If that were the case, the FBI conclusion would have settled the matter. Also, if that were the case, the rabidity on display would go unexplained. A much simpler explanation exists, the right's outrage machine riled up a bunch of people and it's not going to do so for Pence.
Obviously, some mistakes are less likely or impossible in a GUI just as some kinds of work are more efficient with a GUI, but the opposite has always, and will always, be true. Some mistakes are much more likely, and CLIs can do many things more efficiently. GUI also tends to be more expensive to write well to achieve similar functionality.
It might be your data, but it's Amazon's football game. Their field, their ball, their refs, their rules, their playbook.
It sounds so sinister until you consider that it could analogously apply to self-storage companies or handing over your luggage to an airline. Consider that the former have caught on fire and the latter have misplaced luggage. It's a platform that you don't have to use that makes a lot of things easier. Like all services, it's not perfect.
“The only world where you would actually need to be able to recall an algorithm would be a post-apocalyptic one, where the hard drives of all the computers connected to the internet were fried, and all copies of foundational academic papers and computer science textbooks had been reduced to ashes,” coding instructor Quincy Larson wrote in a blog post. “Whiteboard interviewing is a discrete skill, much like being able to remember Pi to a thousand decimal places.”
In my experience, every programmer I've come to deeply respect could, at any time, produce a working implementation of a hash map and at least one O(n*log(n)) sorting algorithm using only pencil and paper. I recognize that not every computing position requires deep algorithmic understanding. Maybe web developers don't really benefit that much from knowing what algorithms go into layout engines or how their associative maps work in Javascript, for instance. OTOH, there are plenty of positions that clearly benefit from the ability to think about the skills that whiteboard interviewing tests.
If this metric is so terrible, the market will push it out. The market seems to have done a pretty good job punishing the companies who asked questions that required real inspiration, as I wasn't asked anything like that in my last round of interviews. Questions like, "How do you find a cycle in two linked lists?"
Articles like these induce me to wonder if the "social media using" programmer subset is getting entirely too much representation in trade publications.
The ability to quickly inhale a lot of information, which this article admits is tested by this process, is frequently an essential skill, I find. We may not be testing directly what we state we are testing, yet we might also still have value in the process. I find the entire thing a little scary, too, but I always come away feeling like the questions were relatively straightforward.
The cost of bugs is so high in the industry, regardless of domain, that I feel this analytical ability to think like a compiler that is often tested in interviews yields people who are less likely to write bugs and more likely to find them in code reviews. Tracking this is notoriously hard, so I imagine validating the data on this is similarly difficult and it is trivial to suggest that employees who get good annual reviews, which itself may not be testing productivity, invalidate the metric.
This means companies tend to favor recent computer science grads from top-tier schools who have had time to cram; in other words, it doesn’t help diversify the field with women, older people, and people of color.
We cannot start calling a preference for CS grads, especially those from good schools, bigotry. If there is underrepresentation from those schools, the correct remedy is to fix it at the root, which might mean addressing fundamental inequality at the elementary school level or not jailing parents for non-violent offenses. At the end of the day, a company has to be able to hire what it feels are the best candidates. If the company is wrong to prefer "top-tier" schools, the company will be less competitive and another company should, via market forces, hire on a better metric.
Markets take time to remedy poor metrics, but they tend to do so better than social justice advocates. Complaining that the metric is bad in the middle of the process is what it is. Without changing the incentive systems that govern company behavior, whinging shouldn't achieve much. And, changing the incentive systems is a potentially disastrous thing to try.
“We believe that technical interviewing is a broken process for everyone but that the flaws within the system hit underrepresented groups the hardest.”
The terrible thing about this quote is that the person speaking clearly feels this fact alone is sufficient to compel a remedy at this level. Having to do root caus
I could retort that it's always gross generalizations with conservatives but I should let you know that as a liberal I'm capable of identifying that many conservatives aren't so stupid as to think it's all-or-nothing with *all* liberals and that it isn't all-or-nothing with *all* conservatives. From there we could start to have a meaningful discussion of trends. That is, I could have that discussion with other conservatives, but perhaps not with you.
