mechEpleb

The most important thing is just to apply because unless you're connected, the job search process is much like a lottery.

Establishing the habit of regularly checking your schedule and thus being aware of any upcoming events would mostly solve this.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? Yet here I am, someone who grew up thinking computers were obtuse and boring because getting the computer to do anything interesting seemed like it would require knowing a thousand things not related to the issue at hand. I was always a mechanically minded person, so while the inner workings of things seemed interesting, making toy websites (the entry level computer thing to do in that time period) seemed about as interesting as watching paint dry.

But here I am, working as a software engineer and half way through my MSc in computer science. It took a couple of low level microcontroller classes in my mechanical engineering undergrad for me to see the light.

I get the feeling that the world was significantly more open to kids growing up with access to computers in the 80s and 90s, because as someone whose formative years were the 00s and early 10s, the interesting bits of technology were already buried under a thousand layers of abstraction and indirection. Kids nowadays won't ever learn what a shell is unless they go out of their way to learn it for some reason.

And they did that because it makes sense from a military perspective, not because they were aping go strategies. Are you being obtuse on purpose? You're taking two radically different problem domains and producing a shaky, extremely high level mapping between some elements in them that is essentially unfalsifiable.

I would argue that this is ridiculously reductionist and probably has nothing to do with the actual decision making process on either side.

I said nothing of qualia. Science has no tools to even begin trying to model, describe or explain them. All I am saying is that from a physical perspective, a mind is just as deterministic as an orbit. So far nobody has discovered anything to suggest otherwise. You're taking a concept that exists outside the conceptual space of physics and using it to make statements about physical systems.

Getting it out there. If your goal is just to ensure that a well supported open source solution exists and people can use it instead of having nothing at all or only paid proprietary garbage, a permissive license makes far more sense.

If your goal is sticking it to the man and demolishing capitalism or whatever then it's different of course.

>You can show all sorts of chemical and biological explanations for the behavior, but it is still "behavior." It can be predictable, but it is not deterministic.

What makes it non-deterministic? A neural network is a system with a huge number of parameters and therefore a wildly chaotic output, but the output is still deterministic. Even if you introduce a number of environmental confounders.

To claim that brains are (more) non-deterministic (than other kinds of macroscopical physical processes) you would have to show that quantum effects have a (more) significant impact on their outcomes.

>Like, if someone thinks what I does suck I always invite people to tell me so.

That's you. Plenty of other people will defend whatever they come up with regardless and need to protect their fragile egos.

I'm not sure misogyny is the only possible explanation here, and I am almost certain it doesn't account for the entire gap.

> Though I think that's mostly on Google "optimizing" my queries by dumbing them down.

I'd say it's become a lot worse than it was just a couple years ago when you could massage the queries to get you exactly what you want. Now google seems to think it's more clever than you and turns every question into an entry level one.

I don't think derisive attitudes in the workplace adequately explain it, because there are a lot fewer women in CS/engineering school too.

>There are lots of actual engineers being outearned by boot camp grads with two years experience.

Hasn't that been the case for decades now?

You can't demand more when plenty of others will do it for far cheaper.

In house there's less incentive to underbid and overpromise

>hey intern, here's the topic, here's some buzzwords, here's the word and slide count, you have 3 hours

Yes, usually that reason is that once you are unemployed you fall to the bottom of any hiring manager's list of eligible applicants.

Because you are already stuck on the path you picked and have no choice

That would be true if said intelligent people were optimizing exclusively for the metric you're looking at right now. In reality they usually are not, as they are themselves stuck in a system where their incentives are to optimize for things other than their supposed mission statement.

The world is full of tangled messes where everybody is acting with respect to their own local incentives and everyone is worse off as a result

>You can argue that your processor's clock speed hasn't changed, the program has just memoized some intermediate results and no longer has to actively compute them, but that seems like a disingenuous argument.

A disingenuous argument indeed. Almost as if you took the entire premise of the argument you disagree with and put it inside a "you can argue" block which is then dismissed with no rebuttal.

Engaging in political activity would require leaving my room.

Power lines are not put under ground in most of the world. Nobody wants to pay an order of magnitude more to hedge against occasional downsides in reality.

The number of people who need cars to survive is far greater than the number of people who can afford to fix every nuisance fault. So long as it can keep rolling and comply with whatever minimum safety requirements actually get enforced, people will run it.

The first is an example of default argument syntax, it doesn't mean you can call functions with extra arguments, only that a value will be provided from the declaration if the call doesn't.

But there are strong incentive structures in place that introduce a correlation between the interests of these individuals and the company's success at driving up share price or even making money. It's not as straightforward as that in reality, but a noisy profit/shareprice maximizing agent is not the worst approximation of a corporation you could come up with.

It boils down to the fact that there are large potential (if improbable) downsides to messing with DNA, and people have a strong cognitive bias against actively inflicting harm vis a vis just allowing harm to happen on its own.

I personally don't think it's possible to prevent this kind of thing in the long term, so everything ranging from edited children born with horrible disabilities to deleting some potentially beneficial mutation paths in the human genome from existence is going to happen anyway.

If I show up at the capitol building alone and demand to be put in charge, is that also a coup attempt? Obviously where you draw the line is subjective, but this event never had anything close to the requisite backing to become an actual coup, so calling it that feels a bit disingenuous to me. What it was is a riot and and an insurrection, but not a coup.

4chan is still mostly teenagers and 20-somethings from middle class families shitposting for fun

If you just want to use their software, the community doesn't matter at all.