If you come at it from the perspective that Google is your friend, as in not like a real friend (who I wouldn't let change my passwords), but a friend that's even better than a real friend, then sure, these points are paranoid.
If you start an argument with a false premise (like the above), then sure, you can come to just about any kind of conclusion you want.
The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices [etc etc]
Which is a perfectly reasonable position to have, and no one takes issue with GNU for having it.
What one takes issue with is the consistent use of manipulative language, egregious omission of context (e.g. like what was just said about Google in the post above) and other generalized mindfuckery that GNU folks seem to routinely resort to in order to get you to buy into their shtick. As exemplified in the article referred to in the original post for this thread.
And which has gotten to be way beyond old. For like, multiple decades now.
How can a planet scale coordinated governmental effort by committee work?
The same way countless other endangered subsets of humanity (particularly those facing essentially total annihilation by, or permanent subservience to a foreign occupier) have: by recognizing the simple the simple fact that they'll either have to put their heads together, put aside their differences, and "figure out a way" to prevail against overwhelming odds --
or face the inevitable consequences of failing to do so.
You're right and I stand corrected - it's not that hard of a problem. I found this out when (sometime later) I actually sat down to solve it, without considering any of the hints posted elsewhere in this thread.
At least there seems to be some general agreement (within the thread) that, while not super-hard -- it's still basically a "eureka problem" -- that is, even among what we may consider to be adequately good engineers -- some will get the visual solution more or less right away; but a fair percent (25 or more) won't.
And that's given ideal circumstances -- working alone and in unhurried circumstances. Throw in the (considerable) distraction of having to think aloud in front of other people (who themselves may not exactly be providing the most relaxing vibe, to say the lease), and all the other stress that comes with interviewing -- and I'll bet that 25 percent failure rate rises quite considerably, in turn.
And in many cases -- if you fail just one of these "eureka" problems -- and maybe fail to provide the expected canned response to a "behavioral" question or two -- than that's pretty much all it takes. To be considered, you know, "not a fit".
As to why I jumped the gun -- fatigue, probably, from being fed a few too many "cute" problems like these.
Aside from the fact that it's been called the Holland Tunnel for nearly a century (no one ever refers to it as the "Hudson Tunnel") -- the author provides this rather provocative assertion:
In other words, a good chunk of New York’s transportation infrastructure [including the Holland Tunnel mentioned in the previous paragraph] could collapse, at any point.
With no substantive support. (It may be behind on maintenance; and like various subway tunnels, and it may not fare too well during the next major storm, requiring lengthy, expensive repairs. But that's a far cry from "could collapse at any point").
After running late for your flight after a 30-minute security line only to have TSA confiscate your Fiji water bottle, you’ll now have to stop at a crowded water fountain to fill your own metal flask. Or buy an overpriced glass or aluminum bottle at the concession stand, paying another 10 cents for a bag. And your teeth will chatter if you drink through a paper straw. Of course you could risk dehydration instead: Men lose up to a half-gallon of water during a 10-hour flight. Oddly, you can still buy sugary drinks in plastic bottles at SFO; only healthy, calorie-free water is banned in plastic. You can’t make this stuff up.
What stands out about this tirade -- and why we need to call it a "tirade" -- is the complete absence of any mention of opposing factors. As in, you know -- the reasons why plastic bans are being proposed in the first place. Instead we are told that the idea of banning them just "brainless" lunacy that "you can't make up."
What a nice, simple world the author seems to live in.
But (massive) empirical evidence demonstrates that, by and large - the private sector won't do the right thing (or even "the common sense thing"), in this regard -- at least not at adequate scale -- unless it is very tightly regulated.
With chilling, but not entirely unexpected consequences:
Indicating the intimate involvement of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the investigation of the airline, Hogg's resignation was first made public by Chinese state-run media outlet CCTV at 4:50 p.m. on Aug. 16. It was not until 5:14 p.m. that Cathay Pacific itself officially announced that Hogg was stepping down as CEO, leading to speculation that his resignation was the result of pressure from Beijing authorities.
Yup - we might say that as a topic, it's been discussed throughout the ages. For example there are the findings of this guy Paul the Apostle (as summarized by an unknown transcriptionist sometime in the 1st or 2nd century):
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Now tractable for smart undergrads who are into competitive programming.
Even if we leave aside the question of to what extent facility at competitive programming contests actually correlates with success in real engineering environments (my own sense is: yes it can help; but at the end of the day, just not all that much) --
if that's a skill you consider to be important, then for gosh sakes, put it in your job ads. Something like "We typically hire CS olympiads, and folks who have at one point or another have been fascinated by competitive programming contests. If this doesn't describe you, then this probably isn't the right company for you."
The unstated implication in most cases is that you damn sure are supposed to solve it - or get "flushed".
As to "seeing how the candidate behaves in front of a difficult and concrete problem" - I'm sure this is what a lot people who ask questions like these think they're achieving by asking them. But again, you have to ask yourself if that's what the questions actually do permit you to assess.
My sense is that it's not - and that questions of this sort are mostly, well - cheap gimmicks, basically.
Let’s begin with a technical interview problem. Consider the following coding question from LeetCode, an online platform for preparing software development candidates for interviews:
[statement of the Maximum Subarray Problem]
Before going further—and regardless of your coding
proficiency—we’d like you to spend a few minutes and take
a stab at this question.
From Wikipedia:
The maximum subarray problem was proposed by Ulf Grenander in 1977 as a simplified model for maximum likelihood estimation of patterns in digitized images. ... Grenander derived an algorithm that solves the one-dimensional problem in O(n2) time, improving the brute force running time of O(n3).
Jay Kadane of Carnegie Mellon University soon after designed an O(n)-time algorithm for the one-dimensional problem,[1] which is clearly as fast as possible. The same O(n)-time algorithm was later automatically derived by algebraic manipulation of the brute-force algorithm using the Bird–Meertens formalism.[2]
If you really think anyone -- short of a faculty-level algorithm specialist at places like CMU -- can be reasonably expected to derive an optimal solution to problems like these on the spot (as opposed to the way candidates are actually forced to prove their ability to "solve" them: by binge-cramming on dozens and dozens of problems like these for weeks on end, so that they have at least a 50 percent change of passing your "filter") --
the you're either very naive, or deliberately kidding yourself.
As one of the last bastions of free people in the world, we have a strong ethical and moral obligation to help these freedom fighters. Taking no action or even worse, barring them entry is tantamount to murder. We need to be courageous and do the right thing and evacuate Hong Kong.
Sounds very bold.
I'm assuming the author made a similar plea in regard to the refugee crisis in Syria - yes?
Come take a free tour at an Amazon fulfillment center and see what our warehouses are really like. Check out the locations and reserve your spot online.
Not disputing that I may be horribly wrong -- but the same source puts Larry Page's (obviously symbolic) compensation at $1 (ignoring equity) - so I'm not sure what to make of it.
If you start an argument with a false premise (like the above), then sure, you can come to just about any kind of conclusion you want.
The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices [etc etc]
Which is a perfectly reasonable position to have, and no one takes issue with GNU for having it.
What one takes issue with is the consistent use of manipulative language, egregious omission of context (e.g. like what was just said about Google in the post above) and other generalized mindfuckery that GNU folks seem to routinely resort to in order to get you to buy into their shtick. As exemplified in the article referred to in the original post for this thread.
And which has gotten to be way beyond old. For like, multiple decades now.