Why shouldn't they? I personally like the answers and use them often if I'm trying to find a fact, like when someone famous was born. If someone is going to blindly trust Google without verifying and google doesn't try to answer, they'll probably just trust whatever site is listed first anyways...
Wheat is one of those plants that humans have mastered. One person can farm thousands of acres of wheat. Generally that's only true of plants that are very uniform and that you wipe out each harvest. It would be very hard to replace it with a plant you can't use the same techniques on as the labor would be 100x probably.
There is one tiny little mention of Waymo in there but that's clearly the main push for Google in robotics now, and if that's where those robotics aquihires went maybe that's what they wanted.
It would make it hard to pretend that the DDG results were much better than those irrelevant Google results that more fanatical Googlephobes insist they get.
Can't really blame him, it might seem kind of arrogant to refuse to do the task they give and propose one yourself, although it is pretty impressive that you could do something useful on a codebase you haven't seen during the code interview.
The way it was published does not lead me to believe that story. The link to the document riffed on documents whose authors want all Googlers to read them and fix their broken ways.
I`m sure The first driverless cars for the public will start being available for rides in Silicon Valley or AZ and just on the regular roads they know very very well. I've still never seen one on the highway.
Are you sure they want robotics rather than pure software? For the longest time I was really put off of programming because of all the libraries and magic going on and people trying to show me the "cool stuff." It was cool stuff but I could never really get into it because I never felt I had a good feel of what was going on and there were so many components involved. I think if I was introduced to competitive programming earlier I would have loved it. Nothing messy to think about but the problems themselves and some kids might be motivated by the competition or puzzleness of it.
I live in the south and even here a ton of the churches are ok with LGBTQ and don't harp on guilt or how we all need to be saved. Unitarians, Episcopalean, Presbyterian (USA), Quakers, etc. It's still hard to sit through a service where you don't believe anything.
Of course there is work to be done. It's just work that a smaller and smaller percentage of the most competent people + technology can be useful in. This isn't just an issue of providing more training resources, technology allows people more access to the work of the most competent so there is less and less work for people who are not the best at things or capable of learning really quickly to fill the new wide open niches that are popping up before technology narrows them too.
No economic use is not oblivion. Being useless needs to somehow be destigmatized while not being encouraged. It's not the end of the world, there are happy monks who live in seclusion off the generosity of others, there are some happy people with special needs who we don't try to make work and retired people who still enjoy life. There's no reason we can't have people being happy doing hobbies some day if we can get past training ourselves to feel like shit when we're not doing useless but socially necessary work (which is what most jobs are rapidly turning into). Some country is going to implement basic income and force us to talk about these ideas that successful people feel we can keep pushing away because it doesn't affect us yet.
What abstraction? Comparisons are ubiquitous, easy to read, and a one-liner as well. If the range were to change it could affect performance. I've never seen anything written like the original loop, it's not like it's a Python idiom or anything. I'd say it's the wrong way to do things.