This reminded me of Elixir’s GenStage at first glance. Now I wonder how the underlying libs OTP and core.async relate conceptually and implementation wise.
I guess the issue is having to store the intermediate state somewhere. It’s true for the PID example that numerical integration is easier to compute - if you look at the comment with the closed form solution, you need trigonometric and exponential functions to evaluate it. It’s kind of fascinating that the iterative method approximates the same thing with just addition and multiplication.
At the same time, the cos and exp are also computed using addition and multiplication. Unless the values are tabulated, I imagine you'd use a series expansion. Or an even more straightforward argument is computers only know how to do addition and multiplication...
In the case of the exponential, if you're willing to start from a known value (say 0, where exp(0) = 1) and need values until the last, then using the very definition of the exponential is even more straightforward... this is the only function s.t. f' = f and f(0) = 1. In other words, step through it! The most natural definition of the exponential is as an ODE to begin with.
Tangentially related, this is one of my favourite articles "Nineteen Dubious Ways to Compute the Exponential of a Matrix":
> If a company decides to lay off, for instance, 40 employees, German law doesn’t prevent this.
At least this part is partially wrong. There is an entire law about how lay offs are only allowed if they are “socially justified” with definitions of acceptable circumstances. An employer can not fire you “at will” in Germany.
They are not entirely orthogonal. You need a central base station with scheduling, high dynamic range and power control to maximize performance in an OFDM system. In addition, most cells used to use frequency division multiplexing meaning that the base station and phones send and receive on different frequencies. So lack of point to point capabilities can at least in part be explained by the design goal of optimizing for throughput and user density.
You do if you want to route across a broader area which is a different use case to what we are talking about. Two phones right next to each other are routes through the BTS even though they could easily route directly to one another and that is for non functional reasons.
No, they could literally not send on the frequencies they listen on in case of FDD. Enabling this would require extra radio hardware. Also there would need to be a some kind of encryption key exchange between devices which is not needed in the centralized setup. They could not easily route to one another without adding extra stuff.
You can cast video e.g. from the QuickTime app or a <video> tag in the browser too which won’t just mirror your screen. In fact the cast video won’t even show on your device’s screen but only on the receiver in that case.
“That means the conventional predictions are largely inference—and worse, they result in unquantified uncertainty.”
Wild claim given the fact that Gaussian process regression / Kriging was invented in the 1960s in geoscience to do exactly what the article claims only their models do: “quantify uncertainty, which in turn guides our data collection, as the most uncertain rocks often represent the most valuable ones to sample”
That’s one way to frame it. The other would be the candidate being able to understand that the “apart from money” part is implied in the question and the answer given the social context. This makes the money answer go from straightforward and honest to blunt and cringeworthy.
Based on the answers in this thread it seems like there's a large chunk of people for whom the "apart from money" is not implied. And I think that's what TFA is in support of any way. Neurotypical people might understand it like that, but a large chunk of developers might not be neurotypical and don't feel like, or don't have the capacity for expending energy into finding a socially acceptable answer.
That's exactly the social skills the interview is screening for. Determining if someone can handle relatively simple questions, of you if the employee will struggle.
Couldn't you get the same (or better) insight into their social skills by engaging them in a conversation about something more relevant to the actual job, such as the candidate's experiences with some technology that would be used in this job?
As a bonus, that conversation would probably be more likely to make a desirable job candidate have good feelings about you, and also give them information about what it would be like to work for you. A one-sided interrogation like "why do you want to work here" is less likely to lead to a mutually informative conversation. (Your company is also being evaluated by them; if they're someone you really want, they'll have a choice of working elsewhere. You'll need to sell your company to them.)
To be honest, Im pretty surprised that people see it as so much less relevant or informative. When I interview and have been interviewed, it is usually one of the most important topics.
For some reason, people seem to have a default hostile reaction. If you want a mutually informative conversation, it is a fantastic opening to have exactly that.
Candidates are allowed take an active role in discussion, and those that do are massively rewarded by the hiring process. Failure to engage with questions seems like refusing to meet an interviewer half way, or do literally any of the conversational work to get want they want.
IT is taking a passive conversational position devoid of agency.
I have had hour long conversations learning about how the company operates in the context of what I want staring from this same premise.
I dont want to work with employees who dont understand simple questions any more than I want to work with people who cant program.
There might be some code factory situations where it might not matter, but everywhere I worked being able to understand and communicate is an important part of the job. Employees who don't understand a question, dont see it as personal issue, and then resent the counterparty are the worst kind of coworkers.
[edit]
>Also, what will the developer struggle with if they're not able to come up with a convenient response to "why do you want to work for us?".
I with this kind of hostile literalism I would worry about having miscommunications along the time "you asked if I could finish the task by tomorrow, not if I will do the task by tomorrow".
PS it really isnt a hard question to answer without lying or BS, and I think the fact that some people struggle with it speaks volumes.
Q: "why do you want to work for us?
A: "First off, I am looking for to grow my career and compensation progression and think [Corp] is a place where I can do that. Beyond that, I think this role would be a good fit for both of us because specialize in XYZ relevant skills.
Upon reflection, I wonder if the problem is some people cant tell the difference between BS answering a question that isnt their own.
But in many cases, that answer would be BS. Lots of people have been laid off from their jobs, and would be happy with any job in their field that allows them to feed their family and pay their rent. Their primary objective might not be to grow their career or compensation, just to quickly find a job that pays enough and doesn't suck too much. And if their skills didn't match the ones you needed, they would have never progressed to the point of getting an interview with you, so there's really nothing new to be learned from that answer.
Sure, the answer might be different for different circumstances, but it isnt really a hard question. As I stated elsewhere, I think the assumption is that a decent candidate should be able to come up with at least one thing they like about a company or look forward to without lying when given a completely blank slate to work with. If you are seeking stability, that can be part of an answer too.
> And if their skills didn't match the ones you needed, they would have never progressed to the point of getting an interview with you, so there's really nothing new to be learned from that answer.
I think this sentiment is part of the challenge. It isn't just a question of skills, but a personal question of motivation and compatibility, and somehow that is being lost. All I'm seeing is that a potential employee that either doesn't understand my question or thinks their time is too valuable to answer it.
Depends on the culture and other circumstances. In certain cases, replying with "I need the money" would result in a few chuckles, but overall a very positive response.
Maybe “an automated thing that moves to do stuff”. Generally there are manipulators and mobile robots like vacuums. An interesting edge case would be a CNC machine which has degrees of freedom similar to a pick and place robot but is seen as a whole static thing with moving parts. Also if the mobile platform transports people it’s usually not called robot.
