I was wrong. I was certain that both leads in Europe (Norway) were equivalently hot; I know both of them will show up as hot if I measure them or give me a shock when I touch them. I've always understood it as if they were equivalent.
However, reading more on the topic, it looks like one of them is tied with ground (ie, neutral) and the other isn't.
I'm sorry but "gay" is a word that expresses more than just the sexual preference, it has been like that for a while now. When something is "gay", it might mean it's of bad taste or not very professional. Gay people probably find this offensive but it's not something said intentionally against them (see the episode with fags from Southpark).
It's said in a gross lack of care about them and their situation. Let me try an allegory to make you understand how this hurts, and how you were behaving nastily (so you can avoid being nasty in the future):
Let's say that somebody had started using your mum's name as a term for something being ugly and slutty, as a way to hurt her. Let's further say that they'd managed to get that into the local idiom - lots of people would do this. It had sort of become the local dialect - but it was clear that the origin of this was an attack, that it was originally said and spread in order to hurt her.
You then have one of your friends saying "Oh, look at that your mum's name bitch" in front of you. And he refuse to apologize and think there's no reason for him to change his ways - "It's more than you mum's name, it's become a term for any girl that ugly and slutty, it's been like that for a while now."
Imagine the situation fully. Think of the person that would say it. Think of the location it would be said in, the girl it's said about, the tone of voice it's said in, how you feel as it rubs your raw nerve where this has been done again and again. Now multiply that by ten and add it to a major, defining aspect of *you* being used as an insult.
That 's what you're doing. It may not hurt everyone - but it's certain that it hurts some. It's certain that your kind of behavior contributes to the extremely high suicide rate among gays. What fraction of a suicide do you feel your "freedom" to talk like an ass is worth?
While I right now live in Ireland, I used to live in Norway, which has about one third the population density of the US.
And broadband competition.
It's very simple: You regulate in competition. The natural situation is for the companies in this sector to turn into monopolies due to infrastructure investments partially born by taxpayer or through enforced rights; you must regulate away the monopoly to get a functioning market, e.g. by requiring competitor access to infrastructure at regulated prices.
They're only part of the service because your cell phone / mobile service market is badly regulated, making it not work as an efficient market.
As an example of a more efficient market, I'll describe the Norwegian market:
- Population density: 12.7 / km2 (the US is 31.6). - Almost complete coverage required by law for the major providers ("competition providers" are allowed to use roaming agreements to get the same effect) - All prices are to include all applicable taxes, fees, etc. Company says "It's 99 NOK", customer pays 99 NOK - All cell phone ads have to include the cost without subsidy, the type of subscription you're required to have to get the subsidy, and the cost of the subscription for the binding period - Early termination fee limited to maximum of 1500 NOK ($260) including VAT, discounted over the subscription lockin period. Lockin period AFAIR limited to one year. - Major network owners required to bulk resell minutes to the companies that want to buy them, at standard terms (based on cost +), terms reviewed annually by the local equivalent of the FCC - The norwegian equivalent of the FCC runs a comparison shopper site for telecommunications, Telepriser.no. All providers are required to report their up-to-date prices to this website, with penalties for non-compliance (I believe up to losing their license, though that's never happened in practice). - All phones are forced to have five years warranty against manufacturing defects (this is not a specific telecom regulation; it's a result of general legislation, where all items with a "presumed long use time" has to have five years warranty; the rest have to have two years.)
Net result: - Cheapest subscription I know about: Free, including 60 outgoing minutes and 60 sent SMSes per month. You pay if you go above that. Incoming calls and SMSes are free unless you're in a different country. Bar one speciality provider, all providers I know about have solutions with no monthly fee and will market them. - Cheapest phone I know about, unlocked: About $60 (including VAT) - Supposedly the fastest data network in the world (at one of the providers) - Fairly reasonable data prices: $17.16 / month for 5GB (capped transfer), or $15.42 / 0.5GB / month baseline plus up to $3.46/day for using more (maxing out at $107 for unlimited use) - Almost all phones available with any provider (iPhone was exclusive for a month or two, possibly because of the integration work for it)
That's what comes out of a working, efficient market. Which means it has to be regulated to actually give real competition, and *force* the sellers to give maximum information to the consumers.
