If you think the USA is bad... Visit China. Every day has nasty smog and the visibility is only about 1-2miles. Every time I've visited, it's gotten worse.
I just paid for a $10 app. Why? Because it actually does something useful: (http://www.backcountrynavigator.com) as opposed to your iCrap application. In additiona, the company actually remembers the "old fashioned" ways to sell things... you know, marketing, sales, and support. I was able to install the demo version and test out all of the features (it wasn't crippleware) to make sure it worked as advertised. The app is also top notch as far as Ux and does what it says it does. The marketing video and "how to use the app" are also top notch. The purchase button was right there, so before I could even go to the piratebay, I hit the purchase button.
You want people to pay for apps? Stop producing iCrap... or make your apps free, because that's about all they're worth.
I liked Apple because you could by a full-blown commercially supported Unix operating system. Before anyone screams desktop linux, Apple has 3d drivers that actually work, they've had MSFT office for years, and generally it was accepted as a "real" computing platform.
No, really, it is O(1) given the circumstances I mentioned. Actually the source code you linked me to proves that: What does a load factor and bucket size do? I'll wait while you Google it... Hi, you're back. Yes I'm right, thank you.
I suggest you go take Tim Roughgarden's free algorithms course where he covers this in detail. I also suggest you stop spreading misinformation around the internet.
Please don't take the post as me being, bitter, I'm not. It was an honest mistake on the interviewers part, just kinda disappointed it happened to me.
Now, on to the fun stuff. HashMap is O(1) when used with separate chaining and a max limit on the chain (linked list) size. So I could have any number of buckets, with a max of 100 entries in each bucket. That means putting any entries when (buckets * chainMax) > N is provably O(1): The max cap on the chainSize means that the search for a particular entry is bounded above by a constant.
The fact that there is a max cap on the chains means I will have to resort my items into a bigger set of buckets if N > buckets * chainSize. So don't do that.
In summary, Google's interviews don't get a flying rats behind about anything but microbenchmarks on small pieces of code. Amazon cared more about technical design but started asking me questions on the Linux Kernel (I was applying for Java Engineer position)
Some more odds:
One of the Google interviews disagreed with me that a Java HashSet was not Big O(1) for the contains() method when I wrote out my sample code. I pointed out (very kindly) that I believe HashSet is backed by HashMap in Java, which is constant time. He said he didn't think that was true and I conceded and said, "I can assume then for now that it is not constant time then." I was extremely polite, but I'm fairly certain that cost me the job.
The Amazon interview didn't go after they started asking me the internals of the Linux kernel. Then, the gentlemen asked me to implement a C function. I stopped him immediately after he was done speaking and said, "There must be a mistake, while i'm more than willing to attempt this in C, I thought I was applying for a Java position." He said he didn't know Java and asked me to implement atoi() in Java then. Needless to say he wasn't satisfied with any iteration of my Java code and made it a point that C was far superior to Java when we were done.
I really wanted the Google job, and I feel I was definitely qualified. What makes me feel better about it I guess is that it seems some Googlers couldn't pass the Google interview.
It sounds like you've had your fill of abusive employee/employer relationships... Genuinely sorry to hear that.
I stand by my points though.
>>How are they going to do that if they're paying less?
Since you have a family, what if the company took an interest in it? How about $ matching for your children's education? How about daycare? How about providing transportation? All of these things are cheaper than paying you more, but take the hassle out of your family life. The real problem is companies are treating you like a drone, when in fact you are a human.
You're thinking old school... try the opposite approach for more success.
What if the person was allowed to take off vacation, whenever, wherever, without notice? All the sudden marking calendars ahead of time becomes a useless exercise. If something big comes up, and the company is _catering_ to it's key employees, they could pay the cancellation fee's for the employee's vacation (probably under $1000) in order to retain a customer (probably $100,000). GASP, that's so non-traditional! but it works. The successful companies have already figured this out, when will you?
The two biggest factors are work/life balance, environment, and the inability for the company to provide challenging work to it's workforce. Believe it or not, people will work for _much less_ money if you create an engaging place to work.
On work/life balance, companies should be offering 4 weeks vacation after 30 days of employment. They should offer a two month sabbatical every 3 years. I don't believe it "working from home" but time off and vacation _should not be audited_ unless a problem occurs with a particular individual. Scary though, huh? We're all adults, treat people like them rather than high school students.