Considering you don't agree with a liberal law, no you're not. You are actually a centrist. If you believe in private ownership of property, you are center right.
I'm assuming you mean to say that if you want to take one cent from someone who received money from the market to support something else, like bridges or medicare, then you "don't believe in private ownership of property"? I mean, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find very many people at all who would agree they don't believe in "private ownership of property," at least after you subtract out taxes and fines. Writing it this way makes your position seem uber reasonable but you probably mean something more divisive and want to label it as the only reasonable position with this language. An analogous statement might be, "If you have compassion as a value, you're center left."
Also, by your definition, since I disagree with many laws written by self-identifying liberals including the one in the article, I'm a centrist? Despite wanting single payer healthcare, free college, free pre-school, to reduce the prison population to 10% of what it currently is, and to legalize all drugs? Seems hard to swallow your metric.
While smarter, it can still be argued that such tactics represent an unnecessary burden and encroachment on the publisher's first amendment rights. Judges, at least not all of them, are not stupid people.
Given a single data point where the news gives an 80% chance and the 20% chance happens, the news is clearly wrong about the stats? Do you understand probability?
The polls showed that Hillary had a 2/3 chance of winning. Yes, many opinion pieces oversold how likely it was she would win. So, she lost the presidency but won the popular vote in a landslide. The idea that the "polls were wrong" is not really justified. The results were well within margin.
While I appreciate the sincerity of your response, it is about security and not economy, unlike the thread. The post I responded to was claiming that Trump was putting our "native workforce" first. I was responding to say that it does not put our native workforce first. Yes, it is isolationist not to take refugees from some countries. We abrogate our ability to use our soft power to spread our ideas and further connect the world which would benefit the native workforce. If you think that the value of interconnectedness is thoroughly appreciated in the population, then we must be watching and reading different news sources. There seems to be a lot of senseless and hysterical immigrant bashing as well as very weak public support for things like the TPP, which our withdrawal from has caused macro economists of all political stripes to suggest that the United States has basically lost the game in Asia.
Ahh the old every woman who exposes herself is a whore argument. Mixed with, "pornography should be about appreciating inner beauty." If people want to objectify women in porn while fapping, let them. As objects of lust, no two women are the same. As interview subjects, no two women in pornography are the same either.
I'm not for the regressive left; many on the left, like me, are quite concerned about their antics. It is possible to hold this idea and still think the antics on the right are more regressive or dangerous to freedom.
Did it ever occur to you, oh pea brained little oik, that the reason terrorist acts are relatively rare is because the security services are busy 24/7 trying to prevent attacks?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The constitution says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Do you believe that we should be willing to shred our basic law in order to protect against terrorists? The NSA appears to have systematically ignored the constitution. The necessity of which to protect against terrorists is not obvious, the amount it helped is not really known generally, and the dangers to our future when such vast information gathering is in the hands of people we should not trust too thoroughly is also unqualifiable.
What makes you unpersuasive is your certainty that you have the answer to these concerns. Yes, I've considered your perspective. Maybe you should give credit to the idea that there are other perspectives that warrant more consideration than your exasperated "good grief" suggests you've given them.
Yet the majority of macro economists agree the US native workforce will suffer under these immigration policies. Many thought leaders on the right (and left) see isolationism as a sure path to worse domestic conditions. Our inability to collectively acknowledge the argument that our success is interconnected is proof of how thoroughly the frame job has been during 2016.
Slashdot Mirror
If that were the case, the FBI conclusion would have settled the matter. Also, if that were the case, the rabidity on display would go unexplained. A much simpler explanation exists, the right's outrage machine riled up a bunch of people and it's not going to do so for Pence.
Obviously, some mistakes are less likely or impossible in a GUI just as some kinds of work are more efficient with a GUI, but the opposite has always, and will always, be true. Some mistakes are much more likely, and CLIs can do many things more efficiently. GUI also tends to be more expensive to write well to achieve similar functionality.