But if you've encrypted the hard drive of your main computer, and you have to enter a password every time you start it... a jury isn't necessarily going to believe that you've suddenly conveniently 'forgotten it'.
I had a laptop I entered my password on every time I opened it, for a year or so. A couple of months later, and I couldn't remember the password. I kept the machine around for years, in case I should ever remember and be able to recover data from that machine (some FreeBSD patches) - I never did.
If I had been in the UK and got accused of something, that machine would have been impossible to open and I'd have gone to jail. The machine was locked because I worked as a security consultant and wanted a secure workstation; nothing sinister in it at all.
Those rates are for a single core. They say that decrypting 1080p is ~7x slower than 640x480, which correspond well to 1080p having 6.75x more pixels.
However, there's no reason for this to be restricted to run on a single core or a single machine. If somebody were to use this for distributing a real time stream (e.g, a sports broadcast) there's no particular reason to not just have each recipient of the stream do their share of the decryption.
Running the number, getting 60 frames of 1080p from the Core 2 requires 5.33 cores, which would correspond to three dual-core machines. This means you can't, with today's machines, just share it with your friend if you both have dual core Core2 machines - but with two friends it should work, assuming enough bandwidth available from each of the friends: 3Gbit/s for the full unencrypted stream, plus 1Gbit/s down for the stream to be decrypted, plus 1Gbit/s up for the part of the stream decrypted on that machine.
You'll also get real time decryption on a single Gulftown CPU: E.g, a Core i7-980X runs 3200MHz and has 6 cores.
You're correct that there are more "free" licenses out there, but they're only more "free" if you're the developer.
I want the freedom of using the free market to trade off between cost and risk, and to use it to collaborate on paying for development of improvements to the software. You're taking that away.
Let me give an example:
Let's say you have a million blind people and a piece of open source software that's completely useless to the blind, but could enhance their lives if about $500,000 of development was done on it.
With a GPL or BSD style license, a nice person or nice group of people can say "We'll do that, the blind are deserving."
With a BSD style license, a commercial developer can say "There's one million potential customers easily willing to pay $20. We can probably reach 10% of them, and after marketing costs we'll have $10 each, so that's 100,000 * 10 - $1M. There's a chance that we'll have a further upside, too. OK, this makes sense, we can hire a team and start that."
For a non-hypothetical: I like Mac OS X. It has some of my code in it, and I'm glad that I can buy the codebase back with enhancements.
As for what it achieves: I've been in favor of this on the basis that it makes it harder to go negatively on people from outside the field or, when a large field, from a less prestigious organization. I'm told that it's common for reviewers to use organizational affiliation as a negative discrimination filter, and that's unfortunate.
Your notes about positive discrimination (where the reviewers know the author) is of course still valid.
As far as I've understood, whether the author is anonymous for the reviewers varies by field. I know (from talking to a reviewer) that the author isn't always anonymous, at least. What field are you representing where the author is anonymous?
When I bring my books to the US, I can read them fine with the light bulbs that are there. When I bring my DVDs to the US, I cannot play them on the DVD player that's installed in the room there. The protection is very dissimilar.
Eivind, who was last hit by this three weeks ago, but fortunately had his laptop.
It is easy to apply to yourself because you already speak english. For foreign language speakers, they often don't have the option of going to a well respected college in their native language, the way you do. If you -had- to speak some other language to get a higher education would you think it fair that your inability to learn another language is hindering your mathematics degree?
Yes.
I'm not a native english speaker, and expect that if I am to go to school anywhere with a different language, I have to learn the language.