On environment, they should allow drinking in the workplace (oh gasp!). They need to tear up timesheets (no one takes them seriously anyway). They need to _fight_ actively to retain key talent. Furthermore, they need to cut the crud out of their management chain by routinely firing incompetent managers (which creates a morale boost). The need to hire fresh talent for the older jockeys to train.
Finally on the work itself, they need to allow their engineers to drive the majority of the decision making process. First, if an engineers comes and says, "hey if we cut this out of our software stack, it'll make our stuff faster." Rather than say, "No, that's a key investment we chose two years ago" say, "Oh yeah? well prove it. Take one of your teammates and come back to me in two weeks with a POC." This will do two things, first, it will get them to shut up. Second, it may turn into something awesome; win-win situation. The biggest mistake is companies with management overhead blocking engineers from creating value. Engineers are loose cannons. You don't reign them in, instead you let them create lots of raw product, then you pick the best ideas and refine them. Failure to leverage a company's key assets (their engineers) will result in your business paralysis. As soon as engineering decisions become political, you'll see an exodus of your key talent and you won't be able to hire anyone, in essence, you have created your own starvation.
If the end goal is to reduce homicide, why don't they just make homicide illegal? This reminds me of the "ban large sodas" article form the other day... Politicians like to think they can influence human behavior by passing clever laws... (The collective brainpower of the masses will eventually outwit/underwit/circumvent any genius plan small groups of politicians create)
it would be potentially bad news for language/API reimplementors where the first description of the language/API isn't usable under a permissive license
Those would be the obvious cases, but you really missed the point. I'm going to copyright Jon's math API: "public int sqrt(int base, int power);" If Oracle were to win this case, trolls everywhere could start writing function signatures, registering for a copyright, then start suing the crap out of everyone.
>> IBM has a license and a CERTIFIED copy of Java. They got nothing to fear here.
Treachery knows no bounds... Oracle knows that IBM could bend them over a kitchen table any time they pleased... I'm sure Oracle has stepped on so many IBM patents with their precious database over the years... Hell, IBM could sue Oracle over the shape of their corporate headquarters... IBM probably used the ubiquitous 'cylinder symbol' for a database while Larry was still shitting himself in diapers.
Anyway, ASP... lets assume it runs in Mono. In order for Mono developers to make that happen, they had to simulate the official CLR runtime by providing an alternate implementation of the API calls your ASP program expects. Since the official CLR runtime is closed-source, they simple looked at the documentation or specification, then wrote an equivalent API call for every one of the official API calls in CLR..
What Oracle is trying to claim is that action is ILLEGAL, because the expected API call is 'copyrighted'... So even though the Mono developers created their own implementation and had no access to the CLR code, because it looks the same as the CLR code, it's a copyright violation.
A similar to example could be said of the official Ruby VM and JRuby. Oracle is trying to claim they copyrighted the structure and declaration of the "puts" function. Because the JRuby developers wrote a similar function (so your code would run under RubyVM or JRuby), they violated the original 'copyright'.
Do you see why this is significant now? Think of the implications in your language... The precedent set by this case would turn your industry upside down. Another words, this is bad news for EVERYONE, not just Java.... It would breed an entirely new generation of copyright trolls.
I don't think you understand the implications if Oracle won. I'll help you out though, what is your favorite programming language?
(You sound like a PHP guy)
IBM makes tons of Java products. While they have a "License", I bet somewhere in there they have an api named "public void sort(Integer[] ints);" which Oracle says they own a copyright to.
I think the science shows that our planet has gotten warmer by some small %, but science does not _clearly_ show that it is man made. It would be prudent to treat it as such and start changing our habits. A vast swath of moderates and 'average joes' hold this as a palatable view.
However, liberals and Democrats (the primary voice of the AGW fight) will need to distance themselves from the climate extremists, scientologists, and alarmists, in order to gain any traction. I'll be ironic (considering my previous statement) and say no one likes polarization. Dimiss pseudo-science, even it 'agrees with' your cause.
I'm honestly ready to stop buying gas. I'm tired of $100/tank fillups, but hybrid's suck and public transportation isn't convenient. Unfortunately, investment into better options won't occur with high taxes and weak economy.
That's the attitude of most conservatives (myself included). Climate 'science' seems to be about the same science level as intelligent design IMHO. However, the 'right' thing to do 'just in case' is to be more responsible with out we consume resources. _That_ is a conservative attitude.
