The article talks about a 2-dimensional grid which starts at (0,0) (bottom right) and extends infinitely to the right and the top, so all (x,y) for non-negative integers x,y exist. But x or y negative does not exist. Given a list of possible jumps e.g. (+1,+10) or (-20,+13), and a target destination, e.g. (700,1). Does there exist a series of valid jumps that takes you from (0,0) to (700,1) without ever going off grid (i.e. into negative territory)?
This problem might or might not be NP-Harder. However, now extend the problem to higher dimensional grids. At some number of dimensions, the problem becomes definitely NP-Harder (i.e. NP-hard, decidable, but not in NP)
It works in pre-interview filtering rounds because companies hiring processes are usually broken and the smartest people are not working on those aspect.
If, on the actual job, you're copy-pasting buggy ChatGPT code, someone will notice. If the other people at the company don't notice and do something about it, the company isn't likely to survive for too long.
You could hyphenate to clarify: lesser-known libraries.
But come on, the English language is ambiguous. We can figure out the meaning from the context. I'm usually a nit when it comes to vocabulary and grammar, but this one...
Actually, maybe the title should explain more of the purpose: Machine learning libraries that should be more popular.
Sounds good in theory. But if enough companies started doing this, I can guarantee you that Indian companies will spring that will offer to create an open source project for you for $100 to $1000 depending on complexity of project, and amount of activity the github profile would show.
I wish I was kidding.
While that is sort of true for a take-home test, there is still value in giving candidates an online or in-person programming task that needs to be completed in a small amount of time (e.g. 1 hour)
Right. In fact, in my opinion, the most important thing a conference provides is the quality of the peer-review and the selection process. So a conference that claims peer-review, but does not provide it, is really taking your money and not providing value for it.
> The problem is more like not teaching the students how to find a reputable path to publication and not weighing the quality of the venue.
Actually, in my opinion, most of the students couldn't care less about publications. They just want their degree, but the system refuses to let them have it without the publication. Hence they're forced to publish at conferences that publish without checking.
The problem is indeed with the system that requires publications, and then accepts publications in dodgy conferences. What else can be expected of the students in this situation?
Most conferences are supposed to have a selection process (in most cases a "peer review" process) in which all submissions are sent to multiple reviewers who are experts in that area, and only papers which are deemed "acceptable" by a majority of the reviewers are published. Usually this means that the paper should be relevant to the conference, should have results that are worth publishing, and should have something new - something that hasn't been done before.
All of this is supposed to happen before the paper is accepted for publication. The proceedings of top conferences in most fields are, in my opinion, more important than the actual conference itself.
They claimed that they accepted almost half. My guess is that they accepted 100% of the submissions they received. Because if there was any process for rejection, both my papers should have been rejected.
Almost half is effectively the same as 100%. You're buying a credential. It's like paying $350 for a weekend project management certification that has no test, and then complaining that you didn't learn anything.
Yes, technically they're lying. Yes, technically it should be a higher standard.
But if it's an obvious scam, it's silly to get so angry that you can't see or write straight. Sure it's worth sharing to the world that there are scam artists out there, but to get so worked up about it?
Actually, I did not get worked up about the existence of such conferences. My main gripe is against the education system and the ridiculous requirement that makes it mandatory for all post-graduate students to have 2 published papers before they are granted their degree. Given the current state of research and higher education in India, the inevitable result of this requirement would be that students will be forced to pay to publish at such conferences.
This problem might or might not be NP-Harder. However, now extend the problem to higher dimensional grids. At some number of dimensions, the problem becomes definitely NP-Harder (i.e. NP-hard, decidable, but not in NP)