It should be pretty easy to make a spectrum and say this is more distracting than that, is more distracting than that. At least then you could say that everything on one side of the line is legal and everything on the other side is distracted driving / driving under the influence. If kids are really that distracting then yeah, you'd have to make everything less distracting legal (you're not going to get away with telling parents they can't drive with their kids) but at least things would be consistent.
I see no reason that you'd have to make the less distracting things legal. This is a cost/benefit tradeoff - what's the cost of disallowing each of the distractions, compared to the benefit of disallowing them. And, since we're talking politics, it's probably the political cost that matters.
You've just noted that the political cost of disallowing driving with kids in the car is too high for it to be practical. That doesn't mean that it's not possible to prohibit driving while talking on the cell phone; that's a lower political cost (and, I assume, a lower personal cost for most drivers.)
As far as I can tell, we're in perfect agreement. Christianity doesn't overall lead to science; if interpreted literally or taken as a guide for scientific methodology or fact, it goes wrong. However, Christianity has for most of its time not been in active opposition to science (some individual examples notwithstanding) Christianity did provide motivation for many early scientists.
Actually, science and christianity has been reasonably good friends for many centuries, with the a lot of the "natural philosophers" (the early scientists) being driven by piety to investigate nature as a type of homage to their God. Shortly after the discovery of evolution and just lately (in my impression, maybe last three decades) there has been a deep schism - the fundamentalists have forced their way into more mainstream religion, and science has again been hitting new areas where religion used to reign, making religious people uncomfortable with it again.
Just to make things clear: This is my impression as an atheist, but having been raised in a christian society, including learning christianity at school.
It is not clear to me that it doesn't hurt anyone. Let me explain how HFT works (as far as I've understood it, anyway):
Let's say that Alice and Bob want to buy and sell something. Alice is willing to buy at $25, and Bob is willing to sell at $23. In a normal trading market (and repeated as an average over many trades), Alice would be probing a bit and Bob would be probing a bit and it would end up at $24, giving Bob $1 over his minimum and earning a trade $1 below her maximum.
In a market with a HFT Eve, Eve "listens in" at communication between Alice and Bob (because the communication happens over the market), and end up tricking Alice into buying at $26 and Bob into selling at $24 - resulting in $2 that would normally would have been split between Alice and Bob being siphoned off to Eve. Eve has profited at the expense of Alice and Bob.
Assuming that the HFTs don't provide a service of any value (which you seemed to posit previously) it clearly seems to hurt people. To the tune of $20 +- 5 billion per year (according to the profit estimates for low latency trading).
And possibly it hurts even more than that profit. Normally, the marker re-arrange profits to go to the people that are best at investing and providing meaningful liquidity. This makes for efficient distribution of resources, where we as a society invest effort in what is able to provide value (profit) in the future. By siphoning off resources from that process, it seems likely that the process becomes less effective - removing additional value in addition to the $20 +- billion per year they're siphoning off directly.
I'll say that I don't understand all the ins and outs of how liquidity influence the financial markets, and when it creates meaningful value and not. So it is possible that HFT's form of liquidity provide some kind of value, which might in that case offset some or all of the damage they are doing. I don't see how, though.
I got my present job from being visible on the Internet, and none of the employers I've had so far would care about whatever I put on the net. So from my point of view, you're eliminating yourself from the competition.
I assume this means we work in different fields (or different subfields).
I think the reasonable thing to do would be to make all lobbying public. All lobbyists to have *all* contact with politicians and staffers recorded and published in an electronic format.
This means that all attempts at twisting information would be at least in theory possible to uncover; and that if there is any significant amount of them, a lot *would* be uncovered, creating some fear of this in the lobbyists (and thus reducing it overall).
If we were to enforce this well, deliberate lying or twisting the truth should be considered treason. And deliberately being uninformed in order to avoid this should also be considered treason.
It's really interesting, and actually, VW quoted correctly but put the wrong spin on it.
Yeah, that was what I was attempting to communicate. (I'm slightly limited by what I can say based on being on the inside of that interview process; Peter is presumably cleared to reveal whatever he does reveal, but I have to be really careful so I don't reveal anything more.)