This article was about climate science. It quickly turned into conservative bashing. So while everyone is going nuclear in a ideology holy war, we've got got wars in the middle east, and an inept President unable to see past his own agenda to do anything better for America. Why don't we all try something new? Instead of shitting all over the other side, how about you take time to understand where they're coming from? It appears both sides want the same end for different reasons.
The article nailed it. Clearly Google has strayed off the well tread path that is currently leading America into profit. Let me explain... First, Google needs to stop paying competitively and treat their workforce like crap, forcing it to unionize. Want to program for more than exactly 8 hours a day? Sorry can't, union contract says you can't work overtime, even if the project is late. You need that hard drive replaced in your computer? Sorry, you're an engineer, you don't hold membership in the IT HelpDesk union. That should succeed in bombing their profits enough to turn their labor force to "high quality" overseas workers in China, furthering unemployment and causing salary drop for Americans, while simultaneously training foreign workers to compete with American companies. Well anyway, they will soon discover that "high quality" chinese work is sort of an oxymoron, when the real problem was bureaucracy communication. So they need to hire a bunch of "contractors" in America to sort things out, because their normal Union labor force is too expensive. But alas, the contractors manage to deliver Google's on time, but off timber, and Google rolls it out to a spectacular ball of fail. But Google is "too big to fail" so Obama hands Google a nice "bail out" check to help them back to their feet... which was really distributed "by contract" to the executives, union labor force, and managers who delivered the project on time.
After attending a Project Appleseed and learning more about the American Revolution, this sounds fairly awesome. Regardless of what you think of America today, the American Revelation is truly an amazing underdog story.
Does your retirement plan put all of your investment in one stock? You have to diversify. You need manufacturing hardware and writing software to succeed. We should fight hard to bring the jobs back and reasonable costs. This will likely mean de-unionizing a wee bit, which likely means it'll never succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
After I heard they cancelled the series.
If you think the USA is bad... Visit China. Every day has nasty smog and the visibility is only about 1-2miles. Every time I've visited, it's gotten worse.
I just paid for a $10 app. Why? Because it actually does something useful: (http://www.backcountrynavigator.com) as opposed to your iCrap application. In additiona, the company actually remembers the "old fashioned" ways to sell things... you know, marketing, sales, and support. I was able to install the demo version and test out all of the features (it wasn't crippleware) to make sure it worked as advertised. The app is also top notch as far as Ux and does what it says it does. The marketing video and "how to use the app" are also top notch. The purchase button was right there, so before I could even go to the piratebay, I hit the purchase button.
You want people to pay for apps? Stop producing iCrap... or make your apps free, because that's about all they're worth.
The price hasn't been announced.
checkmate dear summary writer?
I liked Apple because you could by a full-blown commercially supported Unix operating system. Before anyone screams desktop linux, Apple has 3d drivers that actually work, they've had MSFT office for years, and generally it was accepted as a "real" computing platform.
No, really, it is O(1) given the circumstances I mentioned. Actually the source code you linked me to proves that: What does a load factor and bucket size do? I'll wait while you Google it... Hi, you're back. Yes I'm right, thank you.
I suggest you go take Tim Roughgarden's free algorithms course where he covers this in detail. I also suggest you stop spreading misinformation around the internet.
Please don't take the post as me being, bitter, I'm not. It was an honest mistake on the interviewers part, just kinda disappointed it happened to me.
Now, on to the fun stuff. HashMap is O(1) when used with separate chaining and a max limit on the chain (linked list) size. So I could have any number of buckets, with a max of 100 entries in each bucket. That means putting any entries when (buckets * chainMax) > N is provably O(1): The max cap on the chainSize means that the search for a particular entry is bounded above by a constant.
The fact that there is a max cap on the chains means I will have to resort my items into a bigger set of buckets if N > buckets * chainSize. So don't do that.
Here's my experience in Google vs Amazon
In summary, Google's interviews don't get a flying rats behind about anything but microbenchmarks on small pieces of code. Amazon cared more about technical design but started asking me questions on the Linux Kernel (I was applying for Java Engineer position)
Some more odds:
One of the Google interviews disagreed with me that a Java HashSet was not Big O(1) for the contains() method when I wrote out my sample code. I pointed out (very kindly) that I believe HashSet is backed by HashMap in Java, which is constant time. He said he didn't think that was true and I conceded and said, "I can assume then for now that it is not constant time then." I was extremely polite, but I'm fairly certain that cost me the job.
