um, "where you went to school" does not matter only to people who didn't go anywhere.
when you go to school filled with very smart people you really get used to working with really smart people. I'm not saying it's panacea or even good, it just is.
So, when you say "where you went to school" makes no difference in hiring, that tells me more about your hiring culture than it does about the candidates.
I got a serious degree in computer science at a serious school, and I'm not hiring people without one, just based on being able to expect a certain baseline for conversations.
think of it like high school geometry, Euclidean proofs. It's not necessarily rocket science, it's taught to a vast swath of the population. But imagine a job that required a knowledge of geometry, are you going to look at the resume of somebody "self taught" the same way as somebody who went to the Alexandria Institute of Geometry?
Yes, there are many other factors to a complete human being, and a good worker, but one of the valuable things you learn from a good education is how to tease apart complex problems and look at which inputs have what effect on what output (kind of like separation of concerns). I'm am commenting on one aspect of a resume or a hire; pointing out all the other aspects will not dissuade me from my point.
thanks for this, I would love to hack as an "Accounts Payable Specialist"!
The problem with every new tier of these types of new ideas is that they think they are new ideas. "All the hotel bargains in one place" "All the airfares in one place" "All the jobs in one place". Then when you make it completely generic ("in one place All The Things!") new highly differentiated models appear, "forget monsterjobs.com, come to ultra l337 haxors.com"...
If you try to disrupt the invisible hand, [some mixed metaphor here, please post humorous variations]
no, what you describe is not an argument against EMH; not defending the poster, I have no idea if the poster understands this, but your critique is faulty and is explained by standard finance theory.
my comments are not appreciated by the mob, so I'll remove them. you sheeple can all return to thinking the same thing while you wait in line for a new iphone.
But I do think this is a serious issue and I'm astonished at the sheer number of you who cannot allow discussion of it and will not allow your beliefs to be questioned.
I would engage the debate but after all the downvotes I'm barred from posting so it's not much of a debate. The system here is designed to reinforce groupthink.
When there is an accident, injured parties go after rich people, like the expression "deep pockets", and juries aren't sympathetic to them. Rich people are advised to get (and can afford) insurance more than middle class people.
i just want to add, you have actually introduced a bug. if your program has any longevity, this misfeature of it will, i predict with confidence, break the program at some point, sooner rather than later, and for no reason other than "it's a hack".
yuk. this is the sort of issue that should be solved at the level of the OS, not for every app.
*nix is pretty much "the" cmdline people refer to, and the unix cmdline was well established and in use at microsoft when microsoft created DOS and broke it to shit. No reason to retrofit the breakage backward.
plenty of unix tools don't say anything when you run them with no args, and they're not supposed to, "we" like it that way.
If you have a GUI that can't handle cmdline executables, how about distinguish GUI executables from cmdliners. don't foul the cmdline space with cruft, cruft that works in one context but not in many others. You are explicitly testing to see if you are a descendent of a specific program?
and when they do apply pressure on Airbus from their side of the cockpit, they can't tell if countervailing pressure is being applied from the other side?
Because US citizens need somebody from Google's business model and school of thought fighting for us on the inside and helping the gov't formulate our data and privacy policies?
that little voice in your head that is screaming "i hate this" is your problem. It really is not a big deal to type a password, and even to type it a few times, just try to have a more zen attitude about it. It's how passwords work, stop trying to figure out how to defeat your own password, it's doing what it's supposed to do.
YCombinator is all tied up with VCs and incubators and such, right? In other contexts such as applying for various types of placements, are people's comment histories reviewed (including whatever amount of doxing is possible via server logs etc) to weed out "bad eggs"?
Cuz, I sure wouldn't hire anybody on here who is condoning or defending in any way cheating in school, even in the most oblique way.
First, to give you the answer, in your position you need to exchange your knight for his, and after he takes back with his queen, attack his queen with your bishop, which seems to offers your bishop as a sacrifice, but it's poison for him.
