Sounds like a great way to waste time. I always tell recruiters what I want, because if they can't get me what I want then why waste each other's time?
I never do, because it's a lose lose for me.
If I tell them I want $150k, and the company had $180k in mind for the position, then I'll get an offer of $155k, and won't have any ability to negotiate.
If I tell them I want $150k, and the company had $130k in mind for the position, then they'll not interview me, not discover how awesome I am, and I'll lose the ability to figure out some other solution, or convince them of why I'm worth more than they were expecting.
If I don't tell them how much I want, then in the first case, the recruiter will call me up, say "we'd like to make you an offer at $175k", I'll say "well, I was really hoping for a little more than that, I mean, it's a significant risk for me to move to another country, and my wife won't be able to get a work visa there, so really I'd need to effectively provide two incomes". They may come back with $185k, or they may stick, but I'll have got somewhere. Either way, I'll be on $25k more than if I'd told them "what I wanted".
In the second case, they'll come in with a $125k offer, we'll discuss it, and maybe with enough incentives, stock options/units, bonuses etc it'll become worth while.
The reason is simple - the title in the headline is misleading you about needing to pay 2 to 3 times more. It's comparing the Intel chip to a relatively low end AMD chip that happens to have a GPU, not to the high end AMD chips that it actually competes against.
If you go look at the first review, you'll see that in the CPU speed tests, the i5-5675C turns out to be substantially (about 30%) faster than even the FX-9590 (AMD's fastest desktop chip). That and it has a decently fast GPU built in too.
The i5 costs $276 (list price, so likely higher than what you'll actually get it in the shops), the FX-9590 costs $249 (on newegg today). So that's a 10% markup for a 30% faster CPU with a very usable GPU on board. Most people see that as a pretty good deal.
This.... because for some ridiculous reason, the salary for your next job is based upon the salary of your current or previous job.
Nope... Because rule 1 of negotiating for a better salary is "don't tell the recruiter either how much you currently get paid, or how much you expect/want".
Oh gee, I dunno, how about the legion of people who finish PhDs or postdocs and don't currently get academic jobs. Or possibly raising salaries to compete with banking.
And where's your evidence that these people who have high end robotics and AI skills in the apropriate research areas actually exist?
So you're saying that it's impossible to ever have a skills shortage, because there's no such thing as a skills shortage? Even if there's only 1 person capable of doing the job, and 1000 companies want to hire them, that's 999 companies' fault for not being commercially or economically viable, and not a skills shortage, right?
So then who can CMU hire to replace the people that Uber hired?
Both CMU and Uber want 40 people with these skills, there are only (at least according to Uber's hiring practices) 40 people available. That's 80 jobs, and 40 people. In what way is that not a skills shortage?
You realise that this very article is pointing out a skills shortage.
The reason that Uber paid them a huge amount of money was because there's more than one job available per person capable of doing that job, so they needed to pay a huge amount.
In paying a huge amount they didn't magically change the fact that there's a shortage of people to do that job, they just (temporarily) came out on top of the pile in terms of who actually gets to employ someone.
To be fair, the cutting taxes one is pretty insane.
The country can't afford to provide health care for everyone. It can't afford to look after its veterans. It can't afford to keep its freeways in serviceable condition (in fact, in such bad shape that the bridges are collapsing!).
America doesn't need tax cuts. It needs tax hikes, and military spending cuts.
Yeh, for anything that produces heat, and hence requires a lot of power, this really isn't going to work. 250A cabling to a little electric fire place is a non-starter.
Uhhhh... In general, it's not legal to not pay your employees, but when a company has run out of money, it's run out of money. This is how going bankrupt works...
The problem is that this doesn't solve the problem. The problem that NSI calling addresses is that not everyone is prepared. Maybe I (as a brit) visit the US, and don't get a temporary SIM while I'm there - my SIM can't be used to make any calls at all... Except for that crucial 911 call that I wasn't prepared for.
Handing out free 911-only SIMs doesn't make it so that someone who is unprepared can call.
Well, the question is simple. Do receiving 70% of the calls from NSI phones being trolls cause more irreversible consequences than not receiving the 30% that are not trolls.
It may well be that more than twice as many trolls in fact cause more legitimate emergencies to go unattended than simply not receiving the legitimate NSI calls causes.
Bear in mind that KSP doesn't model several important aspects of returning to the earth (or Kerbal). It doesn't cover keeping the thing pointing in the right direction so that you don't die in a fireball. It doesn't cover keeping the thing from entering the atmosphere too steeply so that you don't die in a fireball. It doesn't cover keeping the thing from (not) entering the atmosphere too shallowly so that you don't die in the frozen wastes of space.
