally don't feel anything at or around that value), but what do you all think can really trigger statements from parents of the deceased in this scenario: Do you believe it's real grief? Do you think he's looking for monetary compensation from Tesla? Do you think his statement is logic-based and he actually believes the acceleration had direct influence on the accident (and he might be seeking for Tesla to implement real safeguards to that problem)? Or do you think this might have a finger or two from the gas-guzzling auto-industry?
You kinda answered my question and you have a point.
Thing is, to me, adverts on Android apps that don't require an internet connection are a moot point, as I just block them with NetGuard (a non-root FOSS firewall for Android). All ads they can try and throw at me are the static, no-video, no-sound, and most of all, (low) no-revenue variety since either Google Play Services doesn't detect them or detects them but pays less for static ads.
And while I could be biased for-ads by being an Android developer, I consider ad-based monetization schemes unethical. Yet I like their existence because it keeps apps I like free while being easily ad-blockable.
Did I miss something? What do they mean by Angry Birds as part of "threats that change all the time"? What's the big difference in playing the game on a personal device vs a company phone? I can think of a gazillion more meaningful ways they could be protecting against actual data-leak/money-costing problems, you know, unlike Angry fuckin' Birds
On team development, it's pretty straight forward, although requires 2 agile tools: daily meetings && code reviews. Even if not using full-fledged Scrum, daily meetings (or at the very least, every other day; weekly defeats the purpose) are essential both to enforcing lazy/demotivated coders to code, and to keep everyone "up to speed" on each devs, well, speed (velocity). Some will argue there are devs that can mask it out pretty well on dailies, but in the long run, it's impossible not to notice when a dev is boasting of things he didn't/won't do, and in that moment, he either self-corrects (he also notices when he gets caught), or he needs punitive action (harsh, but true). Code-review is just a natural iteration to what dailies provide - you complement the generalized opinion with his code - if it was made for general scenarios and considers plausible edge cases (as opposed to solving it for a specific edge-case, which is usually the highest indicator of a bad dev) and the quality of the code overall, although this last part is highly subjective and that's why code review needs to rotate around so a collective opinion around each dev is maintained.
Now, checking stuff like one-man army freelancers, that's a lot harder. There's no other dev to compare, no other dev to supervise. It's like going out for a meal: you can't really look in the kitchen, you get the dish and that's what you can evaluate. Arguably some might have found better tools for assessing small or single-people projects, but it's just hard. The only thing I can say is: as soon as you get 2 devs that don't happen to be biased (e.g. best friends, family), it is much easier to assess each other's value in the project.
On the article itself I have to say: LOCs are plain stupid. Some devs don't even write a LOC all week, yet they are more valuable than others that write LOCs efficiently, but simply work on less important features. A "build master" (or whatever u call the guy handling build automation these days) can be months without writting a LOC, yet he's no sysadmin: he finds bugs, he points other devs to code-parts of bugs. He gets to find failing test problems, regression issues among others before it even gets to QA. But that's just an example. Who has never solved a critical issue 3 other competent people had checked with a one-liner (or even a "one-character"). Sometimes luck is part of the job, other times yu simply are the guy who had the correct line of thought to approach the thing. LOCs are irrelevant in most "valuable" scenarios these days, especially in app maintenance, which is 80% of the industry cost.
And of course the fact he is a highly rated actor on both TV and film. He has been pivotal in BSG, Miami Vice, main villain role in a Dexter season (arguably not the best one but still), and he has a secondary, yet very relevant appearance in cult classic Blade Runner. It's only not obvious for people who can't catch actor names (as I once admittedly was), or those without the taste both for having watched those classics and not noticing EJO's notoriously sharp performances in all of them..
Slashdot Mirror
the UK *is* a world leader in surveillance of their own citizens
Despite not exactly new, and also a bit debatable (I'd argue China or NK come to mind), I always find it perplexing that the country that output Nineteen Eighty-Four is a top contender to this particular title. I'd say the self-exemption goes to show how hard they must have thought this through, and explain their deep background on possible loopholes of being a lawmaker in a Big Brother state.
Google comes to mind. Not sure why though, and that's the gist of it really - you can't be hurt by what you can't feel. Much like initial agencies snooping around secretively, indiscriminately.
Who gives a f*...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1. place those 10x devs in rooms WITHOUT the opposite sex (because we are talking about the 10x, right? It's such a better name than HPE...)