As he said in the first quote (and he repeats that on his remarks after) is a low score on ONE interview.
But I disagree with him on saying it's not broken (but it's ok since he's not going to badmouth his employer)
I'd be interested in hearing why you think it's broken. I unfortunately probably can't comment on it, but I can if convinced try to influence the process.
And the diameter of the sphere of earth's gravitational pull I supposed is defined, too; even though the earth literally attracts every other particle in the universe with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
I believe that only holds true under the assumption that gravity isn't quantized.
One of the interesting things we've found, when trying to predict how well somebody we've hired is going to perform when we evaluate them a year or two later, is one of the best indicators of success within the company was getting the worst possible score on one of your interviews. We rank people from one to four, and if you got a one on one of your interviews, that was a really good indicator of success.
I'll quote the original source of that claim, Peter Norvig, and his refuting of that interpretation:
What do you know? Valleywag got everything wrong. Google is hiring, not laying off. Also, our interview scores actually correlate very well with on-the-job performance. Peter Seibel asked me if there was anything counterintuitive about the process and I said that people who got one low score but were hired anyway did well on-the-job. To me, that means the interview process is doing very well, not that it is broken. It means that we don't let one bad interview blackball a candidate. We'll keep interviewing, keep hiring, and keep analyzing the results to improve the process. And I guess Valleywag will keep doing what they do...
Slashdot Mirror
I was wrong. I was certain that both leads in Europe (Norway) were equivalently hot; I know both of them will show up as hot if I measure them or give me a shock when I touch them. I've always understood it as if they were equivalent.
However, reading more on the topic, it looks like one of them is tied with ground (ie, neutral) and the other isn't.
I'm sorry but "gay" is a word that expresses more than just the sexual preference, it has been like that for a while now. When something is "gay", it might mean it's of bad taste or not very professional. Gay people probably find this offensive but it's not something said intentionally against them (see the episode with fags from Southpark).
It's said in a gross lack of care about them and their situation. Let me try an allegory to make you understand how this hurts, and how you were behaving nastily (so you can avoid being nasty in the future):
Let's say that somebody had started using your mum's name as a term for something being ugly and slutty, as a way to hurt her. Let's further say that they'd managed to get that into the local idiom - lots of people would do this. It had sort of become the local dialect - but it was clear that the origin of this was an attack, that it was originally said and spread in order to hurt her.
You then have one of your friends saying "Oh, look at that your mum's name bitch" in front of you. And he refuse to apologize and think there's no reason for him to change his ways - "It's more than you mum's name, it's become a term for any girl that ugly and slutty, it's been like that for a while now."
Imagine the situation fully. Think of the person that would say it. Think of the location it would be said in, the girl it's said about, the tone of voice it's said in, how you feel as it rubs your raw nerve where this has been done again and again. Now multiply that by ten and add it to a major, defining aspect of *you* being used as an insult.
That 's what you're doing. It may not hurt everyone - but it's certain that it hurts some. It's certain that your kind of behavior contributes to the extremely high suicide rate among gays. What fraction of a suicide do you feel your "freedom" to talk like an ass is worth?
Most of the world does not have a neutral line, but two hot lines.
While I right now live in Ireland, I used to live in Norway, which has about one third the population density of the US.
And broadband competition.
It's very simple: You regulate in competition. The natural situation is for the companies in this sector to turn into monopolies due to infrastructure investments partially born by taxpayer or through enforced rights; you must regulate away the monopoly to get a functioning market, e.g. by requiring competitor access to infrastructure at regulated prices.
Eivind.
They're only part of the service because your cell phone / mobile service market is badly regulated, making it not work as an efficient market.
As an example of a more efficient market, I'll describe the Norwegian market:
- Population density: 12.7 / km2 (the US is 31.6).
