Good luck with that if your code needs to be maintained, be secure or needs to have good performance. Sure, a lot of CS grads are not engineers and do not understand engineering. But to find really good coders, they need to be both engineers (which is a state of mind) and CS grads. The non-CS grads stay limited in what they can do. The non-engineer CS grads can do, but the engineering may be really bad.
Hence you need CS grads for anything more advanced, but you need to select pretty carefully which CS grads. Or in other words, the degree is necessary but not sufficient. If you just look for people with that CS degree, you will get a lot of incompetent people. But people without that CS degree are worse, unless you coding tasks are very simple and the main problem is understanding the problem space. In that case, hire people with a degree directly relevant to the problem space. But do not even consider connecting the software they produce to the Internet.
I noticed the same thing. In the CS area, I think the mechanism is pretty clear though, all those no/wrong-degree coders are trying to make sure they are not seen as inferior (which they are, often grossly so, with a tiny number of exceptions). I run into this all the time with personnel of customers.
The really problematic thing is that you usually only understand the worth of a degree several years after you have gotten it. That allows the anti-degree people to claim that those with degree are just lying about it and do not want to admit having wasted their time. In actual reality they are simply blind because they lack that experience and they are unwilling to believe otherwise. A Dunning-Kruger type of effect is at work here. Also, as they would have to acknowledge being wrong and possibly being inferior in the relevant skill space, it is quite understandable that many are unable to come to grips with that. Hence they claim "degrees are worthless" and such things.
This is strong with self-taught coders here on/. as well. They are blind to their limits and claim these limits are irrelevant or do not exist. Do not listen to these people! Sure, a degree will not turn a dumb person into a smart person, and hence there are quite a few incompetents with degrees out there, but a lack of degree will severely limit even a smart person and that is a real problem.
I teach on the side, and my current Software Security course is about half students that actually work 50-60% as....coders. Why are they going for a CS degree while already having a reasonable job? Most answer that they found they have trouble understanding the theory behind the stuff they work on and that this decreases the quality of their work and limits their future options.
Not having that degree basically assures really bad coding, in more hidden form for the smarter non-degree coders. The converse is not true, i.e. a degree does not assure good code.
That you apparently do not understand the direction of the implication is a pretty sure sign you are one of those without a degree.
Once, management finally realizes to that coders without a degree are in most cases actually far more expensive due to lack of skill and limits in what they can do, those without that degree will find themselves unemployed pretty fast and pretty permanently. The funny thing is that the coders without degree do not realize what they miss. Sure, as long as it is simple business logic, almost anybody could do it. But as soon as it gets more complicated, I have yet to find a coder without CS degree that actually gets it and that is really expensive in the long run.
I, on the other hand, like a bit of evolutionary selection for intelligence here. Gross stupidity should come with significant personal risks. And when they actually intended to blow up other people, poetic justice comes into it as well. Also note that stupid "kids" manage to maim themselves (and others) all the time via things like drunk driving, for example.
Pretty much anybody that tries to make more historic (and easier to make) explosives for the first time finds this out. The stuff is dangerous. There is also a (IMO credible) rumor that the CIA actually published this book and the recipes are just recipes that are public anyways but all the safety-precautions have been removed. I find that credible, and if true, the CIA would have done good for a change.
Same in the 1950 edition of the German "Brockhaus". For more historical (and simpler to make) explosives, there is really now way to keep it secret how they are made. On the other hand, one idiot with a car or a kitchen knife can do about the same damage. The problem is the idiot, not the tool he uses.
It is however possible and pretty easy to detect when somebody buys larger quantities for one of the recipes and then have a look (via court-order) what they are doing with the stuff.
Indeed. This complete nonsense. Where is would be beneficial (if feasible with regards to engineering, cost, reliability, pollution, etc.), i.e. in and around large cities, the airspace is packed and the last thing you would want there is additional planes in the air.
I disagree. Fusion reactors are mostly beneficial, while flying cars do badly solve a mostly imagined problem. Nobody really smart gets excited about "flying cars".