2. remove all forms of entertainment of that office (from consoles to rubik cubes, ban personal mementos in the office desk, personal phones, etc etc)
3. invest in some active noise cancelling gear for them for good measure
4. get a full-time psychologist to assess those with actual asperger's on the office, so they get special needs taken care of
And to the 4% that answered no to "distracting offices" but answered yes to "need private space" (58% - 54%), get them an individual office or cubicle and also invest in some active noise cancelling. If they are 10x and manage to be this consistent, THEY DESERVE IT. Being in such a group means they get to be well performant and still not entire douches. All they want is to procrastinate without the alt-tabbing gimmicks they need to keep making themselves look workaholic (like ALL OF US), and trust me, they will be more productive without having to resort to those. They won't stop being 10x because you gave them more privacy: they will still get the work done if pressure is still applied with non-presential peer pressure (e.g. emails, issue trackers...).
Well, if you're on iOS, that's a completely different story. But on Android, after Marshmallow those 7 prompts are not unusual. You mentioned an update and multiple dialogs asking permission, and it sounded very familiar, as it is exactly what happens in Marshmallow-bound or newer apps that need a lot of permissions.
Nevertheless, saying "no" and it asking again is pretty "sucky", UI-wise, and that is indeed a fault, but we all know most tech companies these days are about exit strats, and most exists either come from heavy data mining, ad-based revenue or a combination of both, and it's nothing specific to Facebook (e.g.: Google, Apple, Microsoft... they all do it now)
It asking for all those permissions is not their problem, it came bundled with the Marshmallow update, and you probably noticed it in all other apps that started targeting Android Marshmallow.
Basically, your previous version of the app (and all other apps in this scenario) showed those permissions at install time (and simply didn't install if you denied any of them), but developers were forced to ask explicitly during app use for individual permissions. Devs now have the option to either keep "permission-asking" as a big block of subsequent "yes/no" dialogs at first boot, or request individual permissions with those dialogs when the permission is first needed (e.g.: first time taking a picture induces storage and camera permissions).
In short: most if not all that changed permission-wise was that instead of restricting installs to people who granted permission for EVERYTHING they needed, they now have to ask individually per permission. Blame Google on that one, but as an Android dev who is also a user, it looks sleeker to me like this, but unlike Messenger apps should use the later paradigm of asking when features actually need a permission, not in bulk.
And it's Facebook's obsession with the "don't leave the app" paradigm. Youtube links, html5 video links, gifs and even common pic format links, they're all messed up both on preview and on the follow up link. Youtube is particularly obnoxious, you have to click twice: click once and the video preview disappears, gets replaced by the lone link itself, which on second click actually opens something else (which also inconsistently fluctuates between a chrome tab inside Messenger running html5 Youtube, an external similar Chrome tab, or the Youtube app itself).
But the worst of all, even Facebook's own links are f'd up - I'd love it if I could get an FB link from a post, user, comment or live vid link on Messenger that actually previews, loads and/or opens consistently IN THE FB APP instead of the browser or messenger itself. They just got it real bad on the Android implementation. It just seems to behave differently depending on: 1. the device you're using; 2. the device people are using; 3. the way people copied/shared the item on their side. It's stupid, as in pre-html5, pre-Android stupid. There is only one thing that nags me even more tha this Messenger quirks on Android, and it's the share location function of Google Maps, which deliberately ignores providing standardized location data anywhere it goes, only providing links to a gmaps-centered position, without even a pin or "navigate to" options.
And yes, I have messed around with both Messenger and Facebook apps' "always open externally", "don't use internal browser" or "whatever da fck it's called this week's update so we have a reset justification and you get it back again". It still sux, and always falls back to Chrome who will not redirect it to the app Intent because it was already redirected.
Thanks for that. I have been attempting to get to know a bit more about meditation.
A lot of people close to me (both in similar and very different professional paths), and other notoriously famous I really appreciate have bragged about meditation helping them a lot. Just this past month I saw a stand up session of Jerry Seinfeld on a meditation dinner party, and he said he's been doing it for decades ever since he started his (weekly?) "Seinfeld", and it really helped him keep up with both pressure, full schedules and work-life balance, and overall focus on discerning important tasks and getting them sorted out in due time.
I guess that's why so many Sillicon Valley top brass go on Indian/Tibethan pillgrimage :D
Nah but taking it seriously, I have no idea how Budhist teachings work. I have stepped aside of serious religion self-thinking for the past 10 years or so. I just failed to see the point in believing in something that so many respected minds have... (pun incoming) lost faith in.
