stevegalla

If I recall correctly (from his podcast episodes), he has said he knows what is required to get to the top of his field, but he isn’t willing to pay the price.

Perhaps he will point to that in the future to say why he hasn’t won Turing awards. Or perhaps he makes more money from his “side hustles” as an author, blogger, and podcaster.

Or it’s a good match for “finding the hard work you’re willing to do”. He is willing to do the hard work to get tenured, but not the hard work to be the absolute best in the field.

I’ve heard a few descriptions of swivel chair:

1. swivel chair work is any work that requires someone sitting in front of a computer to do.

2. swivel chair work is when you’re having to swivel your chair from one screen to another. This requires swiveling between applications to complete your work.

3. swiveling the monitor between customer and retail sales associate to collect inputs.

When you’re referring to replacing manual tasks with an automated process, are you referring to 2 above?

How is the offering from companies like UiPath any different from “macros”, such as AutoHotKeys or Macro Express?

What about the people in PST who work outside of normal office hours? Should they be penalized because they are effectively working in a different time zone? Should those in different time zones that decide to work PST regular office hours be paid more?

They don’t even need to be in a cheaper location.

I have worked with two kinds of employees that are willing to accept lower pay.

- those moving for a better lifestyle who have earned and saved considerably more elsewhere. I call these “working retirees”.

- those who have family sending them money to subsidize their cost of living in an expensive city.

> I don't have any TAs, professors, peers etc to ask or grade my stuff when working my way through a text book in my spare time. How can I be sure I understood stuff correctly?

I definitely agree with you on this. However, there are three things self-learners (or even students) can do.

1. Find a textbook with worked solutions or a different presentation of material.

2. Look for course material that has problem sets with solutions, worked tutorials, or worked examples.

3. Learn numerical or other methods to evaluate your solutions. I know this isn’t possible for proofs, but if it’s an algorithm’s run time, I don’t see how implementing the algorithm and plotting run times over different input sizes wouldn’t be a good way to see if you have the correct run time.

How do tech consultants approach their work?

I am definitely biased by my past experiences with tech consultants. I’m trying to sort out if it’s a service provider issue or if it’s a customer side issue.

From my limited perspective, it seems management consultants are focused on 80/20 solution approaches. While it seems technical consultants are focused on delivering MVPs that don’t seem to map well to the business space.

> I don’t know what an ISA is

I’m not certain, but I was able to find “income sharing agreement” in this document.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s2114/BILLS-116s2114is.pd...

Edit to add:

Possible related a company he is involved in student loans.

“SoFi, which is now led by ex-Twitter COO Anthony Noto, was founded more than a decade ago to offer ways to secure better financial terms for student loans.”

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/sofi-nears-deal-public-mer...

I have seen it argued that because HN is founded by Americans everything should be assumed to apply to America unless otherwise stated.

As HN readership isn’t strictly American, I don’t see why specifying that engineer is a legally protected title in Canada is a bad thing...

From the article, Mat’s previous job was Geological engineering. “His firm was hired to analyze a block cave in British Columbia.”

Also from the article “In Canada you can’t even call yourself a “Software Engineer” unless you’re accredited!”

The article specifically mentions Canada.

I’m sorry if I’m not reading into the most generous possible phrasing of your comment, but I can’t figure out what point you’re trying to make.

To me this is similar to the comments of the form “found the x” on HN. In this case you could have said “found the Canadian” and I still wouldn’t know what point is being made.

So, to my point, HN has international readership, some of which is Canadian, having people on HN point out some of the specifics about practicing engineering in Canada (or any other country for that matter) seems to be a useful addition to the commentary. Some HN readership is still in high school or early into their college or university studies and not everyone has access to the same resources, mentors, or even knowledge of where to research answers to their questions. Sharing on HN is a great thing and can be beneficial to these people. I know I’ve personally benefitted a great deal from HN comments.

A lot of college/university course work is openly available on the internet. This includes syllabi, textbooks, class notes, tutorials, homework assignments and solutions.

If one wants to learn, for example, algorithms, one does not need to do this in a self-directed manner. Several learning paths already exist. If one is having trouble grasping a specific topic, sites like Stack Exchange, Stack Overflow, Reddit, Khan Academy, and YouTube exist for one to ask questions on. I have had many issues cleared up by reading through previously asked questions, including seeing the person who a theorem is named after answer the question. Is it quicker to ask a teacher a question? Yes, of course. What will lead to longer lasting learning? For me, it's figuring it out on my own.

