This isn't why. This is what feminism tells men, that their problems stem from them not being able to handle and process their emotions correctly. That's propaganda. The real reason is more along of the lines of their being less of a safety net for men, less people willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and no attraction from women for men in the bottom 10%.
I think it's actually that individuals with high levels of academic success don't need to start a company, they already have very good high paying career options. And so starting a company has a high level of opportunity cost.
Not trying to start an argument about country wide wage compensation. But relative to other 'competitive' professional careers, such as doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc, Europe vastly underpays programmers, but also shows them little respect in the workplace. It's not just about the money, the social status of a software engineer in Europe is very low. This is making it difficult for Europe to compete on an international basis to create powerful tech companies. There are other reasons, such as fragmented markets, multiple languages, and the conservatism of the VC industry.
Google's original infrastructure was their main advantage, this is quickly being eroded. Ten years down the rode its not unreasonable to think that the costs to join the search business as a new competitor have gone way down.
These companies could disappear over night. Is being a monopoly for a decade really a big deal? It's completely over hyped how much control they have, for now they are dominant, but five years from now its entirely possible that they arent. Also, they have produced so much for the world of technology, essentially creating all of the big data infrastructure technology, and (bare with me here) react which is having a material impact on the terribleness of front end frameworks. The deep learning revolution was started by cheap compute which sprang out of google. This whole monopoly business is so overplayed.
I actually wonder about this too. At my previous job, nobody was using IntelliJ despite developing in Scala and Java. The code base was complex, not using an IDE had a noticeable effect on the kind of code people were writing. The code was much less cohesive, and looked more like a series of scripts than well architected.
Critical service is failing, minimal information about why, but we should be so happy someone says a few sentences on here? For all of the engineering elitism coming out of google, Amazon is way more on their game across a number of products.
Been trying to spin up vm instances all day, had to try every single zone just to get one up. Not only is this incredibly harmful to a technology business dependent on this infra, it wasnt obvious to me what the issue was until I tried creating instances. Nothing says, hey resources are constrained here, try this one. Just about ready to bite the bullet and move to aws.
Funny things I've heard about Two Sigma. Everyone on the outside: Two Sigma is the best. People at the top of the financial industry: Two Sigma is cheesy.
It really depends on what type of business youre in for the quality to matter. If you were say, writing a real time data infrastructure platform for a whole company, or something else related to distributed systems, then the code needs to be good. If you are working on CRUD line of business software with some complexity, then it can be garbage. In general, the closer the code approaches to actual computer science problems (and this is out of necessity), then the greater the need for good code. Few businesses have this requirement.
This exactly. Often times "intervention" means some heavy life debilitating medication. Sure it may stop the psychosis, but at a heavy and possibly life long price. There is no accountability for health care in this country, only "disaster prevention" taken at all cost to the mad patient.
I believe that with increased data collection and the push for ML systems, we will see that the emperor truly has no clothes. Lots of intervention methods have no positive outcome on long term recovery, but there is no transparency about outcomes, costs, decisions, medications, etc.
Would be crazy if when you work on some kind of open source hosted on github that commits from the deceased have some kind of emblem. A bummer to see but maybe some way to give that anonymous code some kind of immortality.
The thing is that progress is so fast in some areas of ML, you dont really know when something could emerge. Who knows, maybe with enough training data and a deep enough network with the right supervision, something extraordinary pops out.
Google google bert nlp. Google recently released an NLP algorithm that basically beats all predecessors, but the algorithm itself is extremely simple. Just lots of data and compute, no telling what will happen in ten years when the amount of data has exploded and GPUs are cheap.
Honestly, it really annoys me how bad their recommendation algorithm is. The model became so over fit for me, it would only show one or two topics. It made the service completely unusable, and its not clear to me that they provide the user any way to counter act that. If they had some kind of content discovery with actual good answers, that would be great. The crazy thing is how much talent works there, who knows maybe their new model/algorithms are profitable for them. But in the long run I doubt it.
This. If there was a real piece of missing demand these companies would change their interview process, but things are only moving in the opposite direction. The shortage is a myth to flood the software engineering job market with cheap workers. It needs to stop
Its really astonishing to me how wealthy some people are getting from others work. I completely support people getting wildly rich from their own efforts, but from the way that our society is structured, most wealth is just capturing the value of another persons labor.
The people enacting these policies (Trump admin) argue that what we currently have is not trade, given how the Chinese have manipulated the markets, it is a one sided agreement. Free trade requires both sides not place restrictions on the others. Would you say this is true? Sometimes I feel like economic theory is like psychology, it seems real, seems like it has truth, but counter examples are abundant?
I'm having a surprisingly difficult time finding a nuanced view of these policies. On the one hand, china is taking advantage of us and is in part rotting our our middle class and blue collar workers. On the other hand, this could spark economic turmoil. Can anyone chime in here? Or is this beyond the scope of economics? (Not to dig on the field, bit we were told NAFTA we be great, look at the poverty in Mexico as a result.)
I'm increasingly noticing comments aimed at marketing startups, tech stacks and political agendas on here. It used to be that people just shared their opinion, but at this point there is definitely an effort to sway information on hacker news and other websites by having different user accounts harp on the same opinions.
Are you suggesting google is using their analytics data naively? With all due respect, these large tech corporations are ran by adults who understand user experience.