Python is a.NET language. Microsoft's IronPython compiles to.NET and uses the.NET framework instead of Python's regular packages.
I meant the properly-speaking.NET languages (C# & VB.NET), simply because I don't have too much experience in the other ones and I am not sure about how well they support all the.NET features. In any case, it seems that IronPython isn't a Microsoft implementation. External libraries allowing a given programming language to communicate with.NET are relatively common, but that fact doesn't convert the given language into a.NET one.
And VB.NET is not really "a new version of VB6" at all
Seriously? Then, how do you call the transition from the old VB to the new VB.NET supporting very similar syntax, the same name and even most of the old in-built functions? Two different languages with basically identical syntax and name? LOL.
it's a whole different language that's more like C#
No. C# and VB.NET share their intimate.NET reliance and this is the only thing that makes them similar. Other than that, their syntaxes are completely different and VB.NET emulates the VB one + some extensions.
It doesn't behave like VB at all.
Logically. I never implied that VB and VB.NET behave similarly because they certainly don't. But this is the case with any other two versions of a programming language which aren't compatible between each other (+ are separated by quite a few years).
My experience is similar to yours. I have a very relevant.NET expertise, including dealing with MS Office communication, and have been in quite a few situations where I had to rely on VBA (e.g., the client wanted it for whatever reason, improving existing VBA codes which weren't planned to be migrated to.NET, etc.). Relying on.NET is much friendlier and logically I prefer it, but some times you cannot do what you want or what is best.
Could anybody comment on why this is such a big issue?
I think that the main reason is that people don't understand how powerful Office macros really are. They can do many things, not just in the spreadsheet but everywhere on the computer. They are basically a program. The chances of a VBA script or a random executable to do something wrong on your computer are pretty much identical; but people might consider the first option less problematic and treat spreadsheets with macros more carelessly.
In principle, it might seem that supporting.NET languages would have made more sense; mainly when VBA is basically VB6 which is basically the old version of VB.NET. On the other hand, the.NET Framework already has a quite powerful communication with MS Office, so that alternative wouldn't have added too much to what is already available. I guess that I don't have a too strong opinion about all this, other than being quite curious mainly because of not being the typical Microsoft move.
I cannot talk about what I don't know and have always enjoyed free medical care, either in my country or in other ones. I have also been in countries without it, but I happened to never get ill there (additionally, my country would have partially covered my expenses). I am happy with the free system, if you are also happy with the paid one, we both would be happy and this would become a happy sub-thread with a quite off-topic (bad Slashdot! We want news for nerds!!!) and not-too-happy article:)
A state can't keep borrowing to give free stuff forever.
The basic ideas is that taxes (or specific contributions like with the health-care system) should cover everything. Rather than letting the free market and theoretically the fittest (actually, the privileged-born regardless of anything else) to survive, the state acts as a long-term, solid support for everyone's basic needs by paying special attention at those in worse circumstances. The government mismanaging or not being able to implement the most adequate policies isn't a flaw of that approach, but a sad output of short-sightedness, incompetence and stupidity (usually delivered by the aforementioned not-properly-speaking fittest ones) and this can happen in any system.
Nobody gets free stuff, they simply give more power to the government. The government takes care of many more basic needs than in countries where there is a more aggressive capitalism. People don't pay companies which compete among them to earn the most regardless of anything else, but to the government which, theoretically, should be less greedy and arbitrary.
Spain played a game of chicken with Germany in the last crisis. Germany bailed you out. Do you think the people of Germany will keep doing that
Germany has also a social-oriented/protective government with similar expenses than the Spain's ones, but apparently is doing a better management job. As said before, I am not interested in defending my country (or anyone else's mistakes), but most of financial actions are usually based on egoism (= being considered by the party lending the money the best option for its own interests). Seriously thinking that money is being lend as a favour to the recipient denotes either dishonesty or lack of understanding. Germans (or better the EU or even better the banks/financial institutions) are free to do what they wish with their money and that shouldn't affect Spain's policies.
Macro-economically speaking, sure. From the everyone's living fine point of view, I don't think so. I am not precisely a blind defender of my country and, in fact, I will be most likely moving out within the next years; but people here live well, safe and happy. If you like exorbitant luxury and hard-capitalism atmosphere where only richness matters, etc., Spain wouldn't be for you. But if you want to live without too many concerns on the basic safety, wellness, tolerance fronts, you would certainly like it.
In any case, the free health system is very nice and I cannot even picture myself paying because of being ill (what if I happen to not have too much money at that point?). Additionally, this aspect is quite self-sustained as far as everyone is over-paying (I did over-pay on top of the due over-payment) for what they will be spending. This is a forced contribution which is automatically subtracted from all the salaries/companies.
In my country (Spain) and quite a few other ones, medical expenses rarely represent an issue as far as a part of all the salaries (and contributions of companies/self-employers) is being used to pay for the public health care system. I could even stop working/contributing for some years without losing these benefits (I did over-contribute in the past); but even people with no work or illegal immigrants can enjoy it under quite a few scenarios. You only use paid/private alternatives either voluntarily or for somehow-unnecessary treatments.
I have performed the following searches in bing.com (US as country):
- "Is bing bad?". There is no vs. comparison at the top and the first 4 results ("Is Bing still bad?", "Whats so bad about Bing?", "This is why you dislike Bing", "Why Bing sucks. Top 5 reasons") seem to be very clear on this front.
