These interviews are faux IQ tests though. More often than not these interviews tests a candidate's ability to research interviews and their ability to practice brain teasers and memorize common algorithmic solutions.
> Complex software engineering is inherently tied to innate ability, as painful as it is to admit.
Highly disagree. There is nothing in the field of programming that cannot be taught or learned. Being a good programmer doesn't make you smarter or better than an average programmer, or a non programmer, as painful as it is to admit.
My take is that the intellectual posturing comes from a social context, and has nothing to do with ability.
People love to feel special, and pretending that you have to be a genius to be a top level programmer is easier (and nicer to the ego) than accepting that perfectly average people can excel in this field.
>Highly disagree. There is nothing in the field of programming that cannot be taught or learned. Being a good programmer doesn't make you smarter or better than an average programmer, or a non programmer, as painful as it is to admit.
This is like arguing that there is nothing in mathematics that cannot be learned. Some people are simply not able to understand calculus, let alone measure theory and topology. Even fewer can take those abstractions and apply them to new domains.
That sounds awfully arrogant. Do you really think that no one around you is smarter than you are?
I know there are some people in my workspace who are write software faster than I do, and their results are more maintainable than mine. This cannot be something that is "taught or learned", as I had years of experience in the field, while they had to learn it. The only explanation I have is the innate talent.
(disclaimer: this was not web, so no "technology of the day" problems)
The ability to enter unknown area and start writing good code fast is (mostly) innate. While there are some tricks and common knowledge which can make it faster, I think it is mostly the inherent talent.
I'm ready for Bitcoin, and crypto-currency mania in genral, to either crash and burn or take off to the next level and produce something of value.
I can't be the only one who is growing tired of seeing the same circular discussions rehased on every click-bait article posted by Bloomberg/forbes.
There's nothing exciting or newsworthy about the price fluctuations that have been present since day 1. Sure, the dollar value swings are larger - but nothing new is happening.
I put together a new computer this week. Everything new but I still have my 760TI in it because I'm not paying $1000 for a graphics card. You can get a 1050 reasonably priced still, but that's more of a lateral move than an upgrade for me. Here's to hoping the market returns to normal soon.
Can anyone find another investible thing that gets so much shit thrown on it by talking heads on mainstream media? Serious question. It feels so artificial. The response to what an idiot on the news thinks about bitcoin is so often like "I don't know anything about bitcoin, AND I hate it and it will crash and I hope it crashes."
I agree, let's all stop fighting about what is and what isn't bubble and just look at the tech and potential.
Here are a few use cases I'm excited for:
* SONM / Golem as an entryway to fog computing.
* IOTA / WTC / VEN as entryways for exchanging value and information in an IOT infrastructure.
* NANO for exchanging value without deteriorating the original principal through fees.
* ETH / NULS / ECC - Tokenization to represent distributions of hard to divide securities. The doors are open to invest in startups, offices, applications and ideas without having to get approval on what you want to support.
* BTC / ETH as trading pairs. This acts as a new stock market that doesn't close. One where trades can even be private (on a DEX such as cryptobridge or barterdex).
Yes there are massive scams and there is questionable value in the 'store of value' use case BTC is currently defending. Every new idea is bound to have growing pains.
The larger implications is that software engineers now have the power and tools to create distributed shared systems that interact with the population at large in new and yet unforeseen ways.
It won't happen overnight but saying there is no value in what is currently there is purposefully misleading.
Lightning network has just been released on main net, and while it's still the early days, this is darn new and exciting.
It's actually a solution to the micropayment problem that has dogged the internet for decades, and resulted in the ad based internet content sites (and pathologies) we see today.
In terms of "something of value" there are many levels of this, and one of them is that bitcoin as a currency is something of value, for people in venezuela and other countries with highly debased currencies its a lifeline. It also is revolutionizing the remittances business. Just a few of the use cases.
Agreed. Filtration systems are cheap, and even if you don't have one with you it's pretty easy to boil water to be sure.
In the extreme case that you can't boil the water, try collect rain water or water closest to an in-ground source (top of a stream where it comes out of the ground or a natural spring).
The biggest risk factor imo (outside of personal hygiene) is not knowing what lies further upstream. Only takes one dead animal to make you have a real bad time.