Eventually, one will come to a point where there is no longer an answer key, a teacher to guide you, or a well-worn path to follow, what happens then? People need to learn on the job all the time. Learning how to formulate a question, find the resources to help answer that question, and determine if what you have found answers the question are all key skills people need to learn. It helps to do this in a structured setting, but can be learned through the internet.

If self-directed means some people are not good at working without deadlines, then they can form a habit. Set aside time and work through some of the above material.

Cal Newport has put out many articles, blog posts, books, and now a podcast on how to learn and be a good student. I'm sure there are many other resources, including the soft-question tags on some of the previously mentioned websites. Old "Ask HN" posts are also a phenomenal resource. So, I think those who are not good at learning on their own really do have a tremendous amount of resources out there. Will some people even after using all of the resources still fail to learn, I'm sure some will. I think many people, myself included, aren't putting in enough effort to really find their limits, or to discover a process that works for them. Yes, for some people they can figure it out, others will have guidance from teachers, friends, or family, but for others many resources exist to learn the process on their own. At the end of the day, it's easier to go on Tik Tok than it is to crack a textbook and grind problems.

It doesn't appear to be.

From Wikipedia, "There is another type of university in Germany: the Fachhochschulen (Universities of Applied Sciences), which offer mostly the same degrees as Universitäten, but often concentrate on applied science (as the English name suggests) and usually have no power to award PhD-level degrees, at least not in their own right... The FH Diploma is roughly equivalent to a bachelor's degree."[0]

There doesn't seem to be a community college equivalent in continental Europe [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_college

I think there are two ways you can go about incorporating this.

1. You can look back on projects you’ve done or projects you’re working on and try to see how they fit with your work.

2. Trim the list down and add the remaining items to a list or documented ordered by what you work on. Keep the remaining items in a handy place you can reference when you’re in appropriate steps of your project.

For example, the rules in the article can possibly be grouped as follows: 1. Project timelines, 2. project accountabilities, 3. Engineering requirements and design. I would then refer to these in the corresponding phase of a project.

It would be nice if there was a store attached to each law. Knowing the source of the law would be helpful in knowing how to apply it.

If development is in product, how long has development been in product? Is this a recent change where development was transitioned from IT to product during a recent transformation?

Not directed at you, just some general comments.

As someone hinted at in another comment, it seems a better (less dichotomous) framing is:

- tech first (developer lead, selling software or hardware),

- tech enabled (developers are a key collaborator with the business, e.g., logistics, manufacturing, ecomm, marketing, really every company should be), or

- tech as a cost center (the “traditional” company in the article).

What about the trifecta of product, engineering, and design advocated for by Marty Cagan?

I think the same argument that’s being made for giving developers more weight in the development process could be argued equally as well from the side of design.

Edit for formatting.

I suspect those 4 cities are doing more than just wearing masks. I’m having a hard time tracking down the interviews (I think it was Dr. Jim Yong Kim who said this), but there are two types of transmission between households and within households. Mask wearing, social distancing, quarantining, contact tracing, and some other measures can help to reduce between house transmission. However, you need to stop the within house transmission, too. To stop within house transmission, people are removed from their home and isolated in medical facilities in some parts of Asia.

Stopping between house and within house transmission is what I suspect those 4 cities you mentioned are doing. North America is more focused on stopping between house transmission.

Anecdotally, I know some cities in South Korea have quarantined people by placing them in an isolation room (4 people per room spread 6 feet out each wearing a mask 24/7) until they test as being COVID free. This was around 20-30 days from what I understand.

In Canada, if you quarantine, it’s 14 days in your own home. Mostly this is on the honor system. If you live in a condo / townhouse / strata or your neighbors know you’re quarantining, they can report you for violations. When quarantining, you’re restricted to a single room if you live with others, but there is still risk of passing it on to others. Anecdotally, I know of a case in Canada where an individual quarantining in their room has managed to pass COVID to 3 others who live in the house. These people were wearing masks around the house when not in their own room. If this original person was isolated in a hospital, the spread would stop at one. Since they weren’t, it ended up infecting the entire house.

You’re welcome!

