The best part was the name of our collaborator- "General Atomics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics
Here's a writeup, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.58...
The best part was the name of our collaborator- "General Atomics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics
Here's a writeup, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.58...
I have always wondered if there is a way to detect this particular trait either using MRI or possibly smell. Once you are in a space you can usually identify them because everyone seems to slightly avoid their workspace out of fear of being infected.
Old relays (especially when switching large DC currents) are fantastic for this purpose. The arc will essentially give off a mini EMP across the whole spectrum and woe to you if your gear isn't shielded and grounded properly.
And I say that as somebody who likes dressing up for work.
Making a little effort to blend in is a question about showing respect for your co-workers. But on the other hand, how you dress is self-expression.
If you meet clients have a shirt. For daily coding, dress in what you like.
Several people confirmed that they would probably be biased against applicants for dev positions coming in for an interview in a full on business suit with tie and slicked back hair (think "slick salesman" look). Perhaps not justified or fair, but interesting as a data point nonetheless. N=4 though, so don't take it too seriously.
It was at a time I applied for jobs after university and so I thought, I might wear a collars shirt to the meeting, to get in the mood.
All of my fellow CS students (aged 25-50) were wearing tshirts and generally more casual attire.
The first thing I was asked: Oh, do you study management?
A company I worked for (that I did generally like working for) implemented a suit and tie policy for management and above. It didn't affect me but I started looking for the door immediately and left a few months after.
Don't want to be in a company that is still clinging to 19th century values.
Hygiene is pretty important in the business I work since some of our devices come in contact with drinking water. But I can assure you that hygiene often does not correlate with outside appearances.
Still, we have rules for people that have customer contact because people are still judgemental, even if they are often demonstrably wrong.
Downside for management is that we are only allowed to drink water in our offices and are not allowed to eat outside the cafeteria. With time I have grown to like it that way, even if I am a coffee junkie. But it never smells bad in the office in exchange.
There is still some strange association with cleanliness and neat shirts.
One must not support such a ridiculous look based culture by heart, its instead more a - "I want to reap the benefits & rewards from idiots in awed reference to work uniforms"
Ironically the same happened to the hoodie, after various hackermovies. Wear a hoodie and sit with a laptop, obviously improves your coding ability.
Nice clothes have a reason to exist, determining where that fits in your life or your teams’s life may be worth thinking about:)
That's very specifically about looks.
Yes, there is a distinction, no it is not relevant. Just like to a blind person it would not matter what you wore so therefore 'looks' and 'what you are wearing' are closely related, related enough to both be used in this context.
That's quite the impressive opinion. Do you eat soup with a fork?
> determining static settings for a subsequent run.
AFAICT, your software didn't do that. Rather it provided infrastructure for the researchers to do that themselves more efficiently.
From your paper:
> The ultimate goal of FusionGrid is to allow scientists at geographically distributed sites to participate fully in experimental and computational activities...
Exactly what are you saying has been done before?
Profound.
He was merely giving a shameless plug of whatever infra project he was involved in.
Congrats - it involves computers and fusion.
> a previous project that was sort of an ancestor to this
> it's all been done before
implying that the current work build on his work in some way, which I don't see.