- "is google bad?". A vs. comparison does appear above the standard search results: "Google is evil" vs. "Why is google so good". The first 4 results below ("Google is evil", "Google: good or bad", "Is too much Google a bad thing?", "7 reasons why Google Chrome, the new Google browser, is a bad idea") aren't as clear as before.
Conclusion: according to Bing, both cholesterol and Google can be considered good or bad, unlikely Bing itself which is undoubtedly bad. LOL.
DISCLAIMER: I personally don't really care about any of them as far as only use Hooli search. DISCLAIMER (serious version): I am currently testing Yandex (with quite a few limitations on the English search front, but pretty good for specific searches like stuff related to programming or being shared in a copyright-careless way) and will be testing Bing next. So far, Google is the one delivering the best results but I don't like quite a few of their policies; StartPage is a quite nice alternative.
As per my personal experience, IT workers rarely refer to programmers nowadays. For example, in job-search sites you usually have developers/programmers/engineers and IT staff as separated categories. But this might also depend on countries, companies and even people; perhaps, I have got a partial impression which might not be applicable everywhere. In any case, your reference to software development after the 90s isn't completely incompatible with my original post; I was working at that other company in the 2006-2008 period.
For whatever meaning of "IT workers" (see my comment below for more clarifications), this isn't applicable under highly-specialised conditions, where the more experience the better. I am 39 (although started programming a bit too late) myself, I am working under very demanding conditions and planning to continue doing it for many years. The older I become, the clearer are my ideas and the better and easier my work becomes.
When talking about programming/software/IT, low-specialisation or too-narrowly-delimited experience are starting to become a problem almost in any context. Although there seems to be a tendency towards easier environments, the reality is that everything is getting systematically more complex and being very knowledgeable/resourceful is starting to become a requirement almost anywhere. When problems appear, you want trustworthy people able to quickly and reliably fix them; to not mention that, ideally, you would prefer those errors not having been provoked in the first place, what is much more likely to occur when experienced people are around.
There are certainly quite a few privileged companies with good enough resources which are mostly interested in people using/applying what someone else did before. Those companies might afford relying on cheaper/younger labour force, but that attitude is likely to provoke long-term problems anyway. Experience will always be a very relevant asset in a field as complex and systematically evolving as IT, regardless of its exact meaning; at least, when talking about medium/high quality products and services.
Not too many years ago, IT was associated with anything related to software/programming. I was working at a highly-specialised engineering consultancy closely related to software and they were referring to themselves as an IT business. In fact, I have been using that term to describe my activity (basically programming) until relatively recently. Now, IT whatever seems to be exclusively associated with not-too-specialised staff whose work is somehow related to computers?!
A so relevant, but-completely-arbitrary evolution of the meaning of a word tells a lot about the tremendous importance of context and adequately understanding the actual intention. Although this should be quite evident for almost anyone, quite a few people working on the software (development) industry seem to prefer an undoubted-meaning-isolated-word-based (mis)understanding?!
These tests aren't about bugs in in-built functionalities used as expected, but about somehow unexpected behaviours when misusing them. Or, in other words, what is the likeliness of a poorly developed piece of software (an extreme scenario where you aren't even properly using well-documented resources aimed to ease your work) to have a valid appearance? As per my personal experience and despite not caring too much about the specific programming language, I have observed curious behaviours when mistyping some bits in some of the mentioned languages. Not getting a clear error when you do something wrong is certainly a bit bothering, but blaming that for a faulty output is going too far.
Any experienced enough programmer shouldn't find any problem to deal with virtually any language. Even in case of not having too much experience, you could avoid all this by paying more attention and/or reading the available documentation. Additionally and regardless of your experience, thoroughly debugging/testing all the code should be a relevant part of any development.
If you are working/living under favourable conditions, surrounded by practical, sensible and properly understanding people, with high freedom/resource availability to do whatever you want at any point, that advice might be somehow helpful for those not realising that being too concerned about work (or on anything else) isn't precisely positive. On the other hand, if your conditions are harder and/or your expectations can only be accomplished via a relevant amount of over-effort and/or in that moment you aren't able/have the resources to do what you really enjoy and/or you perform better under pressure, that wouldn't be too accurate. Similarly to what happens with everything else, it is a matter of perspective and, in this specific situation, personal priorities, interests, type of work you do, etc. Some people might enjoy being at work much more than doing what others consider amusing.
I personally don't have too much experience on this specific front, but I guess that, under very specific conditions, there is no harm in building from a source code in GitHub. On the other hand, doing something like what I described in my previous comment and letting an in-production streaming application systematically communicating with GitHub to get a small file seems gross incompetence; to not mention the fact that streaming is precisely closely related to the core business of that company. It is incompetence of the person who takes a ready-to-be-used code without properly understanding/debugging/adapting it; also of those who originally developed that code, for not having setup a better/more efficient alternative (and/or clear warnings/instructions); it is even incompetence of the managers mishiring/mismotivating/mispaying and pushing beyond what is logical to meet ridiculous milestones; even the tolerance of the viewers, accepting problems and errors as normal, might be partially blamed. All this seems wrong for many reasons, easily improvable and very difficult to be justified. At least, for me, for my expectations and the kind work I do/conditions I accept.