I don't have kids, but have the same viewpoint from my personal experience growing up.
Anything that is built to 'encourage child engagement' usually comes off as patronizing or boring.
I learned about tech early on because I had natural curiosity and interest in it. My parents never went out of their way to 'encourage' me to learn about tech, and the things they did try to get me interested in never really stuck with me.
The teaching toys are just toys, and will be treated as such.
It would leave too much room for fraudulent or abusive behavior. Would exponentially increase the time their claims/customer service team has to spend digging through refunds to sort the real ones from the bs.
As a bad customer: I don't like the drivers name - refund. I thought the driver was too slow - refund. I just want to see what I can get away with - refund.
Believe it or not, most people will exploit systems to the fullest extent.
I agree. The real problem is that app charges you after 5 minutes when the driver is nowhere near the pickup.
If the initial estimate is 2 min, and then the driver just drives in a different direction for 5 min, they shouldn't charge the 5 dollar fee in the first place. Especially since its now common for drivers to do this as a method of forcing riders to cancel to help their metrics.
Even if the driver is legit lost, that's still not the customers fault.
Completely false. Steam's offered a 2-week refund window ever since their criminal no-refund policy [1] was called to a judge's attention in Australia and the end result is a very low refund rate - just 6% for Rust [2].
Google Play for years now have had a 2-hour window where you can reverse purchases too just by going back to the store page and pressing the cancel button. I think the vast majority of developers aren't even aware of it.
It's very easy to detect consumer abuse of such a policy at the store-level. But I don't think consumers in general are trying to fuck companies. Darkpatterns.org exists to point out how willfully the opposite is true, Uber are just being thieves and they will be held accountable for it and a refund button will appear but not until they've stolen millions more.
Do you have any examples of companies suffering unfairly from refunds because consumer protection laws have made them mandatory for a long list of reasons in many countries for decades already.
User downloads != transactions. A user can download the app once and conduct hundreds of transactions.
Refunds still exist, and are honestly easy to request. My point is that there is most likely a very strong product/business decision as to why there isn't a "get my money back now" button in the app.
Exactly! As for the driver calling to ask you to cancel, that should be on him. He should cancel, not the customer. That seems like a scam from his end. Trying to up his numbers, or keep from getting the ding from the cancellation.
The problem with this method is that when I tried it, the driver just agreed to come, and I wasted 15-20 minutes to get a ride that had a wait time of 4-5 minutes.
Moreover, with drivers rating riders now, I’m quite sure the driver gave me a poor rating(so did I, but this exercise is just counterproductive really)
Weather it's most or a lot, the noise generated in either case is enough to cause operational issues and bottleneck customer service for people who have genuine needs for refunds.
> Believe it or not, most people will exploit systems to the fullest extent.
But "the fullest extent" is the same in each case. Really, the issue is that there's a significant segment of the population that is willing to go to various degrees of effort to exploit a system.
As someone who has been dealing with migraines since I was in my early teens, this is concerning.
I'm curious what the distinction between a risk factor and an early symptom are though. Could it be possible that migraines are just early symptoms of cardiovascular disease versus a risk factor?
Hoping someone with medical knowledge could chime in.
I'd have been ok with the parent post if it was about that, or if it was just stating an opinion and fairly treated the moral dilemma of eating intelligent meat. Instead it was like "I'm clearly not Japanese but I fancy its culture and its good good people don't want to eat whale meat" yeah, no.
I was expecting a new cryptographic library and/or algorithm, and was looking forward to 33 highly technical comments about how it compared to ECDSA or something.
Just because the title is technically accurate, doesn't mean it's useful. An ideal headline should accurately and succinctly communicate the contents of the page it links to.
> Complex software engineering is inherently tied to innate ability, as painful as it is to admit.
Highly disagree. There is nothing in the field of programming that cannot be taught or learned. Being a good programmer doesn't make you smarter or better than an average programmer, or a non programmer, as painful as it is to admit.
My take is that the intellectual posturing comes from a social context, and has nothing to do with ability. People love to feel special, and pretending that you have to be a genius to be a top level programmer is easier (and nicer to the ego) than accepting that perfectly average people can excel in this field.