The Amazon interview didn't go after they started asking me the internals of the Linux kernel. Then, the gentlemen asked me to implement a C function. I stopped him immediately after he was done speaking and said, "There must be a mistake, while i'm more than willing to attempt this in C, I thought I was applying for a Java position." He said he didn't know Java and asked me to implement atoi() in Java then. Needless to say he wasn't satisfied with any iteration of my Java code and made it a point that C was far superior to Java when we were done.
I really wanted the Google job, and I feel I was definitely qualified. What makes me feel better about it I guess is that it seems some Googlers couldn't pass the Google interview.
It sounds like you've had your fill of abusive employee/employer relationships... Genuinely sorry to hear that.
I stand by my points though.
>>How are they going to do that if they're paying less?
Since you have a family, what if the company took an interest in it? How about $ matching for your children's education? How about daycare? How about providing transportation? All of these things are cheaper than paying you more, but take the hassle out of your family life. The real problem is companies are treating you like a drone, when in fact you are a human.
You're thinking old school... try the opposite approach for more success. What if the person was allowed to take off vacation, whenever, wherever, without notice? All the sudden marking calendars ahead of time becomes a useless exercise. If something big comes up, and the company is _catering_ to it's key employees, they could pay the cancellation fee's for the employee's vacation (probably under $1000) in order to retain a customer (probably $100,000). GASP, that's so non-traditional! but it works. The successful companies have already figured this out, when will you?
The two biggest factors are work/life balance, environment, and the inability for the company to provide challenging work to it's workforce. Believe it or not, people will work for _much less_ money if you create an engaging place to work.
On work/life balance, companies should be offering 4 weeks vacation after 30 days of employment. They should offer a two month sabbatical every 3 years. I don't believe it "working from home" but time off and vacation _should not be audited_ unless a problem occurs with a particular individual. Scary though, huh? We're all adults, treat people like them rather than high school students.
On environment, they should allow drinking in the workplace (oh gasp!). They need to tear up timesheets (no one takes them seriously anyway). They need to _fight_ actively to retain key talent. Furthermore, they need to cut the crud out of their management chain by routinely firing incompetent managers (which creates a morale boost). The need to hire fresh talent for the older jockeys to train.
Finally on the work itself, they need to allow their engineers to drive the majority of the decision making process. First, if an engineers comes and says, "hey if we cut this out of our software stack, it'll make our stuff faster." Rather than say, "No, that's a key investment we chose two years ago" say, "Oh yeah? well prove it. Take one of your teammates and come back to me in two weeks with a POC." This will do two things, first, it will get them to shut up. Second, it may turn into something awesome; win-win situation. The biggest mistake is companies with management overhead blocking engineers from creating value. Engineers are loose cannons. You don't reign them in, instead you let them create lots of raw product, then you pick the best ideas and refine them. Failure to leverage a company's key assets (their engineers) will result in your business paralysis. As soon as engineering decisions become political, you'll see an exodus of your key talent and you won't be able to hire anyone, in essence, you have created your own starvation.
http://www.librador.com/2009/01/16/The-frame-rate-of-the-universe/
What? A person that is embracing a change in hopes that it'll get better as the technology improves? How dare you appose the will of the internet!
If the end goal is to reduce homicide, why don't they just make homicide illegal? This reminds me of the "ban large sodas" article form the other day... Politicians like to think they can influence human behavior by passing clever laws... (The collective brainpower of the masses will eventually outwit/underwit/circumvent any genius plan small groups of politicians create)
it would be potentially bad news for language/API reimplementors where the first description of the language/API isn't usable under a permissive license
Those would be the obvious cases, but you really missed the point. I'm going to copyright Jon's math API: "public int sqrt(int base, int power);" If Oracle were to win this case, trolls everywhere could start writing function signatures, registering for a copyright, then start suing the crap out of everyone.
>> IBM has a license and a CERTIFIED copy of Java. They got nothing to fear here. Treachery knows no bounds... Oracle knows that IBM could bend them over a kitchen table any time they pleased... I'm sure Oracle has stepped on so many IBM patents with their precious database over the years... Hell, IBM could sue Oracle over the shape of their corporate headquarters... IBM probably used the ubiquitous 'cylinder symbol' for a database while Larry was still shitting himself in diapers.