This is complete nonsense. A) There is not enough airspace b) there are no flying cars beyond stunts that are not ready for normal use c) most people are not pilots d) there are not enough airports e) energy-efficiency is very bad f) cost is very bad.
Seriously, this moronic idea needs to die until we have anti-grav, no energy problems and working AI pilots.
Actually, you basically cannot flush this material without cutting it up first. You can still not really flush it after cutting it up, but that is less apparent. It will go down but clog the pipes further onward if cut up. (No, I have not done that, but it follows from the material composition and the typical configuration of the relevant pipes.)
I am on-board with mental illness, but for the flushing, not for the cutting up.
Nobody working in a bank would flush EUR notes. They would know that they will clog up the pipes because they do not dissolve, as banknotes are made from cotton, not paper. Also, shredding them would be easy, but not effective, because you still get the serials from the micro-writing on them. Incidentally, a large bank would have a document incinerator and that is reliable.
Best guess would be somebody with significant money but mental problems. That would also explain the Spanish lawyer paying for the repairs.
Just set your phone to "vibrate" or "silent" and only accept calls when you like. If it is important, people will text or leave a message. From my experience, this does cause no problems. And if you want some hours of complete peace, leave your phone at home.
These days, automation (which includes statistical classifiers) is often called "weak AI", for marketing reasons. I do agree that this is an abuse of terminology.
You are a moron. What you do is circular reasoning. And you do not even recognize that. Incidentally, this level of reasoning is about as sophisticated as what the religious fuckups do.
Also, your last sentence gives you away nicely: The laws of Physics are not something to "believe" in. They are something to verify. And they are incomplete at this time, as anybody that cared to find out knows. You obviously did not.
Slashdot Mirror
Good luck with that if your code needs to be maintained, be secure or needs to have good performance. Sure, a lot of CS grads are not engineers and do not understand engineering. But to find really good coders, they need to be both engineers (which is a state of mind) and CS grads. The non-CS grads stay limited in what they can do. The non-engineer CS grads can do, but the engineering may be really bad.
Hence you need CS grads for anything more advanced, but you need to select pretty carefully which CS grads. Or in other words, the degree is necessary but not sufficient. If you just look for people with that CS degree, you will get a lot of incompetent people. But people without that CS degree are worse, unless you coding tasks are very simple and the main problem is understanding the problem space. In that case, hire people with a degree directly relevant to the problem space. But do not even consider connecting the software they produce to the Internet.
I noticed the same thing. In the CS area, I think the mechanism is pretty clear though, all those no/wrong-degree coders are trying to make sure they are not seen as inferior (which they are, often grossly so, with a tiny number of exceptions). I run into this all the time with personnel of customers.
The really problematic thing is that you usually only understand the worth of a degree several years after you have gotten it. That allows the anti-degree people to claim that those with degree are just lying about it and do not want to admit having wasted their time. In actual reality they are simply blind because they lack that experience and they are unwilling to believe otherwise. A Dunning-Kruger type of effect is at work here. Also, as they would have to acknowledge being wrong and possibly being inferior in the relevant skill space, it is quite understandable that many are unable to come to grips with that. Hence they claim "degrees are worthless" and such things.
This is strong with self-taught coders here on /. as well. They are blind to their limits and claim these limits are irrelevant or do not exist. Do not listen to these people! Sure, a degree will not turn a dumb person into a smart person, and hence there are quite a few incompetents with degrees out there, but a lack of degree will severely limit even a smart person and that is a real problem.
I teach on the side, and my current Software Security course is about half students that actually work 50-60% as....coders. Why are they going for a CS degree while already having a reasonable job? Most answer that they found they have trouble understanding the theory behind the stuff they work on and that this decreases the quality of their work and limits their future options.
Coders exist on many different levels. Depending on the work, a highly qualified engineer may well be coding his own software.
Not having that degree basically assures really bad coding, in more hidden form for the smarter non-degree coders. The converse is not true, i.e. a degree does not assure good code.
That you apparently do not understand the direction of the implication is a pretty sure sign you are one of those without a degree.
Yes, I have seen numerous similar things from non-degree coders as well.