Aside from these basics of getting the thing flying the right way, it also doesn't cover keeping the temperature/oxygen level/g-forces/... within the capsule at reasonable levels.
Not at all - good pixel art takes way more man hours to produce than good 3D art. Heck, even bad pixel art does. It's much harder to convey an idea in a limited pallete and limited resolution than it is with all that beautiful smooth space available.
Personally, I hate the result, but that doesn't mean it's easy to make.
but unlike jazz it is not obnoxious to everyone else.
No, I can assure you, I find pixel art actively obnoxious. Not only does it look terrible (IMO), but someone actively put extra effort into making it look terrible.
Except that 1) you're looking at prototypes 2) only 50% of the accidents were while the computer was in control 3) accidents per person/vehicle is not what you care about, it's accidents per mile.
But that, in and of itself doesn't disprove the existence of a trend which does not show any sign of slowing.
There's a trend? It doesn't show any sign of slowing?
Where's your data? Show me the trend line, and show me that it's not slowing. As far as I can see, some people moved email to the web a decade or two ago, and since then, nearly nothing else has moved into being a web app.
To be fair, 2 of the accidents happened while under human control. That suggests that yes, the computers are at least as good as the humans... That said, the sample size is tiny, and critical info like miles driven is missing, so who knows.
Nope, completely the reverse. The company that owns the copyright is the one for which you were working - that is, your shell company. The only time that changes is if you have an explicit copyright assignment to someone else.
Being there to profit from my work, and being my friend are two entirely orthogonal concepts. In fact, him profiting from my work, and me profiting from my work are two orthogonal concepts too. It is entirely possible (and very common) for an employment contract to be a win/win scenario for both parties - one party is getting work, the other party is getting the necessary environment to make their skills valuable, both are getting profit out of it.
Why cheaper? What if the hardware is already owned? What if the systems therein are running just fine as expected? If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Because when that existing hardware breaks, it'll be much more expensive to completely rewrite everything than it would have been to just keep it properly maintained all along.
The only reason you would have that code still running on those chips is because it's not forward compatible with something more modern. Otherwise someone would have transitioned to some much cheaper, more recent, commodity hardware, and saved the business a lot of cash.
That's definitely not good engineering, or something to brag about.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a great way to waste time. I always tell recruiters what I want, because if they can't get me what I want then why waste each other's time?
I never do, because it's a lose lose for me.
If I tell them I want $150k, and the company had $180k in mind for the position, then I'll get an offer of $155k, and won't have any ability to negotiate.
If I tell them I want $150k, and the company had $130k in mind for the position, then they'll not interview me, not discover how awesome I am, and I'll lose the ability to figure out some other solution, or convince them of why I'm worth more than they were expecting.
If I don't tell them how much I want, then in the first case, the recruiter will call me up, say "we'd like to make you an offer at $175k", I'll say "well, I was really hoping for a little more than that, I mean, it's a significant risk for me to move to another country, and my wife won't be able to get a work visa there, so really I'd need to effectively provide two incomes". They may come back with $185k, or they may stick, but I'll have got somewhere. Either way, I'll be on $25k more than if I'd told them "what I wanted".
In the second case, they'll come in with a $125k offer, we'll discuss it, and maybe with enough incentives, stock options/units, bonuses etc it'll become worth while.
The reason is simple - the title in the headline is misleading you about needing to pay 2 to 3 times more. It's comparing the Intel chip to a relatively low end AMD chip that happens to have a GPU, not to the high end AMD chips that it actually competes against.
If you go look at the first review, you'll see that in the CPU speed tests, the i5-5675C turns out to be substantially (about 30%) faster than even the FX-9590 (AMD's fastest desktop chip). That and it has a decently fast GPU built in too.
The i5 costs $276 (list price, so likely higher than what you'll actually get it in the shops), the FX-9590 costs $249 (on newegg today). So that's a 10% markup for a 30% faster CPU with a very usable GPU on board. Most people see that as a pretty good deal.
This.... because for some ridiculous reason, the salary for your next job is based upon the salary of your current or previous job.
Nope... Because rule 1 of negotiating for a better salary is "don't tell the recruiter either how much you currently get paid, or how much you expect/want".
Oh gee, I dunno, how about the legion of people who finish PhDs or postdocs and don't currently get academic jobs. Or possibly raising salaries to compete with banking.
And where's your evidence that these people who have high end robotics and AI skills in the apropriate research areas actually exist?
So you're saying that it's impossible to ever have a skills shortage, because there's no such thing as a skills shortage? Even if there's only 1 person capable of doing the job, and 1000 companies want to hire them, that's 999 companies' fault for not being commercially or economically viable, and not a skills shortage, right?