I don’t think there is such a thing as strict waterfall. Waterfall vs agile (or even spiral, or V shaped development) arguments don’t make much sense to me. IME, everything ends up being “iterative” in practice. Everything is a tool, use the tool that works for the given situation. I think principles are important and when evaluating different approaches it’s great to see what’s common to them.

Even the paper[1] that is credited (or blamed) for “waterfall” advocated iteration. Maybe I was aware of agile before reading this and that caused me to interpret it differently? That’s possible, but there is mention of prototypes, looping back, and even involving the customer!

I think it's better to think of it as the Toyota Production System (TPS) instead of lean. Lean comes from the MIT study of Japanese manufacturing where they specify 5 steps [2]. This is really the just-in-time pillar of TPS [see the "house" in 3] and there is a lot needed to be able to get there. TPS is an entire philosophy to run an organization. Everything from annual planning at the executive and leadership level all the way down to problem solving at the machine operator. The goal of TPS [shown across the roof of the "house" in 3] is “highest quality, lowest cost, and shortest lead time”.

To me, the core of lean is about problem solving. This can follow anything from the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle[4], OODA loops, six-sigma's DMAIC[4], Toyota's A3 method[5], and many others I am not aware of or am not including. The core of each of these is usually the scientific method. Again, these are all tools. Sometimes these are not needed, sometimes they are overkill, sometimes they are useful. Everything else in “lean” / TPS is either specific tools (e.g., 5-whys) used to identify problems or best practices (e.g., kanban, SMED) aimed at solving problems.

To give you an example of how we focused on problem solving, we introduced a daily production meeting to a department at the manufacturing plant. The production meeting took 5-15 minutes at the beginning of the shift. The focus was on SQDCME (safety, quality, delivery, cost, morale, environment) metrics. The leads and production planners check-in more often to hit their production targets. After instituting the production meetings and starting to track data more closely, we taught the production team the 7 QC tools[4] along with the A3 problem solving process[5]. We had really good results using these basic tools to solve production problems. These production meetings were driven by numbers, as we had to hit daily targets. If we didn't hit production numbers, it becomes why didn't we hit them? If we are producing too much scrap, it becomes why is there too much scrap? The team is cross-trained on different processes and machines. Often we would grab some cardboard from the recycling bin put it up beside the production board and start going through the A3 process. We scraped 5 of part ABC, here are the physical pieces to inspect that we took from the scrap cage. The work order said it was scrapped at machine 123 in process X, what could have caused this? From there, we can quickly note down a bunch of the hypothesis generated by the group, then we can develop experiments to test these, again, these come from the group. After that we can develop ways to correct and prevent these issues from coming up again. This isn't about "management" telling what they thing the problem is, or how to perform the process. This is about finding a better way and continuing to improve the current knowledge. Good ideas can come from anyone.

Without the ability to solve problems you're not able to start building the foundation of the Toyota house. The foundation refers to stability. This is often stability in the 4M's (that's the old literature): material, method, measurement, and person. How can you ensure stability if you can't solve problems, which is why I try to focus on that and build up the rest as needed.

I'm not sure what you mean by craft of software development. I am currently working as a business analyst in a team that develops in-house business automation software. From what the developers have told me, craft is making nice interfaces, writing clean code, writing reliable and fast software, solving business problems, and making the user of the software happy. When requirements are always changing, or edge cases are not covered, that leads to changing architecture, throwing away code, or software that crashes and users say it doesn't work.

To me, structure reduces some of those problems by focusing on the process of creating software. The process of moving from requirements, software architecture / design, development, testing, and deployment should be somewhat structured. My approach is not to design and document the entire software project before any code is written. I like to at least see, to the best knowledge at the time, the high-level of the project. Who will use it, what are the use cases, what systems do we need to interface with, where are the data sources, what are the outputs. This stuff needs to be documented and preferably reviewed with the team before development starts. From here, you're able to prioritize which use case has the most value, you're able to see what is risky, and what if it changes will cause lots of re-work. I can't count how many times I've seen people change their mind as soon as you show them some simple documentation, or say that's not what I meant, or start developing something to find out that they are solving 10% of the entire problem.

Apparently there is a manifesto of software craftsmanship[6]. If that's what you're referring to, I think it aligns with what my coworkers have told me, and I think (hope) the structure I've outlined above helps to allow my coworkers to achieve that.

[1] http://www-scf.usc.edu/~csci201/lectures/Lecture11/royce1970...