Once, management finally realizes to that coders without a degree are in most cases actually far more expensive due to lack of skill and limits in what they can do, those without that degree will find themselves unemployed pretty fast and pretty permanently. The funny thing is that the coders without degree do not realize what they miss. Sure, as long as it is simple business logic, almost anybody could do it. But as soon as it gets more complicated, I have yet to find a coder without CS degree that actually gets it and that is really expensive in the long run.
I, on the other hand, like a bit of evolutionary selection for intelligence here. Gross stupidity should come with significant personal risks. And when they actually intended to blow up other people, poetic justice comes into it as well. Also note that stupid "kids" manage to maim themselves (and others) all the time via things like drunk driving, for example.
You probably do not know what a) this automation does and does not do and b) that this is nowhere near an autonomous plane. You are wayyyy off.
Pretty much anybody that tries to make more historic (and easier to make) explosives for the first time finds this out. The stuff is dangerous. There is also a (IMO credible) rumor that the CIA actually published this book and the recipes are just recipes that are public anyways but all the safety-precautions have been removed. I find that credible, and if true, the CIA would have done good for a change.
Same in the 1950 edition of the German "Brockhaus". For more historical (and simpler to make) explosives, there is really now way to keep it secret how they are made. On the other hand, one idiot with a car or a kitchen knife can do about the same damage. The problem is the idiot, not the tool he uses.
It is however possible and pretty easy to detect when somebody buys larger quantities for one of the recipes and then have a look (via court-order) what they are doing with the stuff.
Indeed. This complete nonsense. Where is would be beneficial (if feasible with regards to engineering, cost, reliability, pollution, etc.), i.e. in and around large cities, the airspace is packed and the last thing you would want there is additional planes in the air.
I disagree. Fusion reactors are mostly beneficial, while flying cars do badly solve a mostly imagined problem. Nobody really smart gets excited about "flying cars".
This is complete nonsense. A) There is not enough airspace b) there are no flying cars beyond stunts that are not ready for normal use c) most people are not pilots d) there are not enough airports e) energy-efficiency is very bad f) cost is very bad.
Seriously, this moronic idea needs to die until we have anti-grav, no energy problems and working AI pilots.
Probably a 1000 CHF note and probably indented to impress, yes.
Actually, you basically cannot flush this material without cutting it up first. You can still not really flush it after cutting it up, but that is less apparent. It will go down but clog the pipes further onward if cut up. (No, I have not done that, but it follows from the material composition and the typical configuration of the relevant pipes.)
I am on-board with mental illness, but for the flushing, not for the cutting up.
Nobody working in a bank would flush EUR notes. They would know that they will clog up the pipes because they do not dissolve, as banknotes are made from cotton, not paper. Also, shredding them would be easy, but not effective, because you still get the serials from the micro-writing on them. Incidentally, a large bank would have a document incinerator and that is reliable.
Best guess would be somebody with significant money but mental problems. That would also explain the Spanish lawyer paying for the repairs.
There never was a "10'000 CHF" bill. 1'000 CHF is the largest one. Check here: https://www.snb.ch/en/iabout/c...
Actually, ATMs will routinely give 200 EUR bills in some countries, and getting 500 EUR bills just requires you to ask for them at a bank.
This is as much a terror-target as an airplane and may even be more vulnerable. Expect 3 hours or more for security-theater when using the Hyperloop.
Just set your phone to "vibrate" or "silent" and only accept calls when you like. If it is important, people will text or leave a message. From my experience, this does cause no problems. And if you want some hours of complete peace, leave your phone at home.
Just my thought.
You probably have no experience with the inner workings of large corporations...
These days, automation (which includes statistical classifiers) is often called "weak AI", for marketing reasons. I do agree that this is an abuse of terminology.
You are a moron. What you do is circular reasoning. And you do not even recognize that. Incidentally, this level of reasoning is about as sophisticated as what the religious fuckups do.
Also, your last sentence gives you away nicely: The laws of Physics are not something to "believe" in. They are something to verify. And they are incomplete at this time, as anybody that cared to find out knows. You obviously did not.