You can change the device type in Google home to work around the scheduling issue
863 karma · joined March 3, 2020
SF residents don't have an aversion to funding transit and transit projects, see measure L that just passed with 2-1 support.
> walk anywhere in SF near a BART (subway) stop and you face open drug use, trash, and other problems nobody wants in the neighborhood they call home
Singling out BART subway stops in your anecdote is disingenuous when you consider that there are only 8 BART stops in San Francisco, 3 of which are similar to what you describe, but there are _113 MUNI stops_. Additionally, MUNI has ~90 million annual riders while BART only has ~27 million while covering a geographic area 10X the size of MUNI
I call BS on this. San Francisco residents just voted 2-1 to fund transportation more. See measure L in: https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures
The only people who really don't want more, better transit live in Pac Heights and Sea Clif if you look at a precinct voter heatmap.
Google, for example, has more contractors than full-time employees, bringing the total employee count up to over 300,000
The site looks legit
This begs the question:
If there is a major exodus, will it even matter? And, if it does, how will the problems manifest? Reduced reliability? Slower feature velocity? Less innovation?
easy, hire management consultants
I don't need to have a solution to have valid criticisms of an existing system. I am just sharing my experience with testing, how it has affected my life, and why it didn't work for me.
That said, I do think we can improve our ability to assess (not test) people by:
* Putting less emphasis/focus on tests and more focus on long form project work and interpersonal relationships with peers and instructors * provide more flexibility to students when testing them (like access to resources/notes, more time, allow them to ask questions etc).
> You would need smart and open minded and up to date people to at least try to do that reasonably
I would certainly hope that the people teaching the next generation were smart, open minded and up to date. Testing doesn't control this anyway, a bad teacher will be unfair and have bad curriculum regardless if they test their students formally or not.
> If you want to be creative the first step is to put the problem in your head so that you can actually ponder it. If you have to pour over references and look things up, then you're not in the game any more than you can play chess if you have to look up the rules as you play.
It seems like you are confusing the problems with the solutions. If you can understand the problem well enough, the solution will become obvious, even if you never took the math class--at least that's how it works for me. I do best when I have an actual real-world problem to solve, not a conceptual one created by an instructor.
I am trying to point out that the methods we use to "determine who is a genius and who is not" are deeply flawed and rudimentary, letting people fall through the cracks and preventing people with different learning styles for succeeding.
Like I said in another comment, I am terrible at testing and failed my way through school but I am still able to have a successful career as a software engineer applying maths to engineering problems that other people are excited about and want to work on. The reasons for this are complex because I am complex, like all people, but not like numerical test scores.
> But that method will need to be able to predict future events that shape the person
I think individuals are capable of qualitatively assessing a person's ability and trajectory given enough information, time, and context. Humans may come to the wrong conclusions a lot of the time but so do academic tests...
Yeah but not to the same degree or in the same way. Having to sit in a room with no sources for an hour and shit out some test answers is not really same as having weeks to apply yourself with access to appropriate resources, references, and guidance from more senior coworkers.
I'm not so sure about this. What if student A was just better suited to learn Calculus when they were tested while student B bored by the class and teacher and stopped going/caring but, if given the chance to apply themselves in a non-academic setting working on real problems that affect people's lives, student B would learn Calculus twice as fast as student A and deliver a better widget in less time?
There are many more scenarios here that I could list but I think the primary point is that the context around the students, their lives, and the testing environment matters a lot and this is something that cannot easily be accounted for using numerical test scores
> But they also require some solid skills, and those skills are testable
Maybe badly. Leet Code is supposed to do this but is famously criticized. Probably better than nothing I suppose
I've always been bad at math, I failed precalculus multiple times in both highschool and college, I never got past my first year of calculus in college, I wasn't able to pass descrete maths, and I never took an algorithms class but, never the less, I am applying statistics to novel problems at my day job and people are lining up to work with me and my career growth is accelerating faster than those around me who certainly got better marks than I did.
How is this possible? I'm not entirely sure, however, it indicates that academic tests don't actually measure ones ability to apply themselves and their knowledge to real problems that people actually have outside of an academic setting (i.e the real world), which I believe is the primary point in the "anti-testing" narrative.
Passing a Calculus test doesn't necessarily predict if the student can apply their knowledge to production to generate new ideas and widgets which make our lives better, it just predicts that Student A can follow rules and learn something _when required by an authority_.
I think this sentiment is similar to how people feel about Leet Code interview questions. So what if an engineer can invert a binary tree if they can't formulate new, useful ideas and convince others to work on them?
Perhaps student A is more likely be create new, better widgets than student B but I think academicia/LC cannot test this directly, which is what people are getting at when they criticize tests.
No!!! Keep your cars out of my city! Personal EVs are not a solution for cities, they just perpetuate detrimental car centric urban policies. Spend that money on continuous sidewalks, narrower streets and better public transit.
Perhaps we should invest infrastructure, systems and institutions that give people more free time, flexibility, freedom, and inspiration so they can create good art rather than "investing in the arts"--whatever that means
I just don't appreciate the sentiment that artists deserve to exclusively make the art they want, the way they want because art holds a special value to society that needs to be supported.
Our society is drowning in art. There are millions of hours of content; videos, photos, drawings, music, books, etc that one can consume at any moment and more is being created every day. With this in mind it's pretty hard to believe that society isn't supporting artists enough.
Sure some artists are poor but many are well off or even rich. You can't same the same for people who pick vegetables which we need to eat to not die
Sounds like someone is upset that more people dont find utility in their work
It still takes a long time to mop and gets stuck more often than my i7 but it's mostly hands free.
I have personally written several thousand lines GCL (the generic version of BCL used at Google) and I can say that it can be pretty frustrating.
The difficulty and complexity of defining configurations using it really depends on the system you are configuring since you are (generally) just defining a set of static fields that are packaged into a protobuf and fed into whatever system you are working with.
Outside of syntax issues, it's up to the system you are configuring to provide concise config semantics and helpful error messages
Just because something can easily be explained using logic doesn't mean that it's outcomes can't be negative. Perhaps this indicates that our society is further stratifying into different classes and upward mobility is being reduced for a portion of the population which I think most people would agree is a bad thing
uhh how about we start with ugly things like parking lots and urban freeways rather than destroying the priceless parks that make san Francisco beautiful and materially wealthy?
Depending on the team, SREs can absolutely involved with "building the system", especially the klaxon ;) Examples include designing and implementating metrics used to make make decisions in business logic and or exposed to customers/users, writing routing components like mixers and proxies, developing data pipelines, etc. At Google many SRE teams build and run entire multi-tenant systems with no pure SWEs involved at all.
Healthy SRE teams should be spending 20% of their time on operations. On my team its actually the devs who do most of the operations work. They take the pager during business hours and we route most maintenance tickets to them.