What would be wrong with saying Pac-Man AI?
So then who can CMU hire to replace the people that Uber hired?
Both CMU and Uber want 40 people with these skills, there are only (at least according to Uber's hiring practices) 40 people available. That's 80 jobs, and 40 people. In what way is that not a skills shortage?
You realise that this very article is pointing out a skills shortage.
The reason that Uber paid them a huge amount of money was because there's more than one job available per person capable of doing that job, so they needed to pay a huge amount.
In paying a huge amount they didn't magically change the fact that there's a shortage of people to do that job, they just (temporarily) came out on top of the pile in terms of who actually gets to employ someone.
To be fair, the cutting taxes one is pretty insane.
The country can't afford to provide health care for everyone. It can't afford to look after its veterans. It can't afford to keep its freeways in serviceable condition (in fact, in such bad shape that the bridges are collapsing!).
America doesn't need tax cuts. It needs tax hikes, and military spending cuts.
Yeh, for anything that produces heat, and hence requires a lot of power, this really isn't going to work. 250A cabling to a little electric fire place is a non-starter.
Uhhhh... In general, it's not legal to not pay your employees, but when a company has run out of money, it's run out of money. This is how going bankrupt works...
The problem is that this doesn't solve the problem. The problem that NSI calling addresses is that not everyone is prepared. Maybe I (as a brit) visit the US, and don't get a temporary SIM while I'm there - my SIM can't be used to make any calls at all... Except for that crucial 911 call that I wasn't prepared for.
Handing out free 911-only SIMs doesn't make it so that someone who is unprepared can call.
Well, the question is simple. Do receiving 70% of the calls from NSI phones being trolls cause more irreversible consequences than not receiving the 30% that are not trolls.
It may well be that more than twice as many trolls in fact cause more legitimate emergencies to go unattended than simply not receiving the legitimate NSI calls causes.
Bear in mind that KSP doesn't model several important aspects of returning to the earth (or Kerbal). It doesn't cover keeping the thing pointing in the right direction so that you don't die in a fireball. It doesn't cover keeping the thing from entering the atmosphere too steeply so that you don't die in a fireball. It doesn't cover keeping the thing from (not) entering the atmosphere too shallowly so that you don't die in the frozen wastes of space.
Aside from these basics of getting the thing flying the right way, it also doesn't cover keeping the temperature/oxygen level/g-forces/... within the capsule at reasonable levels.
"pixel" blocky art is also a cost saving measure.
Not at all - good pixel art takes way more man hours to produce than good 3D art. Heck, even bad pixel art does. It's much harder to convey an idea in a limited pallete and limited resolution than it is with all that beautiful smooth space available.
Personally, I hate the result, but that doesn't mean it's easy to make.
but unlike jazz it is not obnoxious to everyone else.
No, I can assure you, I find pixel art actively obnoxious. Not only does it look terrible (IMO), but someone actively put extra effort into making it look terrible.
Except that 1) you're looking at prototypes 2) only 50% of the accidents were while the computer was in control 3) accidents per person/vehicle is not what you care about, it's accidents per mile.
But that, in and of itself doesn't disprove the existence of a trend which does not show any sign of slowing.
There's a trend? It doesn't show any sign of slowing?
Where's your data? Show me the trend line, and show me that it's not slowing. As far as I can see, some people moved email to the web a decade or two ago, and since then, nearly nothing else has moved into being a web app.
You realise that humans were driving them in 50% of the 4 cases, right?
Because someone being blamable for accidents is much more important than having fewer accidents in the first place, right?
To be fair, 2 of the accidents happened while under human control. That suggests that yes, the computers are at least as good as the humans... That said, the sample size is tiny, and critical info like miles driven is missing, so who knows.
Nope, completely the reverse. The company that owns the copyright is the one for which you were working - that is, your shell company. The only time that changes is if you have an explicit copyright assignment to someone else.
Being there to profit from my work, and being my friend are two entirely orthogonal concepts. In fact, him profiting from my work, and me profiting from my work are two orthogonal concepts too. It is entirely possible (and very common) for an employment contract to be a win/win scenario for both parties - one party is getting work, the other party is getting the necessary environment to make their skills valuable, both are getting profit out of it.
Why cheaper? What if the hardware is already owned? What if the systems therein are running just fine as expected? If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Because when that existing hardware breaks, it'll be much more expensive to completely rewrite everything than it would have been to just keep it properly maintained all along.
The only reason you would have that code still running on those chips is because it's not forward compatible with something more modern. Otherwise someone would have transitioned to some much cheaper, more recent, commodity hardware, and saved the business a lot of cash.
That's definitely not good engineering, or something to brag about.