Being so cautious with expenses if you have serious money problems makes some sense. Not wanting to spend too much on what you don't like seems quite sensible too; or other attitudes on these lines like not enjoying excessive luxury. But having more than enough money and caring about each single penny seems a quite negative attitude for that person and everyone else. Although it seems much worse to seriously think that a relevant wealth can be generated via carefully managing your money. Rich people are rich because they either were born rich or did a quite relevant effort (usually not precisely consisting in honest, hard work) to get there. The more you have, the more likely is that you can easily get more even despite a negligent management; or, in simpler terms, a rich idiot will probably always be rich and idiot.
Anecdotally, I have stopped drinking cafeteria coffee recently too, but only as a way to reduce my caffeine daily intake. I have always shared/spent all the money I had and will continue doing exactly the same thing for as long as possible. I am certainly (kind of) poor, mainly lately when I have decided to stop tolerating in-hurry, pushy and unfair arbitrariness and to focus on doing a proper work under proper conditions. If my behaviour was more money-saving-prone, now I would have a bit more money, a bit more fear (of losing it) and would have enjoyed/made enjoy others much less. I wouldn't have been rich under absolutely any circumstance, at least by having kept my principles and dignity intact. Ideally, it might have been possible via hard over-work and by provoking the wealth of practical people to be increased (e.g., you lend me some money, give me enough time, I earn enough for me and for you and we both win); but, as I have learned during the last years, this is an unrealistic fantasy: people are too stupid to allow everyone-winning scenarios.
Google developed an application whose sole purpose is tuning up video recognition software. There are lots of samples on these lines; computers are usually better than people at doing repetitive tasks by applying well-defined rules and involving lots of trial and error. Logically, that piece of software can only generate "children" performing those exacts actions and nothing else.
In that case, I would do everything manually! Installing Windows just to avoid a bit of healthy repetitive work? Never! LOL. Seriously, if this is true, then the automation would have been extremely easy. You might even rely on different approaches: VBA macros, in-built communication of.NET languages or even non.NET languages by relying on some library or Microsoft interfaces (not sure on this front; I guess that some COM/OLE reliance). Although quite a few of Microsoft's own formats aren't too compatible with generic approaches like normal file reading, they usually offer quite a few communication alternatives and their APIs are well documented. In the case of Office application files, they have done a particularly good work because you can easily automate virtually any action on them.
If it took 15 minutes to process each financial aid application and get the relevant data (age, race, sex, location of origin, economic background, acceptance status), that would be 1280 hours.
OK. Let's assume that, for the first 10 records, he needed an average time of 15 minutes per application (quite slow already). Let's also assume that the format was extremely incompatible with pure automation. Are you saying me that once you have retrieved the few values you need by following whatever format (e.g., first line in page 1, third and fifth lines in page 4, etc.), you would need 15 minutes to do it over and over again?! Seriously? Well, I certainly don't need that much time. You can give me an as complex format as you wish which is being regularly repeated; at the start, I might spend some time to come up with a way to efficiently go through all that information, but gradually the process would become extremely quick. Even more than 1 minute to look through X pages and take Y values in places which you can immediately locate seems already way too much. Your comment seems to be following the same reasoning than what this guy might have done to estimate the 1500 hours: measuring what you need for the first few ones and multiply that by the number of records. A quite inaccurate calculation proceeding; at least, for me (and most of people I know) and under the most logical conditions.
But even despite the aforementioned paragraph, I can think of very few scenarios (to not say virtually none) where I wouldn't have built an automated approach to take care of a so repetitive task. Even if the files had the most unappealing and automated-unfriendly format (e.g., images) and I would have to spend a relevant amount of time (certainly much less than 1500 hours!! This is the time which I would be spending to build a really complex piece of software, rather than an application automating whatever actions) on the development, I wouldn't have done it manually. On the other hand, I am quite experienced in software development and building an application performing whatever actions is relatively easy for me; so, perhaps I am inadvertently assuming that some things are easier than what they really are for other people. The specific format might also be quite automation-incompatible and I might even decide to only automate part of the actions. But not automating anything or, in the absolutely worst scenario doing it completely manually but needing 1500 hours (during 10 months!! This is over half-time work every single day of the week!!) to extract/analyse/report what is being described here seems way too much for everyone. It is also clear that people studying a MBA aren't expected to be too good/knowledgeable on certain fronts; but perhaps that guy should have accepted that reality and learn a bit/ask or pay for help. In fact and as per some bad personal experiences on this front, that attitude seems quite common among MBA holders: not being fully aware about the limitations of their knowledge and performing inefficient or plainly wrong actions (affecting others).
have not studied anything at any level of detail to make your knowledge worthwhile
I am not sure if I get your point there, but I do have 2 university degrees (+ studied for a third one which didn't finished for practical reasons) and +8 years of professional engineering/software development experience under quite demanding conditions with a major focus on R&D and systematically extending my knowledge. I have also met quite a few MBA holders and seen (even suffered) what they do with their knowledge. I have even met some individuals without MBAs having really weird ideas about the exact value of a MBA!
I bet you think all knowledge can be fed to you in tweets.