ASP... same design paradigm as PHP
Anyway, ASP... lets assume it runs in Mono. In order for Mono developers to make that happen, they had to simulate the official CLR runtime by providing an alternate implementation of the API calls your ASP program expects. Since the official CLR runtime is closed-source, they simple looked at the documentation or specification, then wrote an equivalent API call for every one of the official API calls in CLR..
What Oracle is trying to claim is that action is ILLEGAL, because the expected API call is 'copyrighted'... So even though the Mono developers created their own implementation and had no access to the CLR code, because it looks the same as the CLR code, it's a copyright violation.
A similar to example could be said of the official Ruby VM and JRuby. Oracle is trying to claim they copyrighted the structure and declaration of the "puts" function. Because the JRuby developers wrote a similar function (so your code would run under RubyVM or JRuby), they violated the original 'copyright'.
Do you see why this is significant now? Think of the implications in your language... The precedent set by this case would turn your industry upside down. Another words, this is bad news for EVERYONE, not just Java.... It would breed an entirely new generation of copyright trolls.
I don't think you understand the implications if Oracle won. I'll help you out though, what is your favorite programming language? (You sound like a PHP guy)
IBM makes tons of Java products. While they have a "License", I bet somewhere in there they have an api named "public void sort(Integer[] ints);" which Oracle says they own a copyright to.
I think the science shows that our planet has gotten warmer by some small %, but science does not _clearly_ show that it is man made. It would be prudent to treat it as such and start changing our habits. A vast swath of moderates and 'average joes' hold this as a palatable view.
However, liberals and Democrats (the primary voice of the AGW fight) will need to distance themselves from the climate extremists, scientologists, and alarmists, in order to gain any traction. I'll be ironic (considering my previous statement) and say no one likes polarization. Dimiss pseudo-science, even it 'agrees with' your cause.
I'm honestly ready to stop buying gas. I'm tired of $100/tank fillups, but hybrid's suck and public transportation isn't convenient. Unfortunately, investment into better options won't occur with high taxes and weak economy.
But here's the thing: it doesn't fucking matter.
That's the attitude of most conservatives (myself included). Climate 'science' seems to be about the same science level as intelligent design IMHO. However, the 'right' thing to do 'just in case' is to be more responsible with out we consume resources. _That_ is a conservative attitude.
This article was about climate science. It quickly turned into conservative bashing. So while everyone is going nuclear in a ideology holy war, we've got got wars in the middle east, and an inept President unable to see past his own agenda to do anything better for America. Why don't we all try something new? Instead of shitting all over the other side, how about you take time to understand where they're coming from? It appears both sides want the same end for different reasons.
_Oh cool, let me msg this to a friend on G+_ ....
Oh wait you can't.
The article nailed it. Clearly Google has strayed off the well tread path that is currently leading America into profit. Let me explain... First, Google needs to stop paying competitively and treat their workforce like crap, forcing it to unionize. Want to program for more than exactly 8 hours a day? Sorry can't, union contract says you can't work overtime, even if the project is late. You need that hard drive replaced in your computer? Sorry, you're an engineer, you don't hold membership in the IT HelpDesk union. That should succeed in bombing their profits enough to turn their labor force to "high quality" overseas workers in China, furthering unemployment and causing salary drop for Americans, while simultaneously training foreign workers to compete with American companies. Well anyway, they will soon discover that "high quality" chinese work is sort of an oxymoron, when the real problem was bureaucracy communication. So they need to hire a bunch of "contractors" in America to sort things out, because their normal Union labor force is too expensive. But alas, the contractors manage to deliver Google's on time, but off timber, and Google rolls it out to a spectacular ball of fail. But Google is "too big to fail" so Obama hands Google a nice "bail out" check to help them back to their feet... which was really distributed "by contract" to the executives, union labor force, and managers who delivered the project on time.
Shape up Google, you're doing it wrong!
After attending a Project Appleseed and learning more about the American Revolution, this sounds fairly awesome. Regardless of what you think of America today, the American Revelation is truly an amazing underdog story.
(Propoganda? Yes, get some: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/)
Does your retirement plan put all of your investment in one stock? You have to diversify. You need manufacturing hardware and writing software to succeed. We should fight hard to bring the jobs back and reasonable costs. This will likely mean de-unionizing a wee bit, which likely means it'll never succeed.