(1) Learning Java before you learn a procedural language, to me, makes no sense, and turns a programmer’s formative foundation of programming into an object-only one.
(2) The difficulty in getting over the ‘hump’ (usually about 5-6 weeks in to learning one’s first language) is what turned me off programming when I was 13, but given a great intro course I was able to get over it and I’ve developed a deep passion for it and I couldn’t imagine life without it. So to put the bar at 3 languages, to me, is insane.
(3) Many (most?) people don’t start off saying ‘Programming is or will be my career’. Instead, you try it out and see if you can do it and if you enjoy it. To me, this is a fundamental misunderstanding in how people view programming when they are learning their first language.
Hahaha my god dude. First, he said it seems to indicate, not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, you think it’s more likely that they filter every single request specifically for Zuckerberg, but do all of the other filtering later on in the pipeline? It’s much more likely that all the filtering happens at the one time, especially at a place like Facebook where most engineers seem to focus on optimising something for performance gains.
Occam’s Razor - it’s knocking on your door, asking to not be quoted when you’re not actually using it.
I couldn’t agree more - I’ve made most progress in MOOCs whenever there is a set of relatively small but valuable, achievable goals. And I’m pretty sure the MOOCs I ran out of time for required big chunks of work.
I am highly skeptical of the research that shows low attendance causes poor grades. I attended 2/24 lectures for one subject, and I got the highest grade for the year, out of both semesters. And I have friends who don’t attend lectures often and do similar.
We focus on assignments - programming & software engineering assignments eat far too much time to get top marks and still attend classes. When I finish assignments, I binge watch lectures and write notes like a madman.
I don’t understand people on here complaining about the Senate demanding that the leaders of a business answer for its actions. Sending your lawyer or an underling is (1) a show of disrespect, (2) it shows you’re not taking responsibility for your company, and (3) when the person answering the questions isn’t really in charge, they can’t answer properly and they can’t commit their companies to behaving differently.
People just seem propagandistically pro-Google on here. You’re mostly pretty darn smart people. I don’t get it.
Completely disagree. I don’t know how you could say that. Business leaders have to answer for their companies actions, and senate hearings is one way we have of them doing that. And as wybiral said, it was a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.
Maybe I’m jaded, but your response reminds me of those from Theranos employees on this very forum when it was criticised.
Great article! Loved it. Not sure if the author is posting this, but if you are, one small thing - it’s burying the ‘lede’, not ‘lead’. Thought you’d want to know :)
You just want to change the law to benefit Facebook. Seems odd.
Your other comments state that you value the ideal entirely over the practical, with the practical having no value to you at all. Fortunately, the practical is considered important by lawmakers.
The problem is total exclusion, not targeting for sub-groups by campaign. If they wanted to target sub-groups by campaign, they could offer a service to advertise differently to different subgroups. But that’s not at all what’s happening - this is an exclusion of some subgroups, where the only feasible reason for their exclusion is their demographic, rather than the good/service being sold or the type of advertisement.
The issue is not focusing on demographics, it’s excluding demographics. The law states you cannot exclude certain demographics. Facebook is allowing that.
Nothing is preventing an atheist from reading a Christian magazine, or some non-expected audience member from reading an ad targeted at a general audience. The problem is when you control the viewers on an individual level, as Facebook does.
Your comment reeks of hubris, hatred for Americans, and self-delusion. You question the value of ridding the world of bad-actors. Why? Why would this be a bad thing, if one company ensures it cannot accidentally allow foreign powers to interfere in elections?
You have one ‘source’ that claims, without evidence, that the impact of Russian meddling was minimal. To be so confident of your pretty big claim, with only that source to go on, that’s pretty crazy.
You also make it out like all of the US is actively working on this. Ridiculous. People all around their country are attempting to strengthen their democracy, to find ways to make it better.
That you think this is a bad thing... it makes it obvious how much you hate America. Deny it all you want. And I’m not even an American.
You’re just arguing from Kant’s authority here. In my view (and in the views of many others, including many renowned philosophers and many important legal systems) Kant’s views are deeply flawed (anyone can argue from some authority). But this is my view because there are many situations in which otherwise ‘bad’ actions may be easily justified. Sure, ethics is currently a matter of opinion, but I think the fact that some opinions on ethics are more easily lambasted than others suggests that their quality differs. And yours is certainly a minority opinion, a good thing in my view.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I thi k the fact that we can learn from fewer examples demonstrates that the learning process isn’t as efficient as ours, therefore it isn’t yet optimal. It seems like a goal should be for learning to be as efficient or more efficient for computers than for humans.
(1) Learning Java before you learn a procedural language, to me, makes no sense, and turns a programmer’s formative foundation of programming into an object-only one.
(2) The difficulty in getting over the ‘hump’ (usually about 5-6 weeks in to learning one’s first language) is what turned me off programming when I was 13, but given a great intro course I was able to get over it and I’ve developed a deep passion for it and I couldn’t imagine life without it. So to put the bar at 3 languages, to me, is insane.
(3) Many (most?) people don’t start off saying ‘Programming is or will be my career’. Instead, you try it out and see if you can do it and if you enjoy it. To me, this is a fundamental misunderstanding in how people view programming when they are learning their first language.