[2] https://www.lean.org/WhoWeAre/LEINewsStory.cfm?NewsArticleId... 1. Specify value 2. Map 3. Flow 4. Pull 5. Perfection

[3] see page 5 for the Toyota Production System "House". This document is what I recommend when someone wants to learn about lean. http://artoflean.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Basic_TPS_Ha...

[4] https://www.sv-jme.eu/?ns_articles_pdf=/ns_articles/files/oj...

[5] http://a3thinking.com/index.html

[6] http://manifesto.softwarecraftsmanship.org/

At least in Canada I’ve seen two different unions at the same place. One Union for managers and one union for the other non-manager employees. I don’t think there is anything stopping managers from forming their own different union.

I worked in automotive manufacturing at a tier 1 supplier.

I think this is easier to read than the “Enriching Production” book: http://research.engr.oregonstate.edu/gwt/biblio/enriching-pr...

I think there are two differences one is a technical / engineering difference and the other is aimed at the worker enjoyment and well-being. The Toyota (lean) approach is presented as being all about manufacturing efficiency at the expense of the worker where as the Uddevalla approach appears to be sacrificing production efficiency for the benefit of worker enjoyment and well-being.

From the technical side it seems to be the assembly line production approach (lean / Toyota) vs craft / one off production approach (Uddevalla).

Current automotive manufacturing practices are based on an assembly line. This dates back to Henry Ford [1] [2]. The frame of the car travels down a line and components are brought to the workers to be added to the frame. The worker has a specialized task (e.g., attaching the passenger side door) that is repeated for the entire shift (or some specified amount of time).

There used to be a “craft” approach to manufacturing [3]. One person (or a few people) would make the entire product from beginning to end. This seems to be the team approach to production at Uddevalla.

Note: I didn’t read Enriching Production word for word and I have never heard of the Uddevalla approach before.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park_Ford_Plant

[2] see the mass production section for an earlier assembly line. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Arsenal

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft_production

I appreciate the principles, thank you for sharing them.

I started my career in automotive manufacturing before becoming a business analyst on a team developing in-house business automation tools. The program I studied did cover an engineering design process. We were taught to quantify design requirements (subject to a static load of this much, must be within these dimensions, and so on) and use a combination of calculations, simulations, and prototypes to check we are meeting those design specifications.

I am assuming that you would have done something similar in aerospace. If so, have you carried over any of that into software development? Do you have any guidance or D design documents you can point to? The D specification is the final product, but I’m trying to gain a better understanding of how one gets to that final specification.

Thanks for your time!

Can you please comment on the advantages and the effect on your programming?

Do you think these advantages are common among those who have (mech/electrical/chem/etc.) engineering education and training who move into software development?

What is your background and what is your goal for learning the methods?

This is somewhat long and there is a disclaimer towards the end, but hopefully some of this is helpful.

Working through a book can mean reading what’s on the pages and being able to recall names of techniques or methods. Or using pen and paper to work through the examples and be able to solve problems. This could even be deriving what’s in the book from first principles.

This will depend on what you want to do with the material. If you want to apply it using pre-made R packages, you probably don’t need to recreate everything from scratch and you can probably get away with ISL. If you want to be creating new methods or going beyond pre-made R packages, then you probably need to work up to ESL and solve things from first principles.

ISL is used in an undergrad elective course at my uni. The prerequisite stat material covers Devore probability and stats for engineers and intro to linear regression by Douglas Montgomery. ISL would be a third course in stats (see the bottom for the math background 4 courses). There are entire courses dedicated to the topics in ISL, so I really think ISL is most useful to bring previously studied topics together.

ESL is used in a second year MSc course. This assumes knowledge of mathematical statistics (Casella and Berger Statistical Inference + Wasserman All of Statistics), computational statistics (topics: bootstrap, MCMC, EM algorithm, numerical analysis methods, optimization, and matrix decomposition) and courses on linear regression and the general linear model. So it’s a “capstone” of sorts that ties all of the material together. I haven’t taken any of these courses, so I can’t comment on what’s really necessary.

Disclaimers follow: As others have mentioned someone’s background and preparation may be different and more advanced than what is outlined. Above I outlined the course sequences for ISL and ESL at my uni. We do not require a course on real analysis and we do not do measure theoretic probability (PhDs do but ESL is covered in the MSc that is required for PhD admissions). Of course not every chapter in a textbook is covered in each course and I’m sure there is some sort of minimal coverage of topics that will allow you to get to ISL or ESL in a more efficient way. What that is, I am unable to comment on.