And despite keeping up to speed a fair share with philosophy and psychology topics on my spare time, I fail to grasp scientific ways to really get to (and alter) the root causes of the human existence. I am a deep believer in Nietzches "wille zur macht", and with that I admit, I don't trust too much on altruistic behavior, especially the type that is self-imposed. But I believe ethical and moral compasses are the only path to really shine individually, and eventually that leads to real, untainted altruism, one that needs no mention because it just feels right and deserves external appreciation. And in that respect, Elon Musk is pretty much my God.
Unless FB went on a hiring spree, they are probably just rerouting permanent workers that they hired long ago for their core features into these. And since Facebook has pretty much no competition on their core business segment itself, neglecting core features right now and for the past 2-3 years has probably taken no hit at all. They chose the best out of 2 options, and the one that makes their talent happier: They kept personnel on the pay-role by implementing a competing strategy, and kept handing out normal wages, in contrast to laying off no-longer-needed core periphery personnel by paying likely the same in severances.
Why would Facebook have wanted to throw money to the bin when they could (and did) manage to keep people on the pay-role longer. This is always a betetr roadmap than severances, and severances are not only a sign of bankruptcy - if they happen for no financial reason, they are a sign of bad management. And that is where the investor downward spiral starts.
Probably, but I doubt anyone ever really achieves pure change. Urges can be mitigated by habit, but they are genetically instilled - they will come back if left "unattended".
Most people simply don't need photographic memory in their daily tasks, and the brain in most of us, as the sophisticated piece of evolution it is, will just rewire itself dynamically with the environment.
I'm not very savvy on the internals of the brain, but my calculated guess is that brain cells and links mold themselves (chemically? electrically?) either for short-term storage (like nand memory), long-term (flash, optical, magnetic...) or, and here's the kicker, for multi-field optimization/performance. Maybe even some more exotic things like keeping themselves transient, volatile, so they can be used for general purpose on demand, ad hoc (a task commonly required for astronauts, for instance, who need to be prepared to MacGyver the shit out when shit hits the... water recycler fan?).
Now given this opinion, maybe training yourself for memory isn't such a bad thing regardless of your personal or professional goals. It is a known fact most of us have an easily distracted mind, especially in current times. Surrounded by information and "drives", we can't really decide over the most interesting "blobs" of data to pursue, to store, or to decode. It's like a chronic form of ADD, induced by the rapid evolution of communication and societal patterns, one that was once largely specific and even documented in Japanese urban areas even causing psychological disturbs, but now very common across the developed world due to entertainment, the internet and smart device ubiquity.
We were once forced to read books as no alternative was present, now we can learn ALL educational subjects in the same place we watch videos, listen to music, make, share and experience most art, virtually travel, and of course play games (what I call the "combined experience"; what actually is the least prone to raise your IQ, especially with the cesspool that plagues most multiplayer games). And guess what: from all those things we can do with a connected smart device, the human psyche is largely biased towards all but the first one, the only one that really mattered for anything relevant in society. Unless you're a movie critic, game tester, DJ or a professional traveler of course.
We can't really change our physiological drives, but we can certainly fool them and improve something we need but can't reach sporadically with that guidance. Making ourselves a little more prepared for memorization, especially if you have a job that benefits from it, like most here probably do. Fast and efficient programming does require a certain amount of recollection: most people will reach a better sorting algorithm, and/or will get to it faster if they remember the "basic moves" (like chess or rubik cube openings and strategies).
But I believe the jury is still out on "the perfect human mind". And that is, by association, the reason we must also not dwell into A(s)I yet. If anything, I believe perfection for the human species comes in collective form and not individual, so there's nothing wrong to have different ways of thinking, we just need to make sure we have enough diversity (and of course, VALUE that diversity). Maybe these last two should really be the foundations for AI development. Unless you voted for the Dolan.
They really shouldn't, but you keep telling yourself they should and I'm still waiting for a consistent reason. Companies allot 30 to 90min for technical interviews (most candidates won't submit to more), and if they focus on requesting proof of unnecessary long-term memorization skills, of stuff you're really not supposed to memorize because you have references at hand at all times, they're wasting your time and taking the wrong conclusions. You don't need to "play code by ear", you don't do auditions when programming, other than interviews in the status quo.
