brobdingnagian

I find it very interesting that I'm being downvoted based on the difference between my self-concept and whoever is doing the downvoting (they don't think they are a neural network). I'm pretty sure that's not what downvotes are supposed to be used for. Perhaps those who are doing the downvoting would be interested in reading the textbook dedicated to the notion that human beings are neural networks, called Computational Cognitive Neuroscience: https://grey.colorado.edu/CompCogNeuro

Perhaps - it's not a bad analogy. But calling myself a neural network is not an analogy - it's literal.

I am a neural network, and I can round.

Comments from anyone who has seen this?

The dog has low precision and high recall. The dogs are capable of high precision and high recall, but aren't being trained to do that because other incentives are at play.

I found it impressive that the dog that alerts 93% of the time was correct 40% of the time. That means the police are doing what seems like a good job of identifying targets that actually have drugs. With those kind of odds, you'd probably want to take a closer look at everyone just to make sure you aren't letting people with drugs get away (false negatives).

The ability to search your own gists!

Scholarpedia is another good and authoritative source. The articles are typically written by the person who created the concept, or an active authority: http://www.scholarpedia.org

This. All these people commenting on the premise that usenet is dead, don't realize it is alive and kicking. As is IRC:)

There is no good rationalization for not hiring someone, because you cannot empirically connect your hiring process to more objective measures of success.

Guillaume, I do not think you are autistic, I think you are probably an ISTP. Rodney Mullen, also an ISTP, thinks he is autistic. No - that's just normal human variability. There's no use in unnecessarily psychopathologizing yourself.

Take home interviews are common in data science, and they are deeply exploitative. I have been asked to spend anywhere between an hour to a week on a project, and in most cases they simply decline to hire you without giving you any feedback. In the worst cases, companies like Knewton and Mattermark have given take home interviews that not only took a lot of time, but were related to the companies core business model. In other words, it's free consulting.

And finally, you aren't fooling anyone when you say that it should take 3 hours, or as long as they want to spend on it, while giving them 3 days. You are pressuring people to spend as much time on the problem as possible to "prove they are a good programmer." It's exploitative - you aren't paying us and the probability that we will get hired is extremely small. Think about how many companies we are interviewing with.

If meta-discussions were fundamentally off-topic, homo sapiens wouldn't exist. Says something about HN right there.

Can someone in the know please explain the importance of this?

This is a non-issue - the probability of someone dying because they crash into a tiny drone is miniscule. They are just being hyper-cautious and raising a stink about it. They should get on with their lives and drop the water on the fire.

Release the spreadsheet.

Look you at you, Mr. Destroyer of Hopes and Dreams.

This is not an implausible basis with which to start a new list on Wikipedia. It is original research, but it will likely be let in.

This sounds like unsubstantiated BS. This whole thread is full of hubris.

This is also known as 'language'.

I've been reading slashdot for over a decade and I just wasn't feeling this... honestly not sure if Slashdot can be rescued at this point. SourceForge is in the same boat.

He's talking about groupthink.

Let's just unravel what it means to not want to work with someone: you are chipping away at them as a person who is trying to survive. You are an agent of natural selection in action. If that's part of your identity, I think you're a jerk. If it's not, then hire them and offer to help them out. Don't try to change them too much - just bring them back within the normal range. Offer them CBT or just be nice to them. At the very very least, if you're not hiring someone because you don't think you can work with them, tell them, and suggest they get some counseling.

We need to work together to make culture-fit a bad word. "Culture fit" means discrimination along dimensions that shall not be named, for were they to be named they would be illegal.

It's a nice catchall phrase for all kinds of discrimination that would be illegal if stated explicitly. If we call it a gut feeling or culture fit, it's suddenly legal.

I understand the paradigm paralysis - we have been led to believe that having the best CS zombies in the world is what makes success, but it's just not true. Meanwhile, jobs aren't filled and the people who need them are suffering.

The evidence simply does not support present hiring methodologies as predictive of successful business outcomes. Therefore, you should hire and invest in people who need jobs. The reason the increasingly widely accepted status quo of interview processes continues is essentially due to confirmation bias: companies want you to feel like you are part of a special, select team. In reality, we are not that much different from each other. The evidence suggests hiring people who need jobs and dispensing with the bs.

I have also done it. None of the things you mentioned predict success. In fact, very little aside from basic hygiene is likely to predict success, which is what renders these purportedly meritocratic hiring processes so out of touch with reality.

Remember - all TripleByte is doing is reinforcing the bad hiring practices that companies already have.

Why would you stop reading there? That's when it gets interesting. It's OK to think for yourself :)

There is a lot of narcissism in academia.