Yes there are people admitted to the MSc program without a stats BSc degree. Examples are physics, math, and computer science majors from what I have seen. Usually they have to make up missing BSc math stats courses.

Undergrad level math background assumes calculus to include multi variable calculus (Stewart Calculus omitting the chapters on vector calculus). Partial derivatives, Lagrange multipliers, multiple integrals. Also linear algebra, matrix multiplications, determinants, eigenvalues, trace (linear algebra and its applications by Lay).

TL;DR 1. Consider Ishikawa (“fish bone”) diagrams before applying the 5 whys or as a way to help organize the 5 why process.

2. To improve a system, first determine what is constraining the performance of the system. This is 80/20 thinking and attempting to optimize globally instead of locally. Local improvement may not result in system improvement.

Longer explanation and examples follow.

1: The 5 whys are a great problem solving tool. Often there are many potential root causes which need to be investigated. Sometimes there is a single root cause that is responsible for the problem being investigated other times there are multiple factors that interact to cause the problem.

An Ishikawa or “fishbone” diagram is a useful tool to help organize many potential root causes.

In the example of pain and swelling caused by intubation we could start a little higher before diving into detailed 5 whys.

We can start with top level groups, such as: - material - method - person - patient

For each group, we determine potential root causes. This can be done through asking the experts performing the process, reviewing SOPs, observing the process, looking at process parameters, literature reviews.

Some examples, material could be the material of the tube, the type of coating being used, anesthesia, etc.

Method could be how the tube is inserted.

Person can be if the person is new to the process or experienced, is the person following procedures...

Patient could be if the patient has any allergies to materials or adverse reactions to medication or anesthetic...

The above are illustrative. You can decompose the groups in different ways. You can define the groups differently. Of course the above isn’t comprehensive or unique. Try to be MECE or mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive when decomposing the problem space.

We often try to investigate the potential root causes by performing statistical experiments to try and determine cause and effect and which variables significantly impact the outcome.

2: I want to provide an alternative point of systems thinking. The medical procedure is a process. There is a system at work to deliver that medical procedure. There are measurements to determine how the procedure is working. Efficiency (are you using the resources planned) and effectiveness (are you achieving the outcome the procedure was designed to provide) are two high-level ways to look at measuring system performance. Many measurements can be derived from these two.

From that perspective, you want to focus improvement on the areas/steps in the process that will most improve the outcome measures. With that in mind, it may have been determined that the combination of intubation materials and procedures that are used provide for the best outcomes as determined by the procedure provider. It may be to reduce cost while keeping recovery, discomfort, risk of infection, etc. at some baseline acceptable level. If you change those variables to reduce discomfort, it’s possible you may negatively impact cost, patient recover, or something else.

Note: I’m not a health care professional, so I have no knowledge about medical procedures or the various trade-offs and optimizations that take place. I am speaking from the point of view of someone who works in quality and process improvement.

I have. I went from 235 pounds to 150 pounds in a one year time period. It was consistently between 1-2 pounds lost a week.

Of course human bodies are complex and there is no one size fits all. My anecdotal weight loss won’t match with yours. We can provide our experience so others can draw their own ideas and conclusions from our stories.

It wasn’t really an either or situation for me. Both diet and exercise are needed. The way I looked at it is with the simple model of calories in - calories out = weight change. I think there should be some factor that accounts for sedentary or active, but I don’t know where to fit it in. Like any model, it’s not perfect.

You and you’re used below do not reflect the poster I’m responding to.

If calories in exceeds calories out and your level is sedentary, you’re going to gain weight in the form of fat.

If calories in exceeds calories out and you’re lifting weights, you gain muscle probably with some fat. Think of this as bulking.

If calories in are less than calories out, you’re going to lose weight. If you’re active, then it’s going to have an interaction effect where you lose more weight.

Calories in would be quantity times frequency and would come from the sum of solid and liquid calories (calories in = quantity liquid * frequency liquid + quantity solid * frequency solid). We can manipulate quantity by reducing portion size or reducing calorie content through substituting different, healthier choices. This applies to both liquid and solid calories. We can manipulate frequency by fasting, or eliminating things altogether.