Some software companies, like some painters, are successful through making horrible, under-performing software that happens to work. Likewise some horrible programmers end up developing great code that works even though they don't use best practices. Quality isn't on the product, it's on the audience.
Granted, chess and the other stuff are highly analytical, and in the end, skilled strategists are prone to rank up elo, yet even in chess the elo system is not fail-proof.
But get two guys in front of an internet-connected laptop: one who has been winning programming contests the past 5 years and an industry veteran developing for the web the past 5. Now tell them to build a simple, native mobile app in 1h with multiple features that take 3 hours to make together, without restricting access to any source material as long as they don't flat out copy-paste core functionality. Who do you think gets farther in the allotted time? I'm pretty sure it's not the whiz-dev.
Do you see a pattern here? I'm starting to think there is a bias on slashdot into bringing Uber down.
And no, I don't have any Uber shares, and I have used Uber in my (european) city exactly once. And I don't ride taxis as I rarely need them. I am as unbiased as can get.
Analogies are cool and dandy, but miss the point by far.
There are IT fields where you simply don't have to use specific algorithms for years. Hell, maybe even decades. Now you go on a job interview for the exact same field and interviewers throws around big O notation and critical system-level optimization questions, and obviously, even the non-Ivy league freshman who knows those like the back of his hand is gonna destroy any decades-experienced programmer.
Give the average dedicated programmer an internet connection and he'll get 90% of most needs sorted out, in reasonable time at a reasonable rate (in contrast to the industry), and here's the kicker: even if he never actually touched the subject at hand. Most people don't have photographic memory, and most programmers don't actually need it. Most certainly don't need it as much as experience, but man do they like to act like they do in interviews these days.
You did get the bubble sort being trivial part partially right: it is so trivial I actually have never written a bubble sort snipet ever, in my life, even managing to avoid it on most college assignments simply by going another work topic, or focusing on other exam subjects and still get an above-average mark. I happen to know the algorithm for one sole reason and that is I glanced at it for subjects college. And I work in a field that is as general as it goes.
Examples for wanting Rachmaninoff or Kasparov (them Russian geniuses...) expertise levels for IT are so remote they actually involve remote locations: programming in Africa or any region with a slow/non-existing internet connection. Or if I owned such a level of a sweatshop I couldn't allow my devs to lose 5min looking up common tasks through online APIs or programming communities. Also, did you notice all the fields you mention are actually very "like what you do" dependent? Most if not all "virtuosos" on board games, sports, music or theoretical (non-applied) STEM actually love what they do, not every coding one does, as this post actually proves it. Coding isn't a skill most of us like bringing home, it's not like it is a good party-conversation topic. I actually avoid making public I work in IT so people stop nagging me for all their computer basic needs (and other reasons, we all know the field is tainted socially). We charge our employers a fortune per hour and it would be insulting for them to provide such services to acquaintances for free.
Wow, that comment title. Now that I got you attention: it's exactly that.
Let unicorns be unicorns. If there is a market for it, let it be. There are investors, drivers, and passengers willing. So the company doesn't show a profit? Who cares. Do you know how many sports associations (with financial definitions) actually make a profit? I'll give you the European example: more than half, including the top-tier-most soccer clubs are technically bankrupt. Do you see them going down anytime soon? Hell no! And there are people investing like it's the risk capital panacea.
Now when I see an article bashing at a company with terms like "subprime", it reminds me of the 2007 real estate and mortgage crisis. Saying stuff like "fares are 40% subsidized by venture capitalists" is yet another great remark at the target of such bullshit. They WANT stock price to go down, it is widely known that saying shit about a company is the best way to bring it down. Why do you think Trump talks so much crap about China? This holds especially true when the company ahs no public stock but only a very speculative valuation, but it applies generally, and in some instances, it is considered a crime.
Correct. Read reply to above comment.
You're completely right and I read it awfully wrong on the article. The legal limit around here (Portugal) is indeed 0.05% (the separator we actually use being comma, not a dot, but that's another story).
We have 2 other levels at 0.08% (increased penalty), and 0.012%, at which point it becomes an actual crime just to drive at these levels, sans accidents in the mix (it can still be a crime, even below 0.05%, if there's an accident where liability is assessed from DUI).
