if you have to compute the fib of very large numbers mod n. you can use the fact that the fibonnaci numbers would repeat.( see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisano_period)
"Oracle now says this was an accident. According to a spokesperson, the site was temporarily flagged by anti-virus software but was whitelisted once the issue was noticed."
stuff like this makes my blood boil. it's obvious that this is just a legal defense, but it feels so insulting to the reader/listener.
then why did he need to lie to get the job? maybe you're over-filtering based on resume and years of experience.
The variable your looking for is competence. Years of experience, is just a proxy. if the proxy is drying up your supply, maybe it's not an effective one.
moreover, people are not born managers. why not give new talent a chance.
- the candidate was not competent:
The interview process is therefore broken and is not measuring competence. Maybe you're overvaluing confidence or the speed of answering. Maybe the questions are not Technical enough? I don't know. But notice that valuing anything that is irrelevant would lead to a lower expected value of candidate's competence.
Using ineffective tools while searching for something rare is unsurprisingly hard.
As a side comment, I'm kinda taken aback by the fact that interview results like "culture fit" are shared this way. I would've expected a higher standard of privacy. Is this commonly accepted?
Another point, I've noticed that the hiring process involved a lot of "friend / wife of a friend". Wouldn't this if left unchecked cause some ethnic/age-based bias ( not necessarily in a legal sense)?
- why are we providing the names and addresses as input to the neural network? they should be annonymized?
humans may also act on the same information. The fact that you are less likely to be called if you have an arabic sounding name in europe is well documented.
at least with neural networks we can remove those variables.
I guess another problem could be that our current distribution is biased. so the system might give an advantage to new-grads from unviersity X becausea lot of old employees are from it. which is inherent disadvantage from people from tradtionally-black university Y.
but hiring based on alma mater is already a common practice.
while the disgust is warranted, I can't help but feel that you've created a toxic culture there.
for example, the Keyboard scene, being horrified because someone touched your keyboard is not logical behaviour. In fact, the keyboard is probably more disgusting than the toilet paper.
The actions of your employee were not rational. But by validating them you create a mob.
"begin sickned/disguested" becomes a behavior of the in-group. Mocking that guy, overreacting is than encouraged by social validation. These are the same dynamics as bullying because it is a form of bullying.
Plus, this is exacerbated by your team member ( and maybe you later, just by asking) going arround bad-mouthing him.
Imagine if everyone started acting hostile towards you and you had no way to know why?
"not offending others by asking sensitive questions/Avoiding awkward" is the polite thing to do.
But a core part of being polite, is not hruting others through your actions directly or undirectly. ( or at least trying)
In cases where not asking the question puts the other party in a disadvantage or at the risk thereof, I feel one shouldn't be allowed to claim that one was being polite or "doing the right thing".
You were being either too shy, cowardly or selfish. This doesn't mean that you must ask such questions/ venture in those topics. But it certainly does mean, that those that don't, shouldn't be allowed to claim active virtues ( to others or to themselves).
* Also, if one chooses to not inform the other party of the problem, I feel that one shouldn't make them suffer for that choice. Which means at the very least, not trashtalking them behind their backs for it.
The first part is about being good, the second part is about not being actively evil.
-that generics don't play well with primitives and arrays?
I understand that jep218 aims to fix the first one. But it's been quite a few years now and why was this not done the right way from the start?
> equals() and ==
I think these should've been switched.
A general principle in languages (not only in programming languages) is that things that are used often should be short.
Plus
- get() and charAt(), instead of [].
just why?
- verbose naming conventions:
Excessive redundancy does not increase safety or improve maintainability. Having one blinking red light is useful, having a thousand lights of different importance will just make you filter it out. People will simply gloss over and skip long identifiers.
we are humans and we can't operate at full attention the whole time. if something has low information content, we simply go on autopilot.
Easy things should be short, so that the hard things popout in the code.
- Obsession with software engineering and OOP Principles?
Instead of thinking about the data structures needed and the alogirthms chosen, time is spent just making a millefeuille of abstractions.
I heard the same story when I was a kid but the general that did it was "Tariq ibn ziyad" in Gibraltar (the mountain is named after him). But I can't for the life of me find a enlgish source that confirms it.
It's the origin of the famous phrase "the sea is behind and the enemy is in front of you".
it's not easy.
it's not fast to run.
it's not fast to write.
it's not fast to read.
it's not memory efficient.
it's not fun (yeah, subjective but I'm yet to hear someone saying that he had a blast writing java)
if you have to compute the fib of very large numbers mod n. you can use the fact that the fibonnaci numbers would repeat.( see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisano_period)
<spoiler>
this allows you to solve problems like this: https://www.spoj.com/problems/FIBHARD/
<\spoiler>