Symmetry investments | London OR remote (European timezone), VISA | Full time | Senior ReactJS developer
I'm Jacques. I'm a senior developer. I don't work in HR, but I'm posting this because I really want to work with talented people.
Symmetry investments is a hedge fund that deals with a wide variety of financial products, but we mostly focus on fixed income. We're building a new web team to build internal tooling. No finance experience necessary. We're a relatively flat organization with minimal bureaucracy. You'll be working with another senior ReactJS developer (myself) and a UI/UX specialist. Since it's a new team, there isn't much legacy code. Everyone is friendly and it's easy to propose new initiatives.
Relevant industry experience: TypeScript/ReactJS experience: 4+ years
Other requirements: Must be living in a timezone between England and Hong Kong OR be willing to relocate to London.
Please apply using this general link (https://jobs.lever.co/symmetryinvestments/c8a9b95e-bdf0-459c...). In the cover letter section, please answer the following question: What is the most technically challenging thing you've implemented in ReactJS and why was it technically challenging? (4 sentences maximum. Avoid buzzwords. Don't mention impact. It will be read by myself.)
Many of my former students had wildly inaccurate mental models so I built a platform that focuses on addressing that particular issue: https://wakata.io
It teaches JavaScript, but most mainstream programming languages have the same semantics. It's particularly challenging because building a good mental model of programming takes a lot of time and effort.
There's nothing wrong with you. Your passion for novelty and learning can be a huge asset in the right environment. There are companies who hire software engineers to quickly build proof of concept prototypes to then throw the prototypes away. You might be a good fit for that. I know Nuance in Montreal has teams that do it.
Also, you might want to consider switching to front end software development if you haven't already. There's always a new framework or library to learn in front end development and the development cycles are shorter.
Whoa, this is pretty cool. People have been trying to do this for ages. If they've been analyzing how people code, they have some valuable data to develop from. I hope they make it!
I once made a programming language with a tree editor: https://youtu.be/w5-g0Hps6bA
I had anyfix operators, so it was possible to write a program that read like english. In fact, I once got someone to write the sqrt function (inspired by the SICP) in Japanese: https://youtu.be/vwgvVpCRecE
I think this is really promising to introduce people to programming. How many times have you heard someone say "programming is so frustrating! I always misplace my semicolon." Also, not having syntax means that people can use DSLs without having the pain to learn its syntax.
Whoa, this is pretty cool. People have been trying to do this for ages. If they've been analyzing how people code, they have some valuable data to develop from. I hope they make it!
I had anyfix operators, so it was possible to write a program that read like english. In fact, I once got someone to write the sqrt function (inspired by the SICP) in Japanese:
https://youtu.be/vwgvVpCRecE
I think this is really promising to introduce people to programming. How many times have you heard someone say "programming is so frustrating! I always misplace my semicolon."
Also, not having syntax means that people can use DSLs without having the pain to learn its syntax.
At the end of the article, the author mentions how we could possibly find other designs of mathematics. Well, some people already have!
Some mathematicians did not like the law of excluded middle, which states that for any proposition A, either A is true or A is false. So they invented intuitionistic logic, which is normal logic without the excluded middle, and started rewriting mathematical proofs in this new system. Turns out there's a lot of stuff you can prove in intuitionistic logic.
Some mathematicians did not like the axiom of choice. One of the consequences of this axiom is that every subset of the real numbers has a least element according to some ordering. Think about it, what is the least element of {1/n : n >= 1} ? Who knows! So what did they do? Some people found it so weird they either replaced it with a weaker axiom or a contradictory one.
There's even syntax arguments in mathematics! What's the derivative of a function f? is it f'(x) or df/dx ? Is multiplication represented by a dot (.) or a cross (x) or by a juxtaposition of expressions?
Sometimes we use big existing proofs in the middle of a proof to save time. And sometimes we use the big proof to prove something far simpler than the big proof. This creates a big dependency and some people dislike hate these dependencies because the reader of the new proof will have trouble understanding the proof completely. It's like dropping in some magic in the middle of the proof and saying: "if you want to understand this proof completely, go read this other 50 page article" Sound familiar? Some mathematicians hate this so much they insist on proving things from the ground up whenever possible so that the proof is as comprehensible as possible. This is the mathematical equivalent of dependency management.