- Almost complete coverage required by law for the major providers ("competition providers" are allowed to use roaming agreements to get the same effect)
- All prices are to include all applicable taxes, fees, etc. Company says "It's 99 NOK", customer pays 99 NOK
- All cell phone ads have to include the cost without subsidy, the type of subscription you're required to have to get the subsidy, and the cost of the subscription for the binding period
- Early termination fee limited to maximum of 1500 NOK ($260) including VAT, discounted over the subscription lockin period. Lockin period AFAIR limited to one year.
- Major network owners required to bulk resell minutes to the companies that want to buy them, at standard terms (based on cost +), terms reviewed annually by the local equivalent of the FCC
- The norwegian equivalent of the FCC runs a comparison shopper site for telecommunications, Telepriser.no. All providers are required to report their up-to-date prices to this website, with penalties for non-compliance (I believe up to losing their license, though that's never happened in practice).
- All phones are forced to have five years warranty against manufacturing defects (this is not a specific telecom regulation; it's a result of general legislation, where all items with a "presumed long use time" has to have five years warranty; the rest have to have two years.)
Net result:
- Cheapest subscription I know about: Free, including 60 outgoing minutes and 60 sent SMSes per month. You pay if you go above that. Incoming calls and SMSes are free unless you're in a different country. Bar one speciality provider, all providers I know about have solutions with no monthly fee and will market them.
- Cheapest phone I know about, unlocked: About $60 (including VAT)
- Supposedly the fastest data network in the world (at one of the providers)
- Fairly reasonable data prices: $17.16 / month for 5GB (capped transfer), or $15.42 / 0.5GB / month baseline plus up to $3.46/day for using more (maxing out at $107 for unlimited use)
- Almost all phones available with any provider (iPhone was exclusive for a month or two, possibly because of the integration work for it)
That's what comes out of a working, efficient market. Which means it has to be regulated to actually give real competition, and *force* the sellers to give maximum information to the consumers.
Eivind.
But if you've encrypted the hard drive of your main computer, and you have to enter a password every time you start it... a jury isn't necessarily going to believe that you've suddenly conveniently 'forgotten it'.
I had a laptop I entered my password on every time I opened it, for a year or so. A couple of months later, and I couldn't remember the password. I kept the machine around for years, in case I should ever remember and be able to recover data from that machine (some FreeBSD patches) - I never did.
If I had been in the UK and got accused of something, that machine would have been impossible to open and I'd have gone to jail. The machine was locked because I worked as a security consultant and wanted a secure workstation; nothing sinister in it at all.
Eivind.
I assumed 1080p60, as the highest standard that seems relevant for today, and as fitting with the descriptions that were given.
Anyway, the main point is that decoding HDCP in real time is possible with the posted implementation today, even for high resolution streams.
Eivind.
Those rates are for a single core. They say that decrypting 1080p is ~7x slower than 640x480, which correspond well to 1080p having 6.75x more pixels.
However, there's no reason for this to be restricted to run on a single core or a single machine. If somebody were to use this for distributing a real time stream (e.g, a sports broadcast) there's no particular reason to not just have each recipient of the stream do their share of the decryption.
Running the number, getting 60 frames of 1080p from the Core 2 requires 5.33 cores, which would correspond to three dual-core machines. This means you can't, with today's machines, just share it with your friend if you both have dual core Core2 machines - but with two friends it should work, assuming enough bandwidth available from each of the friends: 3Gbit/s for the full unencrypted stream, plus 1Gbit/s down for the stream to be decrypted, plus 1Gbit/s up for the part of the stream decrypted on that machine.
You'll also get real time decryption on a single Gulftown CPU: E.g, a Core i7-980X runs 3200MHz and has 6 cores.
There's 62277432 people in France, using the world bank 2008 estimate (See a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+france").
We generously assume that they have one Internet connection each.
With 150000 IP addresses warned every day, that's 50,000 people cut off every day (assuming the volume keeps up).
At that rate, it takes 1246 days to cut off everybody, which is fairly precisely 3.5 years.
Eivind.
(On the GPL)
You're correct that there are more "free" licenses out there, but they're only more "free" if you're the developer.
