adam419

Like all headlines posed as a question;

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

The RESTful principle actually just declares that request response cycles and server-client interactions don't have to be stateful, not that it's necessary they're stateless.

It's still possible to use sessions and other ways of maintaining client state while adhering to other stateless principles such as indempotency of certains types of requests.

I was in the same position as you a month ago and now have an amazing job at a big name company. Also never went to college and am self-taught.

1. Dedicate 4 hours a day to practice, breakdown is maybe 2 hours of solving hard algorithm/programming interview questions. Really solve them, do not let yourself look at the solution until you've made a real stab at the problem. Also attempt problems harder than you think will be given to you. Also try to get a smart friend to do a mock whiteboard problem with you as often as possible. Spend the other two hours learning hard computer science. Keep grinding through Intro to Algorithms, but slowly. Really internalize and make yourself believe you understand the concepts and material.

2. Apply everywhere. Seriously, even places you don't think you'd work at. The interview might change your mind and make you excited about the company, and at least it's practice. Also, subtly convince yourself YOU are also interviewing them. It will convey a lot more value on your behalf.

3. Go to meetups and meet people. I don't know where you're located, but meetups can seriously lead to opportunity. I say this even though ironically 2/3 of my jobs I've gotten from applying on the website. But my first job/internship came to me in highschool after meeting the VP of the company who offered a job on the spot.

In #1, I may have seemed to have taken a hardline approach, that's right. In my experience, the interviews I've had were not even 20% as difficult as the problems I was used to solving and that's the point. Working really hard to master the material will show in unpredictable ways.

Best of luck.

Why? Even Michael Lewis's own conclusion as stated in the book was that he believed the crisis was less a product of greed, but rather mass-delusion and agency problems.

"And that did nothing to stop a much larger, more complex attack"

Perhaps, but I think the best way to measure the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the program is not the number of attacks that have slipped through, but the proportion of those that were prevented compared to those that slipped through.

Not sure what level of knowledge you have about browsers heading into this endeavor but maybe check out:

http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/internals/howbrowsers...

Looks very real, but the give away was the fact that if it were a real girl, they wouldn't be posing the question.

Should have done a comparison between a CGI and a real person to see if you could guess which was which.

What I think would be more likely is a collapse in demand for US bonds, which would cause a collapse in USD because less people have to transfer their local currency to USD to buy US bonds, therefore decreasing demand of USD, thus lowering it's price.

A desire for vindication is the right way to go.

Having a chip on your shoulder can be one of the biggest blessings life can offer.

Go find a third, and even better offer.

In additon to other comments, Prague and Budapest are awesome too. There's even a bit of a tech scene in each.

Google is absolutely nothing like Berkshire Hathaway.

While people make the monopoly/conglomerate/holding company analogy, they forget an important difference.

Berkshire Hathaways' talent and specialty lies in identifying sound-money businesses that are undervalued, and then making appropriate financial and management changes to bring them at or above their book value.

Google, and Alphabet on the other hand is in the business of making highly asymmetric bets on the future. The majority of their gains will come from few investments.

Probabilistically they're in two entirely different domains.

Yeah I actually advocate for the moderate form of what you're expressing.

My issue with single, high-worth exams was that sometimes I would screw up, have some misconception in my head, and if it wasn't cleared up until the exam I was done.

I think you should be examined on a semi-regularly basis where each exam is worth an equal amount of grade.

That way the effects of various externalities, like I was sick, had something bad happen that week, or just didn't learn the material as well as I thought could be smoothed out of a period of time.

I use something that does this powered by AppFolio.

I just create a maintenance request through it when needed and can track it online and the property manager get's notified about it.

Then they'll be exposed to systemic risk and we won't.

The analogy only stretches so far but I think letting nature take it's course isn't as dangerous you think.

Individual organisms die. Short of existential events, ecosystems last.

Creating too bigger to fail out of already too big to fail industries does nothing except throw good money after bad, and increase systemic risk for an even worse repetition of a failure.

Not to mention the fact that continuously proceeding with such bailouts is simply unsustainable. The problem lies in our modern inability to stomach losses and handle austerity. It's something no one rightfully wants, but when market failures or financial crises occur, it's for a reason. You're witnessing a natural repricing mechanism at work and no one is disagreeing a lot of destruction can be a by product. But I don't buy your narrative that unless we saved those industries in the US they would have permanently moved elsewhere.

The economy is like an organism, not a washing-machine. The most optimal repairing mechanism is itself.

Here's another solution:

Respect the wisdom of markets. Allow corrections to take place and don't bury malinvestment under the rug only for it rear it's ugly head worse later on by acting as if you have a better intuition on what the price of money should be.

Most people accept the virtue of free markets. Yet many don't see that the actions the Fed has been taking destroys the concept of a market by artificially supplementing supply or demand in an unbounded way based on a perceived sense of greater understanding.

The problem is it's really hard for most of these policy makers to build a platform based on "Let's do nothing and let the markets correct themselves". In such complex domains like an economy the action bias is very real, problematic, and the best thing to eliminate if you want to renormalize markets.

It's been documented that the "purging of corruption" has by and large just been a means for Jinping to attack his enemies.

In my opinion, seeing an article like this is a huge display of weakness of behalf of the united states.

You don't see other nations who engage in adversarial ways against the US broadcasting their intentions in public theatre.

If the US and obama administration really wanted to demonstrate power and deter china from cyber attacks, they wouldn't go chatting about all the things they're going to do. They would go do it and it would be heard of after the fact.

Has the concept of the element of surprise been forgotten?

Can someone explain why on earth do the likes of Goldman Sachs and Citibank line her pockets when clearly in this sense it's against their interest?

Retrospectively.

I wonder why most people don't realize that if journalists had nearly the informational value people think, they wouldn't be journalists, they'd be monstrously rich.

I'm unfortunately not in a position to win your prize, but I think this is hilarious...

Props for creativity and best of luck to you.

Similar to the agency problem except it's not a misalignment between managers and shareholders but between "operators" ie journalists and consumers.

The journalism suits the interest of the journalists and their managers and not the reader.

By Apple et al I meant private enterprise.

Because Apple et al can put the extra capital to better use than the united states government.

I clicked on this article only to be shown a gigantic black overlay alerting me if I sign up with them I can win an Apple Watch.

How terribly ironic

I wonder what it costs to get a native-advertisement like this in the DailyMail.

This perspective is in my opinion entirely misguided.

The incentive of a private organization is to find ways to profit off you. That desire leads to fairly predictable behavior.

On the other hand, a government owns you and has true power over you.

While the odds of a company abusing this information is much more likely, it's damage to you (abusing you with unwanted ads, etc) is far less bad than how a government would use such info to abuse you.

Another dimension to this is that if a private company establishes a monopoly on your information, it's position is all but permanent. It's possible for a whole slough of similar companies to acquire the same information, therefore nullifying each others monopoly and power over you. With a government this is not the case.