98 karma · joined July 2, 2015
I graduated from an enginnering school, and you can absolutely skip all classes if you wanted to. Sure, the teachers don't encourage you to do it, but the freedom is definitely there.
BUT, since there will always be a percentage of students who don't succeed in a "traditional" way, a bunch of rich people will always attempt to lure them into a paid program (which is, I repeat, selective). So they learn quite a bit, and they can become high-earners in the future, since they're all hanging out with technically good people.
I suggest a corollary:
"Any web community gets what it admires (fancy UX and feeds that work like magic), will pay for (=nothing), and, ultimately, deserves."
I think that a white factory worker could add way more insight into how other communities views things, than hiring a black/female attorney does...
Having said that, I'm really afraid what the backlash against this type of diversity-thinking will be. The system will surely corrects itself in the future (it's already starting), but I'm not certain going back to another extreme would be very wise...
Your opinion seems to lack every bit of possible nuance: say i'm manager A trying to raise awareness about tech B in company. I have every right as employee C to be skeptical because if B is bad and pointless, I'll be punished for following A's decision. Of course A has every right to spread B even if bad, because it will make A seem awesome in the process.
My general point is: resistance to change is a spectrum and is often mixed with office politics and strong opinions on both sides. Trying to blame someone merely for wanting to keep the status quo is absurd.
Since when people just want to live comfortable lives and leave their collective fate to be decided by a minority whose interests do not necessarily align with the people's interests (otherwise, they would just allow fair elections).
Small example: of course, country-wide surveillance à la China would lead to "economic success", do you think it's criticized because it would lead to mass poverty ?
It would lead to a perfectly stable future for the population, with ever improving quality of life and security. The problem, as you may guess, lies elsewhere.
The "they" cannot be referring the people of China, or the majority because China is just not a democracy.
This is the main difference between a country which holds free elections every 4 years, and a single-party country.
Sorry but I find this just mindblowing.
I technically count as a "minority" and I have no other way of phrasing this: it is extremely irritating to see companies push for diversity by hiring based on skin colour or gender.
Luckily, I live in a country that strongly opposes these kinds of policies, so I get to feel proud of my (very modest) achievements in this field.
To see these students and other minorities never being able to experience that feeling makes me quite sad.
I basically see the future as being both really dystopic and utopic at the same time:
So (mostly rich) people will be able to invest their money without any friction, but this will destroy the rent-seeking institutions that weren't meant to exist in the first place
=> power to the geeks and the rich, but you won't be able to make any money by just making "deals".
Would love to be convinced otherwise though....
Really glad that the market really played its role by providing customers with a near-perfect (Netflix's library is inconsistent to say the least) viewing experience.
Where I come from, staff in cafés would kill to make a consistent coffee every time (and they mostly do) but they're stuck with old machinery. But now that Starbucks has delivered that, customers want to go back to an authentic experience that really has never existed.
The same thing will happen to food i.e most people would love to have decent restaurant meals delivered at a really low price. The fact that some people will try to taste gourmet food prepared by real chefs is rather irrelevant to say the least...
From then, the calculations only got more advanced, but computers have always hidden how they worked (especially when they reach a certain scale of customers).
But then, I remember a computer vision teacher 3 years ago laughing at the idea of using Python instead of Matlab as Matlab is the "obvious industry standard".
Matlab is a tremendously poor ecosystem. Not flexible at all in terms of libraries, slow, closed source and poorly designed as a language.
You could just see what Python has achieved in the last years as a scientifical tool: awesome libraries, interfaces with web/mobile applications, tons of rich courses/tutorials.
I hope it teaches other fields that open source can really be key in making tremendous progress.
Python users shouldn't run standard loops in any scientific computing. Only valid examples are looping over a set of http parameters in a web app...
In which case, the computation will definitely not be the bottleneck.
I've been looking for the reason why IT has come up with Agile before anyone else (I don't consider Lean Industrial Management as Agile whatsoever) and I simply think it's because the first industry with so much information in it (it's in the title even...).
Now that other industries have to orchestrate huge processes with huge amounts of information, I hope they'll take into account what IT brought up to solve this issue instead of taking the "IBM route" further (more policies, more guidelines, more bureaucracy).
It's not news, companies go away because they make repeatedly bad changes, one after the other, thinking they're doing the best ones.
I think German automakers are simply too late for the Tech train. Don't get me wrong, they'll sell lots of cars in the near/far future, but they'll probably become a "commodities" type of industry, like Oil.