NotAnOtter

Of course not.

They would never do that.

Industry has a good track record of this.

This is super cool.

It seems to break for ranges including 0 though

100 / -1~1 = -3550~3500

I think the most correct answer here is -inf~inf

Your overall point might be correct but your example does not prove your point.

A Makrov chain is just the path taken through the course of a markov process. The terms 'chain' and 'process' are sometimes conflated in this context, but this is the most common distinction I've seen. As such you can run a markov process for some number of steps N times, and then ask how many generated chains contain the property you are interested in. The process is memoryless but the chain is the result of the process and therefor contains memory.

I agree 'Random walk' is a superset of 'a markov process', but IMO when someone says Random walk - they normally make assumptions that qualify it as a markov chain. Therefor it's useful as a teaching to just call it a random walk.

There is such a thing. Basically every popular language has a mutation-testing frameworks. It's pretty common for large scale projects.

Given how simple Water is and how readily available it's components are, it's inevitable there are many planets with vast oceans.

Photoshop is a stretch.. that's more like MS paint in terms of feature parity.

Isn't this like 1/2 the appeal of living in rural America though?

Way out there, on your own. Fewer creature comforts, more getting stuff done on your own. No paying the connivence fee associated with cities, having everything nearby but paying double the rent.

Yes this sounds like an obscene edge case but it's part of the deal

Having been on both sides of the equation, including at FAANG, I would say 'just enough' for it to be disadvantageous to lie.

I mean it's not like we're studying the resume and looking for inconstancies. Generally I just picked one specific line, one specific claim, and drilled into it. I generally want to give you a chance to do the whole "STAR" thing, but about some specific technical you claim to be one of your biggest wins.

I never have (or have done to me) called any of the references. That feels like a step too invasive for a generic senior engineer gig. Maybe for management I would care more, but I don't interview for or apply to those.

Re: 'resume prank', I generally consider a fancy college to be a detractor. It mostly shows your parents drilled you in highschool, and not much else. It's basically a moot point.

Well IMO if you're giving some trivial level of credit someone else, you should use 'we', since you're both 'talking. If you reference them by name in the paper somewhere, I feel even stronger about my stance.

...Right.. unoptimized bubble sort.

Right there with you.

It's assumed you at some point talked to someone in the lab, or your advisor, or your advisee, or literally anyone about the paper. If you didn't that's probably problematic. So "we" gives non-formal credit to your community.

This isn't even worthy of a blog post let alone a published research article, the publisher should be embarrassed.

This isn't an innovation. It's just un-optimized bubble sort. Back in college when I was learning bubble sort, I implemented this exact sort as a type of "MVP". And then I added the other flags and stuff they reference to try to polish the turd.

I mean I'm glad someone proved it works, but I thought they proved this works like 40 years ago.

A chess site I'm calling 'Chess Derivatives' with modified rules to reinforce best practice. I'm still tweaking the specifics but the basic pitch is this

Augmented Chess: Normal chess with conventional ELO ranking system but you get additional penalties & rewards based on common bad practices, and recovering from bad positions.

> The first person that breaks from the book line loses 10% of the start time (unless book was not an option / the line was exhausted)

> Missing a forced checkmate forces you to wait 5% of the start time before your next move

> Achieving any principled position good grants some time (Passed pawn, connected rooks, rook / queen / bishop battery, etc)

> Doing any principled bad position loses some time (Knight on the rim, blocked bishop, king past the first rank in early game or mid game

----------------------

Continued Position: Chess but you continue a position from a high-level chess championship. There are a couple value-adds here

> Provide lower level players with a way to start a middle or end game positions after a highly skilled player followed all the correct principles. My theory is this will reinforce why those principles exists, how they can benefit you, etc.

> Provide high level players a way to be forced into positions out of their comfort zone / their preferred styles

> Provide differently-skilled players to continue play from unique positions with the desired amount of odds. So a GM might play a 1000 ELO player but starting from a position with -9 evaluation, etc.

If you have any ideas, comments, or feedback LMK.

I bit of UX tweaking and this could see a lot of traction as a snarky reply, a la "Let me google that for you".

Funnily enough you can learn lots of things when you read books.

He was a top-tier scientists but kinda disgraceful in every other aspect of his life. Womanizer is a polite way of saying it, I would choose harsher words. He was also just generally a jerk to the people around him.

Think Edison, more than Tesla.

He is known for being a bad ass scientists and super slick with the ladies.

Many decades later we say more accurately, he was a bad ass scientist who either sexually harassed or straight up raped most of his female mentees and was generally kinda racist (I mean, so was everyone back then. Still tho) and a general asshole.

I mean I don't really think there is any point in declaring anyone the best scientist ever. But he's firmly in whatever the top tier is when only considering scientific contributions.

Feynman should not be celebrated.

I'm not claiming college kids can't build products.

But in general, if you're buying the cheapest labor you can find, you're going to get an inferior product.

When I was in college, I was asked to be a founding engineer. The other two involved were business guys that were pursing a $1Mil grant and needed the MVP in 9 months. I asked for 33% and they laughed me off. A few months later I saw many salty posts on their socials about "engineers expected to own the company when they don't contribute any vision or direction".

It's like captaining a ship and not being willing to repair the ship. Good luck on your own I guess.

It's different when they already have a product and are looking to expand. That's closer to hiring a sailor to manage the sails. But when you're hiring a ship builder expect a ship builders wage.

Also, don't hire a college kid to build your MVP. That's a big enough red flag right there.

Came here to do a worse job of writing this comment. Terrain generation via water simulations are cool, except they don't work for the primary use cases for terrain generation. Water simulations are inherently slow you have to choose to either

1) Have a small domain

2) Have a large resolution

3) Have a very long initial load time

Any of these suck for game development.

I like analogy's like this. Not in love with this specific one. It feels like OP thought of the first two hats and then tried to think up other hats, rather than have the nebulas idea of different ways of working and structured the analogy around it.

Analogies should "simplify" not complicate. If you're ever writing an analogy and think "How can I add more meat to this? You know, enough to make it worth sharing in a blog post?" you're on the wrong path.

I agree this is the best route for my own personal happiness. But I'm just not really willing to be complacent anymore

One example is something like this: https://trumptracker.github.io/

I'm hoping for things more impactful than yet another dashboard but something is better than nothing

> However, developers hate email.

My perspective is every form of communication bears certain unspoken rules / implications.

* Email - This is a serious thought out discussion

* Slack / Similar in a shared channel - This is office-formal, you should be professional but can joke around. Similar to how you would talk to an equal or your manager in person

* Slack / similar in DM - This is a rapid "Quick question" forum where you just need some links or quick thoughts. Nothing here is very serious

* Phone call - This is informal, rapid discussion for time sensitive issues. I'm calling you so that I don't have to page you.

> next job often comes from contacts that you built up from the current job, or jobs before

I've been in this field for ~7 years and have never found this to be true, yet people parrot it all the same. I have never once received a job via reference, and only once was able to get someone else a job by reference. I feel this is only true when you're at the very senior level.

This sounds like a cool one-time solve. Solving high level traditional sudukos is mostly about learning "rules" (like The Phistomefel Ring). I imagine the equivalent in 3d would be too complex for a human to parse.

+1 on matching the CTC 'standards'. You'll get significantly more user adoption if the conventions match.

I theory the incentive is to 1) eventually become a professor and 2) have more say over what projects you get to work on.

Both of these aren't real incentives for the bottom 80% of postdocs.