Just out of curiosity, where have you got such a nonsense from? From my lengthy explanations or from the fact of not referring to my Twitter account anywhere? LOL. Or do you also think that 88 pages are required to transmit the ideas which a few simple pie charts can deliver? Just for you information, I have a private Twitter account which I use mostly for reading curious/funny/interesting bits from some people. It is also a quite good way to quickly know about a serious problem going on somewhere; although getting more information about that event by reading the nonsense/lies which people write there isn't a too reliable approach.
In summary, I have no problem with Twitter and even use that site quite regularly as a secondary distraction, but it is very far away from being representative of myself, my attitude or knowledge. On the other hand, it is an excellent site for someone like you, easily coming up with short, dumbed-down nonsensical ideas. If you don't have an account there, I recommend you to get one. Alternatively, if you don't have a MBA yet, perhaps you should start considering that option too.
Well, you should consider journalism because you're very good at it. You totally changed the subject and in a very effective way. They can make good use of people like you.
LOL. Thanks, but I think that you are mixing up journalism with partiality and manipulation, what is usually seen as bad journalism. I am very happy in my world of only caring about technical aspects/objectivity and will never move to something like journalism. But even in the unrealistic eventuality of becoming a journalist, I would bring all my principles with me; so, your assumptions wouldn't be applicable to myself even in that unrealistic scenario.
Being a journalist isn't a requirement to be partial/dishonest though. In fact, the (software development) world is full partiality, dishonesty and mobster-like attitudes. I can even say that my objectivity-prone behaviour has been quite problematic for me. So, it isn't a matter of what you do, but mostly of how you do it, of what is really important for you. Basically, about what you are mostly concerned? About doing the right thing by caring about everyone else or about doing what is best for you regardless of how you affect others?
So instead of digesting this shocking information about a very prominent institution being caught red-handed in a gigantic lie, you attack the messenger.
My comment isn't precisely focusing on the most important aspect of this article. You are right. In fact, I do think that all the actions contributing towards minimising dishonest/nepotist behaviours are very positive and, in that sense, I am grateful to that guy as a human being and a citizen of the world. On the other hand, I don't know/care too much about MBAs/Standford, these problems aren't even related to my country (Spain), social status (poor enough to not even dream about studying for a MBA at Standford) or my background (programming, engineering, technical, absolute objectivity concerned); that's why I preferred to comment on what is more closely related to my expertise. In any case, I am not attacking the messenger or anyone else, just sharing my objective impressions. Additionally and to be completely honest, I don't see this "leak" and the attacked dishonesty specially important/protection worthy as far as it is very unlikely to affect people having actual problems (rich kid concerns?). But despite all that you are making a very good point: my comment doesn't care about what really matters here and I accept that.
That's a pretty clever deflection
I didn't deflect anything. As explained, I focused on an in-principle-secondary aspect, simply because of being more related to what I know and because of not seeing this whole situation as a problem about which I should be really concerned. Although I do insist in my full support to anyone fighting against dishonesty and nepotism everywhere. Sorry for not having made that point clear in my first comment.
do you work as a journalist as your full-time job
As clearly explained in my profile here, the linked sites, all the resources you can find about me anywhere and, even implicitly denoted by my previous comment, I work as a programmer/engineer/data analyst and by putting a major focus on being as objective as possible. My work isn't about convincing people or affecting others' opinion or talking about what I don't know. Also writing here my personal impressions has nothing to do with my work; although as a self-employed online-based worker, all what I write here or anywhere else is helpful for potential clients to know more about my personality/ideas even though I prefer them to eminently focus on technical aspects.
He has spent on analysing this data 1500 hours?! Since February?! Working on the same data set over 5 hours per day during the last 10 months?! To write a 88 pages report?! While studying said MBA at said University?! I cannot think of many positive conclusions from any of that for either the person or the university/degree.
That statement seems to indicate that either that guy is lying and/or his proceeding/knowledge is highly inefficient (not knowing how to automate the analysis/to do what a MBA-holder usually do and pay someone with that knowledge? Writing a 88-page report to just come to the conclusion that people with certain background are more likely to be chosen?) and/or doing a MBA at Standford isn't precisely effort/time consuming (well...). I guess that it is quite evident that MBAs aren't exactly difficult/demanding and that aspects like getting contacts, opening doors are usually more relevant than the knowledge itself; but 1500 hours in 10 months seems a bit too much for what is being described under these conditions.
You want to automate your build so that you pull the dependencies from a URL
Curious! Inefficient and uncontrollable but the kind of thing which a big number people might do. I would never have thought about doing something like that myself; so, very helpful information, thanks! In fact, it kind of explains a weird issue which I have been seeing while streaming from the site of a major TV network in my country for some months (I think that it isn't there anymore). There were always problems/delays while connecting for the first time and, after that, regular pauses and reduction of quality. I started noticing that when that happened the given application was connecting to GitHub (you know in the lower part of the browser where you can see regular connections to ad providers and similar)! And I found it extremely crappy! Why not having your own (ideally local) copy! Or, at least, connecting to a site precisely meant to perform these actions, which isn't the case with GitHub! I even visited that repository and it was a library meant to simplify the implementation of streaming services, but it was quite small file!
Slashdot Mirror
Python is a .NET language. Microsoft's IronPython compiles to .NET and uses the .NET framework instead of Python's regular packages.
