You make it sound like google could just flip a switch and the assistant would magically work better. If it were that simple, why would they intentionally limit the platform?
So what is novel or unique here? It’s a half finished demo/game of derived assets. This is like the stuff I made as a beginner.
I thought based on the name that it was some clever hack using only HTML and CSS (with maybe just a little cheating for input). But it looks like just a regular old js demo.
Edit: A search of github will show hundreds of similar projects, most of them for undergrad assignments. Maybe I am a snobbish dick but I expected something more notable than run of the mill undergrad projects when coming here.
Some group of people are guaranteed to become brain surgeons.. the demand is there, the training is there, so it is a near certainty. In fact in the US at least, you can know very closely how many brain surgeons there can be per year. Who will fill those slots isn’t too kind to all takers. It is dedication, hard work, and luck (ie ovarian lottery).
Also the majority of those that “fail” at obtaining a neurosurgery training. If they were on the path to medical training will end up falling back to any number of high paying jobs in medicine or surgery.
This study found no one did terribly well at day trading. Random chance implies there will be some outlying outcomes, but that is a fundamentally different objective than having too many people for few slots.
> Before WeWork, most people weren't aware that coworking spaces were an option
Is this true? I am skeptical. If it is true it speaks to the mindboggling ignorance of Silicon Valley decision makers.
I was living in a small (<500k metro not in california in 2009, and there were already 2 branded “coworking” businesses (that were well marketed to the tiny tech community). I may be the exception but I had not heard of WeWork until much later, but I wasn’t in a talent resource decision making position at the time, it wasn’t really my need to know those things. If it was and I didn’t, I would have fired myself for gross incompetence.
I didn’t think it was the most amazing comment either, however, it was intended more to illustrate how things are rather than how they ought to be, I think some interpreted as a strong opinion in favor of the circumstances which was not intended. Based on how it scored (somewhat surprisingly) it clearly resonated with more than a few.
If an analogy requires more explanation than the original concept what purpose does it serve?
I think in this case at best the analogy grossly oversimplifies the issue. If it really were just a “screwdrivers” problem as explained then the 2 to 3 migration would have been mostly trouble free and would have happened. Clearly it did not go that way so that analogy can not possibly be appropriate.
This is bullshit. Why would any interview process filter out the factors that lead to screwing around, working on other things, or just burnout? They won’t and they can’t, as these are dynamic factors. Also I’m curious as to why you think a white board interview of all things is the deciding factor in at even minimizing this behavior.
A plausible reason why these behaviors are less common at google and Facebook etc is that they are paying much closer to “efficiency wages”.. if you’re working at the typical tech or Corp company you’re probably making shit pay, and why wouldn’t you study to get something better..
Google pays much better than average and is already top resume signaling, there’s just much less incentive to screw around.
Googles process is still not fantastic at filtering for general critical thinking.
Irony: the person referred to in the story may very well ended up at Google.
I know this possibility first hand. I worked for a shit shop nearby a Google office. My own fucking manager did whiteboard practice and ended up at google a few months later.
It uses an LCD, a lowres super twist shit one and it uses a CCFL backlight which eats battery. So replacing it with a different active matrix LCD with LED backlight can improve battery life and quality (double res)
> python 2 to 3 (at least by 3.3 or so) was one of the easiest transitions I've ever done.
Good for you. Some of us had code bases of considerable size and complexity though.
The fact is that for working software on the python platform, this upgrade represented work that had to be done that for a legacy app that was still chugging... little benefit. If you already coded around the python 2 limitations for Unicode eg, then python 3 was not a help at that point for something already in service. It was just more cost for no benefit.
> If people spent half as much energy upgrading as complaining, this would have gotten done 5 years ago.
These aren’t exchangeable. Why do people on the internet think bitching (either constructive or not) is some valuable currency? Often times the people complaining had no means or position to of the work. 4 promotions later I sure as hell wasn’t going to participate in that 2 to 3 mess on a project produced years ago, but I could still opine in the situation. I also had little incentive to fund it.