I'm sure Amazon has none of that.
It might be your data, but it's Amazon's football game. Their field, their ball, their refs, their rules, their playbook.
It sounds so sinister until you consider that it could analogously apply to self-storage companies or handing over your luggage to an airline. Consider that the former have caught on fire and the latter have misplaced luggage. It's a platform that you don't have to use that makes a lot of things easier. Like all services, it's not perfect.
“The only world where you would actually need to be able to recall an algorithm would be a post-apocalyptic one, where the hard drives of all the computers connected to the internet were fried, and all copies of foundational academic papers and computer science textbooks had been reduced to ashes,” coding instructor Quincy Larson wrote in a blog post. “Whiteboard interviewing is a discrete skill, much like being able to remember Pi to a thousand decimal places.”
In my experience, every programmer I've come to deeply respect could, at any time, produce a working implementation of a hash map and at least one O(n*log(n)) sorting algorithm using only pencil and paper. I recognize that not every computing position requires deep algorithmic understanding. Maybe web developers don't really benefit that much from knowing what algorithms go into layout engines or how their associative maps work in Javascript, for instance. OTOH, there are plenty of positions that clearly benefit from the ability to think about the skills that whiteboard interviewing tests.
If this metric is so terrible, the market will push it out. The market seems to have done a pretty good job punishing the companies who asked questions that required real inspiration, as I wasn't asked anything like that in my last round of interviews. Questions like, "How do you find a cycle in two linked lists?"
Articles like these induce me to wonder if the "social media using" programmer subset is getting entirely too much representation in trade publications.
The ability to quickly inhale a lot of information, which this article admits is tested by this process, is frequently an essential skill, I find. We may not be testing directly what we state we are testing, yet we might also still have value in the process. I find the entire thing a little scary, too, but I always come away feeling like the questions were relatively straightforward.
The cost of bugs is so high in the industry, regardless of domain, that I feel this analytical ability to think like a compiler that is often tested in interviews yields people who are less likely to write bugs and more likely to find them in code reviews. Tracking this is notoriously hard, so I imagine validating the data on this is similarly difficult and it is trivial to suggest that employees who get good annual reviews, which itself may not be testing productivity, invalidate the metric.
This means companies tend to favor recent computer science grads from top-tier schools who have had time to cram; in other words, it doesn’t help diversify the field with women, older people, and people of color.
We cannot start calling a preference for CS grads, especially those from good schools, bigotry. If there is underrepresentation from those schools, the correct remedy is to fix it at the root, which might mean addressing fundamental inequality at the elementary school level or not jailing parents for non-violent offenses. At the end of the day, a company has to be able to hire what it feels are the best candidates. If the company is wrong to prefer "top-tier" schools, the company will be less competitive and another company should, via market forces, hire on a better metric.
Markets take time to remedy poor metrics, but they tend to do so better than social justice advocates. Complaining that the metric is bad in the middle of the process is what it is. Without changing the incentive systems that govern company behavior, whinging shouldn't achieve much. And, changing the incentive systems is a potentially disastrous thing to try.
“We believe that technical interviewing is a broken process for everyone but that the flaws within the system hit underrepresented groups the hardest.”
The terrible thing about this quote is that the person speaking clearly feels this fact alone is sufficient to compel a remedy at this level. Having to do root caus
It doesn't matter if it goes into a product or not. You're employing the candidate by having them complete a software project.
Oh, please.
I don't blame Marvel or DC for milking that cow, but I don't understand why audiences haven't lost interest.
Because people who regularly eat haute cuisine can enjoy cotton-candy, too.
Ooo a culture warrior. We don't have enough of those.
It's apparently all-or-nothing with liberals.
I could retort that it's always gross generalizations with conservatives but I should let you know that as a liberal I'm capable of identifying that many conservatives aren't so stupid as to think it's all-or-nothing with *all* liberals and that it isn't all-or-nothing with *all* conservatives. From there we could start to have a meaningful discussion of trends. That is, I could have that discussion with other conservatives, but perhaps not with you.
