My main problem with programming interviews is that I can’t use external references to do them, which is totally not how I work. Even if I know how to solve something off the top of my head, I generally do a search to make sure there aren’t better ways of doing something that I don’t know about, and also to build confidence in my chosen solution. This is how I have discovered most best practices over my career.
If I’m given a task to solve some weird algorithmic CS problem, the first step would be to go to google and research the problem. If it’s solved, I implement that solution.
When there is no solution, I will put pen to paper and work it out myself. But that could take an unpredictable amount of time, and doesn’t help if someone is constantly watching me work or forcing me to explain what I’m thinking, because I think much faster than I can explain, and some lines of thoughts lead to dead ends, which can make people grow impatient with pointless explanations of things that will never work.
Of course, in an interview you can’t just use Google to solve everything, because interviewers will snigger and say “tHiS gUy DoEsN’t KnOw sHiT”, never mind that this is probably how 99% of developers work given the amount of questions and code reuse that is out there. It’s just not realistic.
I know a cybersecurity professional who was contracted by a hedgefund to investigate the claims by reverse engineering and present a report so it’s not entirely unlikely.
Because if you live in the first world, like most of these companies, you will feel the effects of climate change the least. Climate change is a bigger problem for developing nations with birth rates way too high and limited resources.
Not sure why it’s necessary to make a slight against our times? Even Osama Bin Laden was given a proper burial at sea, and he wasn’t even a soldier, he was a damn criminal. We didn’t even use photos of his remains for propaganda.
Osama Bin Laden was given a burial at sea so that he had no burial site, and photos of his remains weren't released because they could just as easily be used as propaganda against the USA.
For those who do not see the danger of advanced AI generated text being rolled out everywhere, imagine a web where you have to carefully read everything you see in order to determine if it’s written by a human before you can start to take the text seriously.
That means no more skimming threads to get the gist of what people are saying, no more skimming through answers on stackoverflow, no more skimming through articles.
An article that looks reasonable on a cursory glance only begins to fall apart when you spend (waste) time reading it carefully.
It also means anyone posting content must spend extra effort proving they are a human for their readers.
No, civilization is not becoming inhospitable to humans, this is literally the best time in history to be alive, civilization has never been more hospitable than it is today.
We really do not need more humans, we are not an endangered species. The only reason we think we do is because many societies have essentially created Ponzi schemes where the welfare of the elderly generation relies on ever increasing numbers of younger generations, which will inevitably become unsustainable.
>No, civilization is not becoming inhospitable to humans, this is literally the best time in history to be alive, civilization has never been more hospitable than it is today.
According to the dictionary "inhospitable" means "Unfavorable to life or growth", and it's much harder for me to have one children than it was for my grandparents to have five.
No, it isn’t. And I’ve said this before, a 45 year old has a grip on life that an early 20 something can’t even conceive of, especially if they’ve just lived a fairly easy life sailing through school and college thus far.
A 45 year old has a better idea of how life can be improved in ways that matter, and has the connections and skills to capitalize on it. Sorry kids, the big dogs will eat your lunch.
I’m 43 for whatever that matters. I think the experience and gravity a 45 year old brings vs a 25 year old is incredibly valuable. That said, at this point in life I am no longer willing to give all my life to work. I have a family. I realize how previously brief life is (ah mid age) and want to savor enjoying it. I work hard but with definite limits. A 25 year old has no such burdens. So there is a balance.
Honest points, though of course doesn't apply to all.
Of course, some people burn out, or were never focused enough on work to end up knowing much more about work at 45 than they did at 25.
Others at 45 are as sharp and energetic about work as they ever were, and constantly learning, with the added benefit of much more experience than they had at 25.
Some people in early 20s start families, or would prefer to spend all their time traveling and rock climbing.
Some people in 40s live to work, for the craft and/or bigger goals for the world, and, even if they were financially independent already, would be doing much the same work, even without being paid.
Yes, I know many a 25 year old who work really, really hard on things that either could be done much more simply or don't need to be done at all. They just don't know it.
>especially if they’ve just lived a fairly easy life sailing through school and college thus far.
Which, lets be honest here, is most 20-somethings in tech. The people who were forced to grow up real fast and go on to start businesses usually wind up starting blue collar businesses .
That's an interesting point. I started my first successful business at 25, but I came from a poor, blue-collar family. I was a tech-head since I was 12, though. Being poor is why I became a software engineer -- my primary interest as a child was in electronics, but I learned early on that you had to be able to afford to buy parts and tools to really do that. I had access to a mainframe computer through my school, though, so programming was free to me and that's what I did.
I never lost the electronics bug, though, and the first computer I ever owned was one that I designed and built myself when I was in high school.
Thinking back on it, although I didn't know it at the time, learning how to work around scarcity really did teach me a lot of skills that were critical to my business and professional successes. That remains true to this day.
Logically maybe we shouldn’t, but humans aren’t known for doing everything logically. If you know someone is in trouble and you have the ability to rescue them it is human nature to do it, no matter the cost.
> The US public has been subsidizing pharmaceutical research for the entire world with these inflated prices and hopefully that changes soon.
This is what some people refuse to acknowledge when they mock the US for having such high prices. If US prices drop over night to match RoW pharma companies are not just going to go quietly into that good night, there will be consequences. Most likely, a lowering of US prices will result in a rise everywhere else, so enjoy your low prices while they last. It’s time for Americans to put America first.
Is this really true? Is there any proof that companies don't or can't make a profit at European & Canadian prices. US prices are much higher because companies are allowed to charge more.
I stopped doing fasts because even though I did notice a boost to my productivity, most of it was due to not having to stop in the middle of the day to eat or waste time thinking about eating. In terms of cognitive benefits, going for a run for 30 minutes in the morning still seemed far superior.
Once the body gets habituated to using fat stores for energy rather than glucose or glycogen, there's no particular need or urge to eat after exercise.
If I’m given a task to solve some weird algorithmic CS problem, the first step would be to go to google and research the problem. If it’s solved, I implement that solution.
When there is no solution, I will put pen to paper and work it out myself. But that could take an unpredictable amount of time, and doesn’t help if someone is constantly watching me work or forcing me to explain what I’m thinking, because I think much faster than I can explain, and some lines of thoughts lead to dead ends, which can make people grow impatient with pointless explanations of things that will never work.
Of course, in an interview you can’t just use Google to solve everything, because interviewers will snigger and say “tHiS gUy DoEsN’t KnOw sHiT”, never mind that this is probably how 99% of developers work given the amount of questions and code reuse that is out there. It’s just not realistic.