PurpleBoxDragon

Is it really normal for a developer to need to apply to that many positions to find a decent match? I've only ever done a dozen or so at once, and each one I spend a decent amount of time researching the company for tailoring a cover page (if they accept them) or for the interview. I find those making the hiring decisions are quite impressed by candidates who have done their homework (and more than once I've made the hiring manager a bit worried about how I found so much information just through google searches; they don't realize how much their employees let leak through Linked In resumes and such).

I've seen companies hire truly awful senior developers who ended up costing the company quite a lot after they were fired and the entire search had to begin again 3 months later. If the position is in high demand, you still need to gate it to make sure you get a decent chance at a good hire.

Also, I highly suspect companies who are having trouble hiring senior devs are having issues stemming from not paying enough for their given situation.

>you don't over-engineer but you keep it as simple as possible

It should also mean you don't under engineer, but that is extremely hard to test for because that involves knowing the business and your customers and having a reasonable estimate of where future needs will be. I'm not sure how you would test for lack of under engineering, especially since any interview task would be a perfect case where you practically can't under engineer since it is guaranteed throw away work. Maybe asking during code review for how you would've done the solution different if you knew that in the next quarter you would likely have to implement either feature A and B or C and D (but you didn't know which yet).

If the project only takes an hour for a junior it shouldn't be a problem. I would be worried that their senior position problems might not be as quick to solve (which is similar to the real world), but then this interview technique might just be best for junior positions and they do something different for senior positions given the different in skill sets and what problems they are expected to solve.

Sometimes refusing to ship means that you just lost first to market advantage to someone who did. There are always trade offs, cost benefit analysis, and risk analysis to do with these decisions. For most software out there, assuming that a person at least has a name is a pretty safe assumption.

>People whose names break my system are weird outliers. They should have had solid, acceptable names, like 田中太郎. >No, your system is badly designed.

>People have names. >This one is perhaps the most difficult for which to give solid examples. There was an isolated culture in which no one had names – they referred to everyone in relative terms, such as “my mother’s eldest sister”.

So taking the last two statements together, any system that assumes a name exist is thus poorly designed?

Some of these examples are things people need to take into account, but that doesn't mean bad design. A well designed system takes into account that there is a business need and a business budget. To ignore the constraints of real world situation makes less sense than ignoring the one culture where people don't have names at all.

>"companies that maximize profits by firing employees, avoiding taxes, selling shoddy products or polluting the environment can harm their shareholders more than helping them."

In which case are they really maximizing profits? Wouldn't it depend upon the risk and costs of those options verses their benefits?

It's like genetic algorithms that look like they don't work because someone miscalculated exactly what the fitness function was optimizing.

>And replaced with?

Nothing. Industry secrets is a far better model than giving major corporations access to government power that they can use to crush smaller competition, sometimes for work that they stole from the smaller competition.

These are just some of the reasons patents are fundamentally broken and the patent system as a whole should be scrapped. Another big issue is that, like most any law, enforcing it costs significant money, and that cost scales depending upon who your opponent is. The cost for a little guy to enforce a patent claim against google is vastly out of proportion to the cost of google to enforce a patent claim against a little guy. This means that the patent system ends up being another form of regulatory capture used to squash competition. If we just removed patents, major corporations would be just as free as today to steal from the little guys, but at least they couldn't then weaponize their patents to crush the original inventors.

That's why it should just be under neurology.

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Unmentioned is the judgment that you don't need that, I don't need this, buy they do need that other thing. I'm being overly generic, but what counts as a need and what needs are fulfilled is still a political issue of discrimination in communism. Do you need shelter if the weather isn't lethal? Do you need food that is anything above the bare minimum to survive? Do you need emotional support? All needs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

>It does not seem all that healthy to just dismiss and ignore and totally negate compounding value of cross-generational achievements and accomplishments ... that you are not better than the last widget you created compared to the next person you are compared in preparation for creation of the next widget.

Depends if you are helped or hurt by this view. There are people who are discriminated due to no fault of their own over factors they cannot control. And not every bias is called out or even something we are socially cognizant of. If one previously benefited from this it can be worrisome but for others this will be a boon.

>simply strip humans of their humanity

What is humanity? Not in ideal, in actuality? Do beautiful people have more humanity than ugly people? The Hale Effect says that they do. When called out on it we will say that is not the case, but in our every day actions that is how we work. Mechanized equalization will be a benefit for those who have already been assigned as having less humanity for no fault of their own.

>Does it come to America? What about searches that seem criminal?

My guess is that it is already here, just for things we deem acceptable. The problem with censorship is that everyone has something they think acceptable to censor, so the infrastructure to censor will be developed with mass approval.

Is it ethical to use code while not agreeing to the license it is provided under?