I meant the properly-speaking .NET languages (C# & VB.NET), simply because I don't have too much experience in the other ones and I am not sure about how well they support all the .NET features. In any case, it seems that IronPython isn't a Microsoft implementation. External libraries allowing a given programming language to communicate with .NET are relatively common, but that fact doesn't convert the given language into a .NET one.
And VB.NET is not really "a new version of VB6" at all
Seriously? Then, how do you call the transition from the old VB to the new VB.NET supporting very similar syntax, the same name and even most of the old in-built functions? Two different languages with basically identical syntax and name? LOL.
it's a whole different language that's more like C#
No. C# and VB.NET share their intimate .NET reliance and this is the only thing that makes them similar. Other than that, their syntaxes are completely different and VB.NET emulates the VB one + some extensions.
It doesn't behave like VB at all.
Logically. I never implied that VB and VB.NET behave similarly because they certainly don't. But this is the case with any other two versions of a programming language which aren't compatible between each other (+ are separated by quite a few years).
My experience is similar to yours. I have a very relevant .NET expertise, including dealing with MS Office communication, and have been in quite a few situations where I had to rely on VBA (e.g., the client wanted it for whatever reason, improving existing VBA codes which weren't planned to be migrated to .NET, etc.). Relying on .NET is much friendlier and logically I prefer it, but some times you cannot do what you want or what is best.
Could anybody comment on why this is such a big issue?
I think that the main reason is that people don't understand how powerful Office macros really are. They can do many things, not just in the spreadsheet but everywhere on the computer. They are basically a program. The chances of a VBA script or a random executable to do something wrong on your computer are pretty much identical; but people might consider the first option less problematic and treat spreadsheets with macros more carelessly.
In principle, it might seem that supporting .NET languages would have made more sense; mainly when VBA is basically VB6 which is basically the old version of VB.NET. On the other hand, the .NET Framework already has a quite powerful communication with MS Office, so that alternative wouldn't have added too much to what is already available. I guess that I don't have a too strong opinion about all this, other than being quite curious mainly because of not being the typical Microsoft move.
I cannot talk about what I don't know and have always enjoyed free medical care, either in my country or in other ones. I have also been in countries without it, but I happened to never get ill there (additionally, my country would have partially covered my expenses). I am happy with the free system, if you are also happy with the paid one, we both would be happy and this would become a happy sub-thread with a quite off-topic (bad Slashdot! We want news for nerds!!!) and not-too-happy article :)
A state can't keep borrowing to give free stuff forever.
The basic ideas is that taxes (or specific contributions like with the health-care system) should cover everything. Rather than letting the free market and theoretically the fittest (actually, the privileged-born regardless of anything else) to survive, the state acts as a long-term, solid support for everyone's basic needs by paying special attention at those in worse circumstances. The government mismanaging or not being able to implement the most adequate policies isn't a flaw of that approach, but a sad output of short-sightedness, incompetence and stupidity (usually delivered by the aforementioned not-properly-speaking fittest ones) and this can happen in any system.
Nobody gets free stuff, they simply give more power to the government. The government takes care of many more basic needs than in countries where there is a more aggressive capitalism. People don't pay companies which compete among them to earn the most regardless of anything else, but to the government which, theoretically, should be less greedy and arbitrary.
Spain played a game of chicken with Germany in the last crisis. Germany bailed you out. Do you think the people of Germany will keep doing that
Germany has also a social-oriented/protective government with similar expenses than the Spain's ones, but apparently is doing a better management job. As said before, I am not interested in defending my country (or anyone else's mistakes), but most of financial actions are usually based on egoism (= being considered by the party lending the money the best option for its own interests). Seriously thinking that money is being lend as a favour to the recipient denotes either dishonesty or lack of understanding. Germans (or better the EU or even better the banks/financial institutions) are free to do what they wish with their money and that shouldn't affect Spain's policies.
Spain has MASSIVE economic problems.
Macro-economically speaking, sure. From the everyone's living fine point of view, I don't think so. I am not precisely a blind defender of my country and, in fact, I will be most likely moving out within the next years; but people here live well, safe and happy. If you like exorbitant luxury and hard-capitalism atmosphere where only richness matters, etc., Spain wouldn't be for you. But if you want to live without too many concerns on the basic safety, wellness, tolerance fronts, you would certainly like it.
In any case, the free health system is very nice and I cannot even picture myself paying because of being ill (what if I happen to not have too much money at that point?). Additionally, this aspect is quite self-sustained as far as everyone is over-paying (I did over-pay on top of the due over-payment) for what they will be spending. This is a forced contribution which is automatically subtracted from all the salaries/companies.
In my country (Spain) and quite a few other ones, medical expenses rarely represent an issue as far as a part of all the salaries (and contributions of companies/self-employers) is being used to pay for the public health care system. I could even stop working/contributing for some years without losing these benefits (I did over-contribute in the past); but even people with no work or illegal immigrants can enjoy it under quite a few scenarios. You only use paid/private alternatives either voluntarily or for somehow-unnecessary treatments.
I have performed the following searches in bing.com (US as country):
- "Is bing bad?". There is no vs. comparison at the top and the first 4 results ("Is Bing still bad?", "Whats so bad about Bing?", "This is why you dislike Bing", "Why Bing sucks. Top 5 reasons") seem to be very clear on this front.