I want the freedom of using the free market to trade off between cost and risk, and to use it to collaborate on paying for development of improvements to the software. You're taking that away.
Let me give an example:
Let's say you have a million blind people and a piece of open source software that's completely useless to the blind, but could enhance their lives if about $500,000 of development was done on it.
With a GPL or BSD style license, a nice person or nice group of people can say "We'll do that, the blind are deserving."
With a BSD style license, a commercial developer can say "There's one million potential customers easily willing to pay $20. We can probably reach 10% of them, and after marketing costs we'll have $10 each, so that's 100,000 * 10 - $1M. There's a chance that we'll have a further upside, too. OK, this makes sense, we can hire a team and start that."
For a non-hypothetical: I like Mac OS X. It has some of my code in it, and I'm glad that I can buy the codebase back with enhancements.
Eivind.
Thanks for the reply.
As for what it achieves: I've been in favor of this on the basis that it makes it harder to go negatively on people from outside the field or, when a large field, from a less prestigious organization. I'm told that it's common for reviewers to use organizational affiliation as a negative discrimination filter, and that's unfortunate.
Your notes about positive discrimination (where the reviewers know the author) is of course still valid.
Eivind.
As far as I've understood, whether the author is anonymous for the reviewers varies by field. I know (from talking to a reviewer) that the author isn't always anonymous, at least. What field are you representing where the author is anonymous?
Eivind.
When I bring my books to the US, I can read them fine with the light bulbs that are there. When I bring my DVDs to the US, I cannot play them on the DVD player that's installed in the room there. The protection is very dissimilar.
Eivind, who was last hit by this three weeks ago, but fortunately had his laptop.
It is easy to apply to yourself because you already speak english. For foreign language speakers, they often don't have the option of going to a well respected college in their native language, the way you do. If you -had- to speak some other language to get a higher education would you think it fair that your inability to learn another language is hindering your mathematics degree?
Yes.
I'm not a native english speaker, and expect that if I am to go to school anywhere with a different language, I have to learn the language.
Eivind.
That's a brilliant solution. First useful one in the thread so far.
It should be pretty easy to make a spectrum and say this is more distracting than that, is more distracting than that. At least then you could say that everything on one side of the line is legal and everything on the other side is distracted driving / driving under the influence. If kids are really that distracting then yeah, you'd have to make everything less distracting legal (you're not going to get away with telling parents they can't drive with their kids) but at least things would be consistent.
I see no reason that you'd have to make the less distracting things legal. This is a cost/benefit tradeoff - what's the cost of disallowing each of the distractions, compared to the benefit of disallowing them. And, since we're talking politics, it's probably the political cost that matters.
You've just noted that the political cost of disallowing driving with kids in the car is too high for it to be practical. That doesn't mean that it's not possible to prohibit driving while talking on the cell phone; that's a lower political cost (and, I assume, a lower personal cost for most drivers.)
Eivind.
As far as I can tell, we're in perfect agreement. Christianity doesn't overall lead to science; if interpreted literally or taken as a guide for scientific methodology or fact, it goes wrong. However, Christianity has for most of its time not been in active opposition to science (some individual examples notwithstanding) Christianity did provide motivation for many early scientists.
Actually, science and christianity has been reasonably good friends for many centuries, with the a lot of the "natural philosophers" (the early scientists) being driven by piety to investigate nature as a type of homage to their God. Shortly after the discovery of evolution and just lately (in my impression, maybe last three decades) there has been a deep schism - the fundamentalists have forced their way into more mainstream religion, and science has again been hitting new areas where religion used to reign, making religious people uncomfortable with it again.
Just to make things clear: This is my impression as an atheist, but having been raised in a christian society, including learning christianity at school.
Eivind.
