I think it's a little different across sects, but I grew up around a lot of baptists and the line was that anyone who asks was forgiven at any point, so I think this falls into the repentant category, though I don't think it actually requires repent. Lots of tough questions around someone who lives a virtuous life who asked forgiveness at an early age versus an evil person asking for forgiveness on their death bed and them both ending up in the same place.
I think I understand, so you basically need in your training set anything that the production model would presumably see for it to work well? You can't just say here are a bunch of positives and a bunch of negatives, the negatives have to be actual things the model will see.
Not an ML person, but I generally understand the concept. Why do you care about ceilings here? I get that the camera is pointed weird ways, but if you're trying to detect nudity presumably if trained on a bunch of images of that subject, it would just call ceilings False.
"But does your social circle not include other female friends that you could discuss the optics of this situation with?"
Respectfully, this shouldn't be on the person from whom advice is being sought, but on the asker.
"Or better yet, be honest with the female friend that you wanted to advice, pointing out what she had done before and expressing your apprehension in providing critical feedback?"
If someone asked me this, I'd probably think they used hashtags like #redpill or were into bashing Ellen Pao or something. It comes across as, "you can't say anything these days without being offensive, men in tech are soooo mistreated."
I'm objectively very high performing at aerobic exercise, since high school and have kept it up. I have seen quantitatively higher performance when taking 3-5 mg/kg of caffeine before exercise and regularly during. This includes anything high intensity aerobic, from swimming to running to cycling.
This is the best collection of research I have seen on the topic and where I arrived at my 3-5 number above many years ago, perhaps it will be useful and seems to speak to the broader topic at hand: https://fellrnr.com/wiki/Caffeine
When the last time _my_ tweet reached millions of users is not the right question. We see that daily tweets go viral and are seen by millions, some things are seen by a billion people (though perhaps not virally in a short period of time). If people are pumping bitcoin with rampant speculation to get other people on the train to increase its value, just a handful need to go viral to increase value, not necessarily yours or mine specifically.
It's like the Birthday Paradox. The chances that someone in a room shares my birthday are small, but the chances that two people in the room share a birthday is large. It just takes a few of the millions of tweets to go viral.
I won't address your second point at length except to say that it's naive to think that with the ease of broadcasting, suddenly the wall is at rebroadcasting, which can be done with no more than a click and is significantly easier than creating the original message.
I read the article. It sounds more like practically everyone is stuck in a steady state of believing the same "tells" like fidgeting, averting gaze, and stuttering they have been told forever, and those things don't work. That's not really like a GAN at all.
Additionally what you say about being able to spot the average liar, as an average person, is contrary to the article. I would encourage you to read the article more carefully to distill the main points.
Specifically I don't hire entry level people, so that hasn't been an issue. But if I did, I would likely look at projects and such, general aptitude, etc. because that's all there is.
I don't get the impression that several hundred/thousand individuals had anything to do with this being solved by this person, except perhaps by virtue of not solving it and thereby leaving it to be an open problem with the opportunity to be solved.
After reading the article, this didn't come across as a "standing on the shoulders of giants" situation, but rather that this person by chance had the problem, found it interesting enough to work on, and happened to try the right path to solve it.
I don't even care about the cost. I would pay a premium for the non-closed garden phone if it had apps and support. I would happily pay $1,500 for a Pinephone or similar with capability to run the small subset of apps I use -- phone, sms/signal, brave, maps/nav, and maybe a handful of others.
I don't discriminate in favor of or against any particular group and am not a parent myself, though I have parents. I do recognize that many parents are often particularly overworked and can't jump through the same hoops you have time to jump through, which is why the example came to mind. That's all, no offense or "triggering" (???) intended and apologies if it came across like I was trying to rile you up. Per HN guidelines, you should be taking the strongest form of any argument though, to be fair. Regardless, I think you've gotten your point across and I believe I understand your motivations.
It takes more than five minutes to review code, especially when it's of a volume you describe. You're also really trying to replace the metrics against which a company measures candidates and insert your own metric and then complaining that they don't use your metric. I wouldn't expect you to use my metric when interviewing me for your company, so don't think it's fair to try to insert your own metric for others (though you're welcome to vote with your feet).
We don't ignore them completely, we just weight them very, very low, as I've indicated. They do provide context. Your phrasing "chose to have kids" betrays some of your underlying beliefs, I suspect. We'll likely just agree that we weight things differently and are willing to forego
some otherwisee excellent candidates to index more heavily on being fair to everyone in the process and judging them to the same standards. This is a conscious choice, and so far a very good one.
To your second point, I can't think of a single thing I would let be a proxy for technical skill in an interview process -- certainly not some commits to open source. (Maybe if I had worked side by side with the person in a previous life would be weighted) Even if we did use that as a proxy, it doesn't really save time because people would have to inspect the work and still doesn't really tell me anything about the candidates approach to problem solving or framing of issues that I can get from pair programming or walking through some code for an hour.
I applaud all your open source contributions and appreciate them, but I wouldn't consider them in whether to hire you except perhaps at the margins. Others may disagree and that's their conscious choice or they're indexing on something different.
We look at CV and then have an interview process. We don't do proctored timed interview coding questions in the usual sense, though we may walk through code. I understand the reluctance of a senior engineer such as yourself to go though any interview process, but to be honest I've interviewed plenty of engineers with decades of experience and many have completely fallen flat. Interviews aren't just about technical knowledge, but also to make sure people will get along and are reasonable to work with.
I think we'll agree that there has to be _some_ interview process. iirc node's Left Pad package is downloaded like 20M/mo.
All skills to take time to develop, well said. I am confident that looking at how a candidate interviews will no doubt show the fruits of that time spent without weighting too much the time spent, regardless of whether that time spent comes from contributing to open source, from their full time job, or just studying and honing their skills efficiently under harsher time constraints. We don't want people to target the metric of "time spend coding on OSS projects" do we? I don't.
Besides, having a diverse experience base and pipeline (parents, non traditional developers, non traditional paths to SWE, and even single people with a ton of time and fortune to be able to do things like robust side projects) has served us particularly well in having a team with a wide breadth and depth of experience and viewpoints. Specifically weighting side projects in lieu of technical/EQ interview performance would ruin that in favor of the latter group.
That's wonderful! You sound like a very driven person to be able to do all of that. Of course, your experience and ability shouldn't be considered the norm with everyone or expected of anyone, especially because with finite time in the day and differing situations, we must strive to judge everyone on the same plane.