xianshou

I play Go and chess, and I think of it this way: the best players may have won more than others, but they have also lost more than others, because they have simply played more games. Frequent loss or rejection is a necessary step to goodness. This also applies to business, the opposite sex, and most anything else that might matter to you.

Or, to paraphrase many an artist and CEO: if I have not failed today, it means I have not been ambitious enough.

But all their CHF accounts just got 15% more valuable. I'd consider that excellent news!

As the article points out, this is essentially the only viable move for Charlie Hebdo. To have so often depicted Muhammad in the past, have most of their staff killed for it, become the focus of a worldwide movement that promises not to be intimidated or cowed by terrorism, and then not publish Muhammad in the next issue? An admission of complete defeat.

That said, bravo.

Radix sort, with time as the buckets...stylish.

Good point, although this particular metaphor is originally derived from racial segregation - the authors cite a landmark study on racial segregation in US cities as their motivation for the site.

100% of epsilon is still epsilon.

Nomen est Omen indeed. His Chinese name is Wu Qingyuan, and it just turns out that "Go" is how you pronounce his last name in Japanese.

For a fascinating dramatic depiction of Go's life, not only as the best professional of the era but as a Chinese man in Japanese society, watch The Go Master. Here's a good scene to give you the flavor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QybTzI-8YTM

Was this Addepar? I think I remember the match.

Fascinating - this is essentially the backstory to Breaking Bad in real life. If Prasher goes bald, time to worry.

The exact same thing happened to me - startup, acquihire, quitting the acquirer, and joining a less sexy company, though in my case I got the bonus of moving to Switzerland.

You mention the desire and the ability to do great things, but not having the opportunity to follow through because of circumstances. It was the exact same feeling that led me to leave Silicon Valley, and I struggled for a long time with it before coming to a simple conclusion. Here's what I decided:

Greatness is a consequence, not an aim.

Have you ever read Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl? If not, read it now. It will convince you immediately that the same is true of happiness. You cannot simply wake up one morning, say "I want to be happy," and become happy through the mere force of your desire. You need to be living correctly; acting rightly; communicating and connecting well.

Likewise, naked ambition will not make you great. You have to shape that ambition with goals and methods and plans. Only once you are fully engaged in something you believe in will you be able to achieve the result you desire.

In other words, pursuing your will to greatness directly will only depress you, and won't make you any more successful. The way to greatness is developing your interests to the fullest, and working hard to gain expertise. Eventually, you will find an opportunity that you can seize, and your success will be a natural consequence of becoming fully engaged in the creative process.

Until then, know that you will eventually find your castle in the sky, after and because you have built the foundations under it.

The hard part is living a lifestyle consistent with being the right weight.

Most people fail to keep their weight down because they do something until they lose the weight, then forget about it. The real strategy is to do something sustainable, which you don't mind, and which you plan to keep up forever.

So, Amazon Parse? Looks like the big four (Apple, Google, Amazon, FB) all have to ahem...back(end) it up now.

Interestingly, this analogy works very much at the company level, but reverses at the country level.

For companies, patents represent weapons in an arsenal, in which MAD prevents offensive action, as you've said.

For countries, the reverse holds: a country that jettisons its patent architecture, or never evolved a restrictive one to begin with, will be a bastion for innovators. The stable equilibrium is no bad patents - a lack of shallow protectionism - and the only reason patent law in the US has remained constant for so long is because of the other advantages that have given it technological and scientific primacy.

As those advantages erode, patent law will loosen to stimulate competition. Perhaps there is an upside to the perception of decline?

Acquihires are pretty much the default hiring method these days, so "victory" now requires keeping the product active after acquisition.

A toast, then, to Hackpad. Well done.

Can we just agree that evaluating anonymized work samples the way orchestras evaluate blind auditions would make things simpler and easier?

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/b...

I'm sure Matthew Deiters really appreciates the pun.

http://pitchbox.com/

That said, even though this would have been a great April Fools' joke, it's also part of a developing trend to provide hyper-liquidity in the hiring market. Besides this company, I've seen at least two "Tinder for hackers" hiring sites in the past couple of months (HackMatch and Blonk) that claim to be making a lot of successful placements.

If this really works, I would love to see it replace the hellish jumble of team-editable documentation. I've seen Confluence, PBWiki, Google Sites, and a smattering of others used to no good ends...can we please switch to this now?

A/B's completely fine on iOS - just see the way that Facebook runs their tests: http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/09/airlock-facebook/

Who knows you better than your mom?

From this marketing, I'd answer...Big Brother.

This will never succeed, because having too many cards to keep track of is a $100 problem for only a small percentage of the population.

Also, I just bought one.

Thank you for a refreshing dose of the truth!

When you shut down the product, an acquisition is no good for the users, plain and simple. It may or may not be a personal success, but no matter what, it is the end of the vision that you and your customers shared. They were your supporters, your believers, and the lifeblood of your product, and disguising your celebration as everyone's is an indignity to them.

I sold my company and shut down my product because the right opportunity arrived at the right time. But I didn't frame it as a triumph for them. My words, from the acquisition email: "We’re excited...but it’s always bittersweet when something good comes to an end."

I've interviewed a lot of Ph.D. candidates for software engineering jobs at startups, and have only ever encountered two problems: (1) lack of ability to code, and (2) mismatched expectations.

Poor coding skill accounts for perhaps 80% of the industry no-hires. Well...that's not exactly fair. Poor coding skill under pressure. Most Ph.D. candidates are either out of practice or used to taking a long time to think about and solve a coding problem. That's great for academic software, but misaligns with both rapid development and (importantly for the candidates) the style of interviews. Most Ph.D.s wither under the expectation of producing a feature very quickly.

Some Ph.D. engineers can code extremely well. If they don't end up at the company, it's because the following dialogue happened, implicitly or explicitly:

PhD - Look, I'm great.

Company - Yes, you are. How about $X?

PhD - Given my specialized skill, I was expecting more like $1.5X.

Company - Well, $.8X is what we pay the new grads, so $X is what we'll pay you.

In other words, their ability is clear, but their market value isn't enhanced very much by their specialization, when most companies are looking for the skills that developers get during their bachelor's or master's.

Thanks. info@ is fixed, so you can send messages there now. Please send the leaks and we'll plug them.

Thanks for the critiques, and yes, it's not an easy problem.

There are countermeasures. For instance, who said we'll let you see the whole question bank? And if you type a close enough approximation, out come the plagiarism checkers.

But when somebody's gone to the trouble to make a database online of every problem, I'm happy, because if that's so we must be successful enough that we have plenty more resources to game their gaming.

><

Thanks. Will be fixed.

I'm one of the co-founders and I'm still saving that quote.

As for the answer to the implicit question...the best people are passed by reference when they're already recognized. We're aiming to help people show that their skills have value when they don't have a reference.

The number is just, well, a pointer to a broader portfolio - and we'll only be making that portfolio more expressive over time.

Indeed. Perhaps an option to include a video and explain an interesting problem? Definitely something we're considering.

Also, alternative name:

Singularity shades.

Damn...

Where are our flying cars? Who cares. We have Meta glasses.