- "is google bad?". A vs. comparison does appear above the standard search results: "Google is evil" vs. "Why is google so good". The first 4 results below ("Google is evil", "Google: good or bad", "Is too much Google a bad thing?", "7 reasons why Google Chrome, the new Google browser, is a bad idea") aren't as clear as before.
Conclusion: according to Bing, both cholesterol and Google can be considered good or bad, unlikely Bing itself which is undoubtedly bad. LOL.
DISCLAIMER: I personally don't really care about any of them as far as only use Hooli search.
DISCLAIMER (serious version): I am currently testing Yandex (with quite a few limitations on the English search front, but pretty good for specific searches like stuff related to programming or being shared in a copyright-careless way) and will be testing Bing next. So far, Google is the one delivering the best results but I don't like quite a few of their policies; StartPage is a quite nice alternative.
Actuality it is the other way around.
As per my personal experience, IT workers rarely refer to programmers nowadays. For example, in job-search sites you usually have developers/programmers/engineers and IT staff as separated categories. But this might also depend on countries, companies and even people; perhaps, I have got a partial impression which might not be applicable everywhere. In any case, your reference to software development after the 90s isn't completely incompatible with my original post; I was working at that other company in the 2006-2008 period.
IT workers are "old" when they reach 30, not 40.
For whatever meaning of "IT workers" (see my comment below for more clarifications), this isn't applicable under highly-specialised conditions, where the more experience the better. I am 39 (although started programming a bit too late) myself, I am working under very demanding conditions and planning to continue doing it for many years. The older I become, the clearer are my ideas and the better and easier my work becomes.
When talking about programming/software/IT, low-specialisation or too-narrowly-delimited experience are starting to become a problem almost in any context. Although there seems to be a tendency towards easier environments, the reality is that everything is getting systematically more complex and being very knowledgeable/resourceful is starting to become a requirement almost anywhere. When problems appear, you want trustworthy people able to quickly and reliably fix them; to not mention that, ideally, you would prefer those errors not having been provoked in the first place, what is much more likely to occur when experienced people are around.
There are certainly quite a few privileged companies with good enough resources which are mostly interested in people using/applying what someone else did before. Those companies might afford relying on cheaper/younger labour force, but that attitude is likely to provoke long-term problems anyway. Experience will always be a very relevant asset in a field as complex and systematically evolving as IT, regardless of its exact meaning; at least, when talking about medium/high quality products and services.
Not too many years ago, IT was associated with anything related to software/programming. I was working at a highly-specialised engineering consultancy closely related to software and they were referring to themselves as an IT business. In fact, I have been using that term to describe my activity (basically programming) until relatively recently. Now, IT whatever seems to be exclusively associated with not-too-specialised staff whose work is somehow related to computers?!
A so relevant, but-completely-arbitrary evolution of the meaning of a word tells a lot about the tremendous importance of context and adequately understanding the actual intention. Although this should be quite evident for almost anyone, quite a few people working on the software (development) industry seem to prefer an undoubted-meaning-isolated-word-based (mis)understanding?!
These tests aren't about bugs in in-built functionalities used as expected, but about somehow unexpected behaviours when misusing them. Or, in other words, what is the likeliness of a poorly developed piece of software (an extreme scenario where you aren't even properly using well-documented resources aimed to ease your work) to have a valid appearance? As per my personal experience and despite not caring too much about the specific programming language, I have observed curious behaviours when mistyping some bits in some of the mentioned languages. Not getting a clear error when you do something wrong is certainly a bit bothering, but blaming that for a faulty output is going too far.
Any experienced enough programmer shouldn't find any problem to deal with virtually any language. Even in case of not having too much experience, you could avoid all this by paying more attention and/or reading the available documentation. Additionally and regardless of your experience, thoroughly debugging/testing all the code should be a relevant part of any development.
If you are working/living under favourable conditions, surrounded by practical, sensible and properly understanding people, with high freedom/resource availability to do whatever you want at any point, that advice might be somehow helpful for those not realising that being too concerned about work (or on anything else) isn't precisely positive. On the other hand, if your conditions are harder and/or your expectations can only be accomplished via a relevant amount of over-effort and/or in that moment you aren't able/have the resources to do what you really enjoy and/or you perform better under pressure, that wouldn't be too accurate. Similarly to what happens with everything else, it is a matter of perspective and, in this specific situation, personal priorities, interests, type of work you do, etc. Some people might enjoy being at work much more than doing what others consider amusing.
I personally don't have too much experience on this specific front, but I guess that, under very specific conditions, there is no harm in building from a source code in GitHub. On the other hand, doing something like what I described in my previous comment and letting an in-production streaming application systematically communicating with GitHub to get a small file seems gross incompetence; to not mention the fact that streaming is precisely closely related to the core business of that company. It is incompetence of the person who takes a ready-to-be-used code without properly understanding/debugging/adapting it; also of those who originally developed that code, for not having setup a better/more efficient alternative (and/or clear warnings/instructions); it is even incompetence of the managers mishiring/mismotivating/mispaying and pushing beyond what is logical to meet ridiculous milestones; even the tolerance of the viewers, accepting problems and errors as normal, might be partially blamed. All this seems wrong for many reasons, easily improvable and very difficult to be justified. At least, for me, for my expectations and the kind work I do/conditions I accept.