What was he compensated with in exchange for taking on responsibility? Without compensation the contract by which he takes on responsibility is not valid.

If I peel back the onion further, I find the root of the problem is how to measure someone who is good at science. How should we measure scientific output to determine compensation (not just monetary or tenure, reputation itself can be considered a form of compensation)? That the way we reward scientist means that few are pushing to reform academic publishing is barely a footnote compared to some of the problems produced by our current model. Look at the lack of replication that occurs because replication is far less rewarded than new research even when the new research fails replication (once someone does eventually get around to it). The way to fix this is to find a method to measure good science that works better than the current method, but given that us tech people can't even figure out a decent way to measure proficiency in our own field, the outlook isn't hopeful for our ability to disrupt science.

0: Have a collection of unwanted but not illegal material.

>Can we just say "Darwins law" and let it be?

Only if we are willing to say the same once someone decides to fight back with actual force. If someone outright kills a scammer doing this, are you willing to write it off as "Darwin's law" and let it be?

To the same extent, the weight or mass of the plastic may not be relevant as well. The shape, density, and strength of the plastic would probably matter much more than the weight.

Generally we measure how lethal something is by using an LD 50 that looks at mass of chemical per mass of body. There are exceptions to this, but as a first assumption it seems reasonable.

The core problem persists in either model. If people don't think they should pay for science, they'll vote either with their wallet or for the politicians who promise to return (or spend elsewhere) their tax dollars. Add in the increasing level of politics in science and the idea of just giving some people a decent life regardless if they produce result or not becomes a very hard sell.

The root of the problem with either funding method goes back to people not valuing science that may bring no benefit for to them. What's the solution for fixing that? Especially when talking to someone who care barely make ends meet.

>This kind of post-facto justification for poor working conditions or wages needs a name, so it can be dismissed out of hand. It seems to assume that the market is “fair” and getting poor pay must be justified by some other factor about the job.

Maybe this is true when you consider not just the job itself, but acquiring the job. How many minimum wage jobs offer minimum entry requirements? How many offer secondary benefits that are worth a lot, but only to a very small percent of the population (such as internships offering access to important people).

Of courses, none of this means fair. Some people are unfairly born with advantages or disadvantages, many of which have no solution that I've ever seen.

>but not "John Doe at 123 Main Street, Hollywood, California".

How can you be so sure? Between IP addresses and what wireless networks are available you can get a decently precise location for the majority of users. And this is assuming you don't just capture the address and name when they type it in.

Okay, so maybe they aren't using it for evil yet. How many times has a large corporation been able to indefinitely resist the pull of an alternative revenue stream where the majority of the cost has already been paid?

>you feeling awkward is more important than someone having food that day

Have you ever spent any money on something that would make you feel less awkward that you could've donated to help feed the hungry? Have you ever bought new clothes when second hand would've worked and you could've donated the difference to feed the hungry? Have you ever spent money eating out when you could've saved money by cooking and donated the difference to feed the hungry?

I wonder if there is anyone who could answer no to such questions?

>at some point a judge will be asked if it fits the charge, and make a layman decision, not a programmer's one.

There seems to be a doubles standard in regards to the use of technical vs layman decisions. I've seen legal cases where the judge is making rulings on extremely technical points of law which are far outside the layman's understanding, but these only seem to happen when there are really expensive lawyers pushing for it. Have a public defender? Layman decisions, especially if they aren't in the defendants favor.

I wonder if anyone would have the ability to formalize this into actual research to see if there is any truth behind my intuition.

Yes. I've seen far too many people who don't really have a clue at how to actually make data anonymized and which have adversarial systems systems set up for reporting any issues that encourages ignoring the issue over fixing it.

Anything along the line of Rind et al. Not that paper in particular, but anything that is even remotely in the same region.

I see people doing this, but only selectively when it benefits their existing beliefs. They look at the worse groups agreeing with those they disagree with, while ignoring the worst groups that agree with them.

I think that English OR is Logical XOR and logical OR is English "A or B or both" or "A and/or B".

Oddly enough, my use of or seems to violates the very rule it is used to describe.

>If someone is busy triggering mail bombers and lunatic shooters just by targeting and upvoting their posts on social media what's all this sci-fi stuff good for?

Your first assumption is that any of those actions were against the ethos of the ones in charge of this technology. They aren't there to stop the bad guys. If anything, the bad guys winning some of the time helps provide public support for the endeavors of those behind this technology. Consider how the people in charge of this technology either gain or lose from the actions of the people you want monitored, compared to what they have to gain or lose from the actions of others who they could use this technology to monitor.

In my personal view, MLK Jr., after his turn to focus on the plight of the poor, is far more a schema of the intended target of this type of technology than James Earl Ray.