I agree with you. I don't want to take anything away from the terrific amount of work that went into this, it's a great achievement... but it needs to have a richer set of choices for the learner, and it would be nice if it could explain more exactly what was wrong with each of your erroneous choices, and perhaps provide a more directed set of hints that laid out what you should be looking at by explaining weaknesses in the position or "obvious" signs of opportunity, rather than demanding a very specific single course of action. Why all the alternative moves are weaker is as useful as why the good moves work. What might work is if the site had a "wiki" style of notation adding, so a richer database of explanations could be crowdsourced.
Back to the problem, if it's of any help to you, I came up with the answer by noting that I need to move my knight out of the way to get my black bishop active and onto those juicy squares defended by my pawns, and to get my white bishop out of the way to open the file for my linked up queen and rook, and also that his queen is threatening my undefended pawn so I looked to get my bishop onto that diagonal as a defender.
This position is a good example of a number of core concepts, for example that the bishops because they are on diagonals coordinate a little better with the other pieces when they are on the flanks of the attack rather than in the middle where they can clog, and that the rooks and queen benefit from open files, and that knights are useful when the position is somewhat clogged but frequently they should be exchanged for a more advantageous opening of the position. But the pedagogy here does not teach that.
I am a decent (but very rusty) chess player, but what I am good at is a little more "holistic", I play by developing my position in more or less sensible ways and then exploiting opportunities when they arise; but a lot of that is somewhat unconcious thought learned from a great deal of play, and "understanding" my position for me comes from being the one who developed it. In contrast, it is hard for me to jump in and look at a developed position and find the magic in it which is what this style of teaching requires. Probably a good set of things for me to work on, but at the same time the chess rating it gives me is absurd because I play at a much higher level than 1200 but I have tremendous difficulty getting my score to climb. I mention this because even though you and I come at this from different places, my complaint about the site is the same as yours: it's demanding a very specific set of moves and it's not really explaining or guiding as much as it needs to. Sometimes I pick the right move and it says "congrats! let's move on" and I'm thinking I have no idea what was so great about what I chose, the move seemed sensible but not stunning.
Now, I may be not the typical user (as an experienced, highly intuitive player with voids where big chunks of my skills are lacking, so the system should not be redesigned for me) but I mention it because while I can rely on some of my developed talents to solve these problems, I don't feel that this would teach those talents that I do have, and they would be very useful for learners to develop.
VMware (and that style of virtualization) is so popular because of the utter failure of OSes to do what they are supposed to do.
Protected multiuser multitasking operating systems are supposed to be able to protect processes from impinging on one another, and they can't do it. The result is that on a very large scale we have datacenters that spawn VMware virtual machine after VMware virtual machine, a "make everything look like a nail so we can use this hammer" approach that is wasting huge amounts of resources.
There would still be a use for VMware if OSes worked, but nothing like we see today. People should get back to work on fixing OSes so a cloud host could actually run processes from different customers in a lightweight way and have them not screw each other up.
the scientific method includes independent confirmation of results, so duplicating others' work is actually learning and understanding the scientific process. publication on the other hand...
when you go to school filled with very smart people you really get used to working with really smart people. I'm not saying it's panacea or even good, it just is.
So, when you say "where you went to school" makes no difference in hiring, that tells me more about your hiring culture than it does about the candidates.
I got a serious degree in computer science at a serious school, and I'm not hiring people without one, just based on being able to expect a certain baseline for conversations.
think of it like high school geometry, Euclidean proofs. It's not necessarily rocket science, it's taught to a vast swath of the population. But imagine a job that required a knowledge of geometry, are you going to look at the resume of somebody "self taught" the same way as somebody who went to the Alexandria Institute of Geometry?
Yes, there are many other factors to a complete human being, and a good worker, but one of the valuable things you learn from a good education is how to tease apart complex problems and look at which inputs have what effect on what output (kind of like separation of concerns). I'm am commenting on one aspect of a resume or a hire; pointing out all the other aspects will not dissuade me from my point.