Being so cautious with expenses if you have serious money problems makes some sense. Not wanting to spend too much on what you don't like seems quite sensible too; or other attitudes on these lines like not enjoying excessive luxury. But having more than enough money and caring about each single penny seems a quite negative attitude for that person and everyone else. Although it seems much worse to seriously think that a relevant wealth can be generated via carefully managing your money. Rich people are rich because they either were born rich or did a quite relevant effort (usually not precisely consisting in honest, hard work) to get there. The more you have, the more likely is that you can easily get more even despite a negligent management; or, in simpler terms, a rich idiot will probably always be rich and idiot.
Anecdotally, I have stopped drinking cafeteria coffee recently too, but only as a way to reduce my caffeine daily intake. I have always shared/spent all the money I had and will continue doing exactly the same thing for as long as possible. I am certainly (kind of) poor, mainly lately when I have decided to stop tolerating in-hurry, pushy and unfair arbitrariness and to focus on doing a proper work under proper conditions. If my behaviour was more money-saving-prone, now I would have a bit more money, a bit more fear (of losing it) and would have enjoyed/made enjoy others much less. I wouldn't have been rich under absolutely any circumstance, at least by having kept my principles and dignity intact. Ideally, it might have been possible via hard over-work and by provoking the wealth of practical people to be increased (e.g., you lend me some money, give me enough time, I earn enough for me and for you and we both win); but, as I have learned during the last years, this is an unrealistic fantasy: people are too stupid to allow everyone-winning scenarios.
Google developed an application whose sole purpose is tuning up video recognition software. There are lots of samples on these lines; computers are usually better than people at doing repetitive tasks by applying well-defined rules and involving lots of trial and error. Logically, that piece of software can only generate "children" performing those exacts actions and nothing else.
With "Office application files" , I meant Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc. files.
it was probably in some Microsoft Office format.
In that case, I would do everything manually! Installing Windows just to avoid a bit of healthy repetitive work? Never! LOL. Seriously, if this is true, then the automation would have been extremely easy. You might even rely on different approaches: VBA macros, in-built communication of .NET languages or even non .NET languages by relying on some library or Microsoft interfaces (not sure on this front; I guess that some COM/OLE reliance). Although quite a few of Microsoft's own formats aren't too compatible with generic approaches like normal file reading, they usually offer quite a few communication alternatives and their APIs are well documented. In the case of Office application files, they have done a particularly good work because you can easily automate virtually any action on them.
If it took 15 minutes to process each financial aid application and get the relevant data (age, race, sex, location of origin, economic background, acceptance status), that would be 1280 hours.
OK. Let's assume that, for the first 10 records, he needed an average time of 15 minutes per application (quite slow already). Let's also assume that the format was extremely incompatible with pure automation. Are you saying me that once you have retrieved the few values you need by following whatever format (e.g., first line in page 1, third and fifth lines in page 4, etc.), you would need 15 minutes to do it over and over again?! Seriously? Well, I certainly don't need that much time. You can give me an as complex format as you wish which is being regularly repeated; at the start, I might spend some time to come up with a way to efficiently go through all that information, but gradually the process would become extremely quick. Even more than 1 minute to look through X pages and take Y values in places which you can immediately locate seems already way too much. Your comment seems to be following the same reasoning than what this guy might have done to estimate the 1500 hours: measuring what you need for the first few ones and multiply that by the number of records. A quite inaccurate calculation proceeding; at least, for me (and most of people I know) and under the most logical conditions.
But even despite the aforementioned paragraph, I can think of very few scenarios (to not say virtually none) where I wouldn't have built an automated approach to take care of a so repetitive task. Even if the files had the most unappealing and automated-unfriendly format (e.g., images) and I would have to spend a relevant amount of time (certainly much less than 1500 hours!! This is the time which I would be spending to build a really complex piece of software, rather than an application automating whatever actions) on the development, I wouldn't have done it manually. On the other hand, I am quite experienced in software development and building an application performing whatever actions is relatively easy for me; so, perhaps I am inadvertently assuming that some things are easier than what they really are for other people. The specific format might also be quite automation-incompatible and I might even decide to only automate part of the actions. But not automating anything or, in the absolutely worst scenario doing it completely manually but needing 1500 hours (during 10 months!! This is over half-time work every single day of the week!!) to extract/analyse/report what is being described here seems way too much for everyone. It is also clear that people studying a MBA aren't expected to be too good/knowledgeable on certain fronts; but perhaps that guy should have accepted that reality and learn a bit/ask or pay for help. In fact and as per some bad personal experiences on this front, that attitude seems quite common among MBA holders: not being fully aware about the limitations of their knowledge and performing inefficient or plainly wrong actions (affecting others).
have not studied anything at any level of detail to make your knowledge worthwhile
I am not sure if I get your point there, but I do have 2 university degrees (+ studied for a third one which didn't finished for practical reasons) and +8 years of professional engineering/software development experience under quite demanding conditions with a major focus on R&D and systematically extending my knowledge. I have also met quite a few MBA holders and seen (even suffered) what they do with their knowledge. I have even met some individuals without MBAs having really weird ideas about the exact value of a MBA!