Your analogies are bizarre. No idea what you’re trying to convey with philips v torx but I’m going to wager it’s explanatory power in this case is shit anyway. I can still demolish it, having actually worked in manufacturing there were times we told a supplier (ie Python) to fuck off and piss up a rope because what they were proposing was not compatible with our existing tooling and it would be too costly to convert for little benefit to us.
I respect apples prowess in the consumer space, but there’s a reason you don’t see their products regularly put into industrial roles where your timeline is more than 5 years. Apple products are disposable, many applications in industry are expected to last. Python is a general purpose programming language (or at least billed itself as such). Your comparison is poor.
I have dismantled the players. Truly a marvel of electromechanical design. So many hand soldered and assembled parts. It is incredible they made it work mass produced. Too bad it was 20 years too late.
Frankly there’s no saving the people concerned about quantization issues with digital vs vinyl. They clearly don’t understand the basic physics and that mechanical of PVC severely limits dynamic range such that with about 10 bits of signal and some noise you can quite comfortably transparently recreate vinyl. 16 bits is more than enough to record vinyl.
There’s no reasoning somebody out of something they weren’t reasoned into the first place, so usually this isn’t an argument worth having.
A modern laser interferometer could easily get well past the resolution that is limited by the vinyl structure itself.
The CED offers one hour of VHS quality per side that rapidly degenerates. I own a sizeable collection of them, and while sorta neat, it’s also sorta terrible.
The vinyl offers quality superior to most consumer tape equipment rivaled only by 11 ips reel to reel. CED had no quality advantages, decays rapidly and is non recordable. It was a non-starter.
The fact is that CED was in the works since the 50s when it may have had a short successful life, but RCA couldn’t get off their ass. In fact CED was the last consumer product ever released by RCA. (The RCA of today is just a badge on various crap after being divested by Thomson Consumer Electronics)
Also even though CED uses a stylus, the similarities end there. You can literally run your nail in a phono groove and hear the sound. It is a literal imprint of the sound wave. Video cannot be encoded in such a straightforward manner, NTSC and PAL are not trivially. Also the CED is not vibrating the stylus. Rather the stylus sits on ridges and the signal is depth encoded (therefore varying the capacitance, hence the name). It is much closer to a crappy laser disc in operation (which also encodes in analog.. not digital)
Well there’s a good reason for this: In this day and age it’s pretty much the ideal option. In fact I think android makes a horrible phone OS (not because it has no good features) but I’ve never had an android phone that didn’t become a battery sucking and unmanageable nightmare. And are high quality audio APIs available (I gave up caring a few years ago)
AFAIC, Android is best suited as an industrial OS. Before android it was Windows CE, which was even bigger garbage than Android, and of course now it is dead.
Alternatives are things like custom rolled Linux (and really why?) and RTOS/GUI platforms like vxworks, qnx.. they have their place. 90% of shit can just use stock android and whatever mods you need.
Lol because it was a fucking complete ide and compiler on a single low density floppy disk.
And what you’re saying is of course impossible.. determining if the function is called by static analysis is not possible.
If input = 1 then delay end
is impossible to analyze statically.
If you meant reference to delay, that is a bit more tractable. But then when do you actually initialize, you will see that program initialization is about the only practical place to do it. Which is exactly what is done.
Melanoma biopsies are not typically “small pieces of skin”.
Any other kind of biopsy will be unreliable and is more likely to be a waste.
How are you basing detection rate on that information? Hint: you can’t. Or if you are implying that detecting 1 case in 52 cases of melanoma is good (a sensitivity of 2%) then you’re nuts.
All medical students and dermatologists train on the basic guidelines for skin cancer screening. Please leave this to the professionals.
You make it sound like google could just flip a switch and the assistant would magically work better. If it were that simple, why would they intentionally limit the platform?