I find it very interesting that I'm being downvoted based on the difference between my self-concept and whoever is doing the downvoting (they don't think they are a neural network). I'm pretty sure that's not what downvotes are supposed to be used for. Perhaps those who are doing the downvoting would be interested in reading the textbook dedicated to the notion that human beings are neural networks, called Computational Cognitive Neuroscience: https://grey.colorado.edu/CompCogNeuro
I think you might be getting downvotes because the neural networks discussed in the article have nothing to do with the neural structures in a human brain, and it appears that you're oblivious to this fact.
You aren't just getting downvotes from people who disagree with you (if that's why you're getting downvotes); you are failing to gain upvotes from anyone who either agrees with you or thinks your downvotes are unfair.
People downvote to disagree - and there's nothing in any site faqs or guidelines to say this is wrong - but those votes are balanced by people upvoting unfairly downvoted posts.
The dog has low precision and high recall. The dogs are capable of high precision and high recall, but aren't being trained to do that because other incentives are at play.
I found it impressive that the dog that alerts 93% of the time was correct 40% of the time. That means the police are doing what seems like a good job of identifying targets that actually have drugs. With those kind of odds, you'd probably want to take a closer look at everyone just to make sure you aren't letting people with drugs get away (false negatives).
Scholarpedia is another good and authoritative source. The articles are typically written by the person who created the concept, or an active authority: http://www.scholarpedia.org
I ran one of the biggest EFNet IRC hubs at Texas.Net up until we pulled the plug in '98 due to smurfing attacks. :)
Since then a bunch of friends and I have run a tiny multi-server network after we all moved off the public networks.
Started a new job this past February, and I asked my boss during the interview how we handled inter-person communication since we're scattered all over the country. "We have our own internal IRC server if you know what that is..." I said "THANK YOU JESUS!" and he cracked up.
IRC is definitely still out there and heavily used.
Heh, I set up an internal IRC server for my previous employer; I mostly just got tired of AIM being shitty, and was already using IRC so I set it up (which was a pain, btw! maybe it's easier now?) so we could all use it.
Pretty amusing, too, because it was four people in an irc room, all of whom were also in the same physical room.
> That would be exactly my own reaction if it would ever happen to me. But so far, unfortunately, it was always either Hipchat or Skype.
Both the IBM LTC and Intel OTC maintain internal IRC servers. They aren't used by the entire company, but they're used by those Open Source groups. (Company-wide IM is still Sametime and Lync, respectively, but both of those are usable from Linux with Pidgin.)
Hipchat ain't bad; the place when I got to use it was a 3-week temporary gig for me (they needed additional programmer for emergency fixes). The places where I was actually employed all used Skype, and "bearable" is the best I can say about it.
I think the best solution would be a Hipchat/Slack-like IRC client.
It's being done in a completely backwards-compatible manner - clients have to opt-in to new protocol features so it's more along the lines of incremental improvements.
There is no good rationalization for not hiring someone, because you cannot empirically connect your hiring process to more objective measures of success.
Guillaume, I do not think you are autistic, I think you are probably an ISTP. Rodney Mullen, also an ISTP, thinks he is autistic. No - that's just normal human variability. There's no use in unnecessarily psychopathologizing yourself.
Take home interviews are common in data science, and they are deeply exploitative. I have been asked to spend anywhere between an hour to a week on a project, and in most cases they simply decline to hire you without giving you any feedback. In the worst cases, companies like Knewton and Mattermark have given take home interviews that not only took a lot of time, but were related to the companies core business model. In other words, it's free consulting.
And finally, you aren't fooling anyone when you say that it should take 3 hours, or as long as they want to spend on it, while giving them 3 days. You are pressuring people to spend as much time on the problem as possible to "prove they are a good programmer." It's exploitative - you aren't paying us and the probability that we will get hired is extremely small. Think about how many companies we are interviewing with.