I bet you think all knowledge can be fed to you in tweets.
Just out of curiosity, where have you got such a nonsense from? From my lengthy explanations or from the fact of not referring to my Twitter account anywhere? LOL. Or do you also think that 88 pages are required to transmit the ideas which a few simple pie charts can deliver? Just for you information, I have a private Twitter account which I use mostly for reading curious/funny/interesting bits from some people. It is also a quite good way to quickly know about a serious problem going on somewhere; although getting more information about that event by reading the nonsense/lies which people write there isn't a too reliable approach.
In summary, I have no problem with Twitter and even use that site quite regularly as a secondary distraction, but it is very far away from being representative of myself, my attitude or knowledge. On the other hand, it is an excellent site for someone like you, easily coming up with short, dumbed-down nonsensical ideas. If you don't have an account there, I recommend you to get one. Alternatively, if you don't have a MBA yet, perhaps you should start considering that option too.
Well, you should consider journalism because you're very good at it. You totally changed the subject and in a very effective way. They can make good use of people like you.
LOL. Thanks, but I think that you are mixing up journalism with partiality and manipulation, what is usually seen as bad journalism. I am very happy in my world of only caring about technical aspects/objectivity and will never move to something like journalism. But even in the unrealistic eventuality of becoming a journalist, I would bring all my principles with me; so, your assumptions wouldn't be applicable to myself even in that unrealistic scenario.
Being a journalist isn't a requirement to be partial/dishonest though. In fact, the (software development) world is full partiality, dishonesty and mobster-like attitudes. I can even say that my objectivity-prone behaviour has been quite problematic for me. So, it isn't a matter of what you do, but mostly of how you do it, of what is really important for you. Basically, about what you are mostly concerned? About doing the right thing by caring about everyone else or about doing what is best for you regardless of how you affect others?
So instead of digesting this shocking information about a very prominent institution being caught red-handed in a gigantic lie, you attack the messenger.
My comment isn't precisely focusing on the most important aspect of this article. You are right. In fact, I do think that all the actions contributing towards minimising dishonest/nepotist behaviours are very positive and, in that sense, I am grateful to that guy as a human being and a citizen of the world. On the other hand, I don't know/care too much about MBAs/Standford, these problems aren't even related to my country (Spain), social status (poor enough to not even dream about studying for a MBA at Standford) or my background (programming, engineering, technical, absolute objectivity concerned); that's why I preferred to comment on what is more closely related to my expertise. In any case, I am not attacking the messenger or anyone else, just sharing my objective impressions. Additionally and to be completely honest, I don't see this "leak" and the attacked dishonesty specially important/protection worthy as far as it is very unlikely to affect people having actual problems (rich kid concerns?). But despite all that you are making a very good point: my comment doesn't care about what really matters here and I accept that.
That's a pretty clever deflection
I didn't deflect anything. As explained, I focused on an in-principle-secondary aspect, simply because of being more related to what I know and because of not seeing this whole situation as a problem about which I should be really concerned. Although I do insist in my full support to anyone fighting against dishonesty and nepotism everywhere. Sorry for not having made that point clear in my first comment.
do you work as a journalist as your full-time job
As clearly explained in my profile here, the linked sites, all the resources you can find about me anywhere and, even implicitly denoted by my previous comment, I work as a programmer/engineer/data analyst and by putting a major focus on being as objective as possible. My work isn't about convincing people or affecting others' opinion or talking about what I don't know. Also writing here my personal impressions has nothing to do with my work; although as a self-employed online-based worker, all what I write here or anywhere else is helpful for potential clients to know more about my personality/ideas even though I prefer them to eminently focus on technical aspects.
He has spent on analysing this data 1500 hours?! Since February?! Working on the same data set over 5 hours per day during the last 10 months?! To write a 88 pages report?! While studying said MBA at said University?! I cannot think of many positive conclusions from any of that for either the person or the university/degree.
That statement seems to indicate that either that guy is lying and/or his proceeding/knowledge is highly inefficient (not knowing how to automate the analysis/to do what a MBA-holder usually do and pay someone with that knowledge? Writing a 88-page report to just come to the conclusion that people with certain background are more likely to be chosen?) and/or doing a MBA at Standford isn't precisely effort/time consuming (well...). I guess that it is quite evident that MBAs aren't exactly difficult/demanding and that aspects like getting contacts, opening doors are usually more relevant than the knowledge itself; but 1500 hours in 10 months seems a bit too much for what is being described under these conditions.
You want to automate your build so that you pull the dependencies from a URL
Curious! Inefficient and uncontrollable but the kind of thing which a big number people might do. I would never have thought about doing something like that myself; so, very helpful information, thanks! In fact, it kind of explains a weird issue which I have been seeing while streaming from the site of a major TV network in my country for some months (I think that it isn't there anymore). There were always problems/delays while connecting for the first time and, after that, regular pauses and reduction of quality. I started noticing that when that happened the given application was connecting to GitHub (you know in the lower part of the browser where you can see regular connections to ad providers and similar)! And I found it extremely crappy! Why not having your own (ideally local) copy! Or, at least, connecting to a site precisely meant to perform these actions, which isn't the case with GitHub! I even visited that repository and it was a library meant to simplify the implementation of streaming services, but it was quite small file!