Considering you don't agree with a liberal law, no you're not. You are actually a centrist. If you believe in private ownership of property, you are center right.
I'm assuming you mean to say that if you want to take one cent from someone who received money from the market to support something else, like bridges or medicare, then you "don't believe in private ownership of property"? I mean, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find very many people at all who would agree they don't believe in "private ownership of property," at least after you subtract out taxes and fines. Writing it this way makes your position seem uber reasonable but you probably mean something more divisive and want to label it as the only reasonable position with this language. An analogous statement might be, "If you have compassion as a value, you're center left."
Also, by your definition, since I disagree with many laws written by self-identifying liberals including the one in the article, I'm a centrist? Despite wanting single payer healthcare, free college, free pre-school, to reduce the prison population to 10% of what it currently is, and to legalize all drugs? Seems hard to swallow your metric.
While smarter, it can still be argued that such tactics represent an unnecessary burden and encroachment on the publisher's first amendment rights. Judges, at least not all of them, are not stupid people.
Hillary, isn't it past your bedtime?
It's almost like you didn't win.
California is truly-screwed when it comes to politics.
Translation: I use negative data points of a state to confirm my feelings about their politics, which offends me.
A reasonable question triggered you? Whose the snowflake?
Easy on the kool-aid, chief.
That's ironic.
Given a single data point where the news gives an 80% chance and the 20% chance happens, the news is clearly wrong about the stats? Do you understand probability?
The polls showed that Hillary had a 2/3 chance of winning. Yes, many opinion pieces oversold how likely it was she would win. So, she lost the presidency but won the popular vote in a landslide. The idea that the "polls were wrong" is not really justified. The results were well within margin.
While I appreciate the sincerity of your response, it is about security and not economy, unlike the thread. The post I responded to was claiming that Trump was putting our "native workforce" first. I was responding to say that it does not put our native workforce first. Yes, it is isolationist not to take refugees from some countries. We abrogate our ability to use our soft power to spread our ideas and further connect the world which would benefit the native workforce. If you think that the value of interconnectedness is thoroughly appreciated in the population, then we must be watching and reading different news sources. There seems to be a lot of senseless and hysterical immigrant bashing as well as very weak public support for things like the TPP, which our withdrawal from has caused macro economists of all political stripes to suggest that the United States has basically lost the game in Asia.
Christ, get over it already, you won! you don't have to talk about HRC anymore!
Ahh the old every woman who exposes herself is a whore argument. Mixed with, "pornography should be about appreciating inner beauty." If people want to objectify women in porn while fapping, let them. As objects of lust, no two women are the same. As interview subjects, no two women in pornography are the same either.
I'm not for the regressive left; many on the left, like me, are quite concerned about their antics. It is possible to hold this idea and still think the antics on the right are more regressive or dangerous to freedom.
Did it ever occur to you, oh pea brained little oik, that the reason terrorist acts are relatively rare is because the security services are busy 24/7 trying to prevent attacks?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The constitution says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Do you believe that we should be willing to shred our basic law in order to protect against terrorists? The NSA appears to have systematically ignored the constitution. The necessity of which to protect against terrorists is not obvious, the amount it helped is not really known generally, and the dangers to our future when such vast information gathering is in the hands of people we should not trust too thoroughly is also unqualifiable.
What makes you unpersuasive is your certainty that you have the answer to these concerns. Yes, I've considered your perspective. Maybe you should give credit to the idea that there are other perspectives that warrant more consideration than your exasperated "good grief" suggests you've given them.
Yet the majority of macro economists agree the US native workforce will suffer under these immigration policies. Many thought leaders on the right (and left) see isolationism as a sure path to worse domestic conditions. Our inability to collectively acknowledge the argument that our success is interconnected is proof of how thoroughly the frame job has been during 2016.
I wish I was a mind reader like you.
The argument is that he's a whistleblower who exposed rampant systemic violation of the law. Not that you want to engage a real argument.