Calories out = calories burned * frequency + base metabolic burn rate. Calories burned should be a rate over time. We manipulate the rate by using more strenuous forms of exercise. We manipulate the time by changing the duration of our sessions. We increase the frequency by having more sessions. We increase the base metabolic burn rate by lifting weights and gaining muscle.

You start by figuring out what your baseline is for both calorie intake and exercise expenditure and then make small adjustments to either increase or decrease. You weigh yourself at the same time on the same day once a week. You look to see progress on a weekly basis. If you’re hitting 1-2 pounds loss, you’re on the right track. When you plateau for a couple of weeks, you need to adjust the parameters. The process needs to be followed.

We probably need some sums and indexes in the above model, and we could probably differentiate between something like steady-state (e.g., walking and meals in the normal course of a day) and perturbations (e.g., cheat meals, fasted days, long hikes, running, gym). Again, it’s a model, and weight loss stories are anecdotal, but I think the point is illustrated. Change your diet and change your exercise regimen to lose weight and have body composition changes.

What is really meant by “being taught how to teach yourself” or “learning to learn”?

Why does this have to be done in a university setting? Is this explicitly conveyed or is this an outcome of going through classes and it’s what it takes to succeed?

Personally, when I was studying at a pretty strong university in terms of global rankings, I didn’t really “learn to learn” from the classes. The most helpful to me was Cal Newport’s blog (from his grad student days), Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange soft questions, hn discussions about learning and studying, and office hours when I explicitly asked Profs how they study, learn, and solve problems.

When I took what I learned from those sources and stopped going to class to instead work through the textbook/course material at my own pace, my grades improved significantly. If I am able to get an “A” without going to class, does that mean the Prof / university successfully taught me the material or whatever lesson(s) were to be learned?

Sorry for the rant, but I feel the default shouldn’t be to go through higher education to learn to learn. (I’m not saying you are saying that.) So, how can these lessons be made available more widely available?

The University of Victoria (UVic) in Canada has a CS[1] program and an accredited BSEng[2] program, which might provide a useful comparison on an engineer’s vs a scientist’s education.

Disclaimer: I am not a graduate of either or those UVic programs or a CS program, and I am not an engineer (I graduated from a mechanical engineering technology program), so my comments should definitely be taken with a bunch of salt.

I would say there are three main differences: Engineering specific: 1. All engineering programs share a common engineering core. Physics, chemistry, material science, math (usually these cover the material from an engineering perspective and are different than courses in the faculty of science), drafting/engineering graphics, engineering economics, and possibly some other courses. 2. An emphasis on professional responsibility and ethics. For example, what happens if a civil engineer certifies a bridge and it later falls over (there is a course where you learn this!)? What happens if a developer builds a website that leaks customer credit cards information (I genuinely don’t know)? Software specific: 3. A greater emphasis on systems and systems design, testing, projects, and few electives leading to a standardized curriculum providing a more consistent knowledge base across graduates.

Comments on engineering in Canada: Graduates of the BSEng program can become registered as a Professional Engineer (PENG) in Canada. To call yourself an engineer in Canada requires that you are licensed (PENG) or in the process of gaining your license (engineer in training / EIT). In Canada, to be “educated as an engineer” would, to a first approximation, require someone have a BEng, BSEng, or BASc degree from an accredited engineering program[3]. I am sure there other accredited engineering degrees that I am not familiar with. Only having a BSEng means you are a graduate of an accredited software engineering program in Canada, you aren’t an engineer yet.

Professional Engineering registration requires a 4 year accredited engineering degree, 4 or 5 years of work experience. Some of the work experience must be supervised by PENGs. You must pass professional exams and keep up with professional development. Additional details can be found at [4].

[1]https://www.uvic.ca/engineering/computerscience/undergraduat...

[2]https://www.uvic.ca/engineering/software/future-students/pro...

[3]https://engineerscanada.ca/accreditation/accredited-programs...

[4]https://www.egbc.ca/Registration/Individual-Registrants/How-...

If I’m not mistaken, Wasserman’s lectures are on YouTube under “Intermediate Statistics Larry Wasserman (CMU-36-705)“. You can find course notes and assignments for 36-700 and 36-705 on the web, which seem to use All of Statistics as the course textbook.

CMU has posted a lot of great statistics material beyond those two courses.