I was induced to error by the fact the breathalyzers around here apparently show the per thousand (they actually show grams per kilogram, which is mathematically the same), so the 3 times I was tested I saw values on the 0.0x scale (I don't drink and drive). That last threshold here in my country would show as "1.20" on the display, and that's also what they use for news headlines (e.g. "guy caught with record 12.3 blood-alcohol level" - this actually happened and they had to take a blood sample to confirm the value, since the breathalyzer didn't support those units).
And of course, that changes the whole point of my question: the father certainly doesn't have a clue to blame it on the car. Nobody would deem the least safe to drive a tricycle at 0.21% (or 2.1), let alone a Model S.
Just getting a pulse of what the /. community makes of this reaction.
Blood-alcohol level aside (0.21, despite being illegal, is nothing in most scenarios; in my country the legal limit is 0.5, and I personally don't feel anything at or around that value), but what do you all think can really trigger statements from parents of the deceased in this scenario: Do you believe it's real grief? Do you think he's looking for monetary compensation from Tesla? Do you think his statement is logic-based and he actually believes the acceleration had direct influence on the accident (and he might be seeking for Tesla to implement real safeguards to that problem)? Or do you think this might have a finger or two from the gas-guzzling auto-industry?
You kinda answered my question and you have a point.
Thing is, to me, adverts on Android apps that don't require an internet connection are a moot point, as I just block them with NetGuard (a non-root FOSS firewall for Android). All ads they can try and throw at me are the static, no-video, no-sound, and most of all, (low) no-revenue variety since either Google Play Services doesn't detect them or detects them but pays less for static ads.
And while I could be biased for-ads by being an Android developer, I consider ad-based monetization schemes unethical. Yet I like their existence because it keeps apps I like free while being easily ad-blockable.
Did I miss something? What do they mean by Angry Birds as part of "threats that change all the time"? What's the big difference in playing the game on a personal device vs a company phone? I can think of a gazillion more meaningful ways they could be protecting against actual data-leak/money-costing problems, you know, unlike Angry fuckin' Birds
well, it's a buzzword I learned in college. Sorry if I hurt your self-taught, buzz-immune feelings.
On team development, it's pretty straight forward, although requires 2 agile tools: daily meetings && code reviews. Even if not using full-fledged Scrum, daily meetings (or at the very least, every other day; weekly defeats the purpose) are essential both to enforcing lazy/demotivated coders to code, and to keep everyone "up to speed" on each devs, well, speed (velocity). Some will argue there are devs that can mask it out pretty well on dailies, but in the long run, it's impossible not to notice when a dev is boasting of things he didn't/won't do, and in that moment, he either self-corrects (he also notices when he gets caught), or he needs punitive action (harsh, but true). Code-review is just a natural iteration to what dailies provide - you complement the generalized opinion with his code - if it was made for general scenarios and considers plausible edge cases (as opposed to solving it for a specific edge-case, which is usually the highest indicator of a bad dev) and the quality of the code overall, although this last part is highly subjective and that's why code review needs to rotate around so a collective opinion around each dev is maintained.
Now, checking stuff like one-man army freelancers, that's a lot harder. There's no other dev to compare, no other dev to supervise. It's like going out for a meal: you can't really look in the kitchen, you get the dish and that's what you can evaluate. Arguably some might have found better tools for assessing small or single-people projects, but it's just hard. The only thing I can say is: as soon as you get 2 devs that don't happen to be biased (e.g. best friends, family), it is much easier to assess each other's value in the project.
On the article itself I have to say: LOCs are plain stupid. Some devs don't even write a LOC all week, yet they are more valuable than others that write LOCs efficiently, but simply work on less important features. A "build master" (or whatever u call the guy handling build automation these days) can be months without writting a LOC, yet he's no sysadmin: he finds bugs, he points other devs to code-parts of bugs. He gets to find failing test problems, regression issues among others before it even gets to QA. But that's just an example. Who has never solved a critical issue 3 other competent people had checked with a one-liner (or even a "one-character"). Sometimes luck is part of the job, other times yu simply are the guy who had the correct line of thought to approach the thing. LOCs are irrelevant in most "valuable" scenarios these days, especially in app maintenance, which is 80% of the industry cost.
And of course the fact he is a highly rated actor on both TV and film. He has been pivotal in BSG, Miami Vice, main villain role in a Dexter season (arguably not the best one but still), and he has a secondary, yet very relevant appearance in cult classic Blade Runner. It's only not obvious for people who can't catch actor names (as I once admittedly was), or those without the taste both for having watched those classics and not noticing EJO's notoriously sharp performances in all of them..