narribbi

There's provability ("math"), and testability / falsifiability ("science"), and then there's just making it work amidst a deluge of trade-offs ("engineering"). If in the end, you simply can't make it work, the entire exercise becomes futile. In that sense, I do not really believe in favouring the formalisms of provability and testability at just any cost. If the person can actually solve the practical problem, then that should allow us to move on, no? That is why I like having that kind of people on my team.

> The problem with self-teaching is that you don't know what you don't know, so you don't realise where the gaps in your knowledge are.

That is why the only valid starting point is : the problem at hand and to solve.

From there, you can work your way back to what lack of knowledge prevents you from solving the problem.

If knowledge does not show up somewhere, assisting you while solving a problem, it is most likely useless knowledge and undoubtedly just a waste of time.

> but learning something from scratch with minimal guidance is difficult

Unfortunately, that is the only real skill. Everything else you can learn by using exactly that.

Balancing a binary tree is just an algorithm, like there are so many. As a programmer, you have to design algorithms on the fly, quite a few of which may actually be harder than just balancing a binary tree. Algorithms emerge automatically from designing data structures; when you end up manipulating these data structures. In turn, data structures emerge naturally from trying to model particular problems. There are too many branches in mathematics modeling too many types of problems than anybody could know them all.

In that sense, asking a developer about how to balance a binary tree, is a dumb interview question.

He should only know, if he happened to have worked on exactly that type of problem, only yesterday or so.

The question is rather: If the following is the description of the algorithm to balance binary trees, show that you understand it by dealing with the details in the following examples.

> The fundamental knowledge of math and science that separates engineers from 'coders'.

Only math. Furthermore, someone with years of coding instinctively develops such mathematical understanding, while the very same understanding will be lost on someone who just graduated, but has never coded.

When you read Trygve Reenskaug's original 1979 paper "MODELS - VIEWS - CONTROLLERS" -- it is very short, simple, and crystal-clear -- (http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/1979/mvc-2/1979-12-MVC.pdf), it obvious what Trygve meant:

* The MODEL is something like a web server

* The VIEW is something like a browser

* The CONTROLLER is something like the Windows start menu

Trygve literally writes:

"A view (=browser) is attached to its model (=server) and gets the data necessary for the presentation from the model by asking questions (=submitting queries). It may also update the model (=posting) by sending appropriate messages. A controller (=start menu) provides the user with input (=menu items) by arranging for relevant views (=windows) to present themselves in appropriate places on the screen."

Shortcomings should be addressed by forking bitcoin into yet another altcoin and demonstrate the proposed improvement over there. We now have 700+ alternative "altcoins" in circulation, most of them demonstrating pretty much nothing at all. Real breakthroughs are once in a blue moon, while all kinds of useless criticisms are plentiful. In that sense, we do not want to have a "legitimate discussion" but to observe legitimate altcoins embodying improvements, while they are performing in the real world.

I still have them! ;-)

> I really dont think bitcoin is a viable currency for mainstream use.

Bitcoin is not a replacement for paper money, but for digital money. Only in developed countries, digital money is in mainstream use. Outside, the majority of people are "unbanked".

The problem with digital dollars is that government and banks can create them out of the fricking blue. They effectively do that -- all the time actually -- while in the process debasing and devaluing the dollars that you are holding.

I got many of my bitcoins a few years ago at $250/btc. Now they are almost $1500/btc. I think that bitcoin is a very viable digital currency. Seriously, I am not willing to exchange them for liberally-printed digital dollars.