It is not clear to me that it doesn't hurt anyone. Let me explain how HFT works (as far as I've understood it, anyway):
Let's say that Alice and Bob want to buy and sell something. Alice is willing to buy at $25, and Bob is willing to sell at $23. In a normal trading market (and repeated as an average over many trades), Alice would be probing a bit and Bob would be probing a bit and it would end up at $24, giving Bob $1 over his minimum and earning a trade $1 below her maximum.
In a market with a HFT Eve, Eve "listens in" at communication between Alice and Bob (because the communication happens over the market), and end up tricking Alice into buying at $26 and Bob into selling at $24 - resulting in $2 that would normally would have been split between Alice and Bob being siphoned off to Eve. Eve has profited at the expense of Alice and Bob.
Assuming that the HFTs don't provide a service of any value (which you seemed to posit previously) it clearly seems to hurt people. To the tune of $20 +- 5 billion per year (according to the profit estimates for low latency trading).
And possibly it hurts even more than that profit. Normally, the marker re-arrange profits to go to the people that are best at investing and providing meaningful liquidity. This makes for efficient distribution of resources, where we as a society invest effort in what is able to provide value (profit) in the future. By siphoning off resources from that process, it seems likely that the process becomes less effective - removing additional value in addition to the $20 +- billion per year they're siphoning off directly.
I'll say that I don't understand all the ins and outs of how liquidity influence the financial markets, and when it creates meaningful value and not. So it is possible that HFT's form of liquidity provide some kind of value, which might in that case offset some or all of the damage they are doing. I don't see how, though.
I got my present job from being visible on the Internet, and none of the employers I've had so far would care about whatever I put on the net. So from my point of view, you're eliminating yourself from the competition.
I assume this means we work in different fields (or different subfields).
I'd say more around the 5170-mark, myself.
I think the reasonable thing to do would be to make all lobbying public. All lobbyists to have *all* contact with politicians and staffers recorded and published in an electronic format.
This means that all attempts at twisting information would be at least in theory possible to uncover; and that if there is any significant amount of them, a lot *would* be uncovered, creating some fear of this in the lobbyists (and thus reducing it overall).
If we were to enforce this well, deliberate lying or twisting the truth should be considered treason. And deliberately being uninformed in order to avoid this should also be considered treason.
The wordnet definition of treason is:
Thanks for that
It's really interesting, and actually, VW quoted correctly but put the wrong spin on it.
Yeah, that was what I was attempting to communicate. (I'm slightly limited by what I can say based on being on the inside of that interview process; Peter is presumably cleared to reveal whatever he does reveal, but I have to be really careful so I don't reveal anything more.)
As he said in the first quote (and he repeats that on his remarks after) is a low score on ONE interview.
But I disagree with him on saying it's not broken (but it's ok since he's not going to badmouth his employer)
I'd be interested in hearing why you think it's broken. I unfortunately probably can't comment on it, but I can if convinced try to influence the process.
Eivind.
And the diameter of the sphere of earth's gravitational pull I supposed is defined, too; even though the earth literally attracts every other particle in the universe with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
I believe that only holds true under the assumption that gravity isn't quantized.
(Repeat of similar post above, where you made this misinterpretation too.)
http://gawker.com/5392947/googles-broken-hiring-process
And I quote Peter Norvig
One of the interesting things we've found, when trying to predict how well somebody we've hired is going to perform when we evaluate them a year or two later, is one of the best indicators of success within the company was getting the worst possible score on one of your interviews. We rank people from one to four, and if you got a one on one of your interviews, that was a really good indicator of success.
I'll quote the original source of that claim, Peter Norvig, and his refuting of that interpretation:
What do you know? Valleywag got everything wrong. Google is hiring, not laying off. Also, our interview scores actually correlate very well with on-the-job performance. Peter Seibel asked me if there was anything counterintuitive about the process and I said that people who got one low score but were hired anyway did well on-the-job. To me, that means the interview process is doing very well, not that it is broken. It means that we don't let one bad interview blackball a candidate. We'll keep interviewing, keep hiring, and keep analyzing the results to improve the process. And I guess Valleywag will keep doing what they do...
(emphasis mine)
Eivind.