skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The "Are you good enough for us?" interview process is seriously broken, maybe even neurotic, considering that the excessive focus on weeding out false positives actually ends up rejecting too many good people such as you who would end up contributing a LOT.

The inequation is :

Savings due to reducing false positives << Loss due to increased false negatives.

10X lower

It takes intelligence to realize this, because weeding out false positives (LHS) is a Realized profit : your workplace is full of smart people and you get to say, "See, our process works", while the RHS is an Unrealized loss : you never got the chance to quantify how much you lost by rejecting the next amazing employee.

IMHO, everybody needs to get off their high horse and start accepting employees after gasp just a cursory inspection of resumes / qualifications / blog posts, or even more radically, random double gasp selection of 10% of candidates who meet the minimum criteria. Give everyone a long probation period, and allowing them to seek feedback frequently as to how they can influence the decision to hire them on a more permanent basis so that the final decision will not be a surprise binary event.

Hire for passion and ability, not just "the best"; how can you know the best among a sample if you never gave them a chance to score at the job (NOT looking good in an interview)?

I have been surprised many times by hiring non-superstars and then finding out that there are many dimensions to doing a job, such as perseverance and sincerity, that they can bring to the table that can tilt the final score in their favour.
I think you may be missing an aspect of this. The original result in game theory, implied that systems can be globally cooperative with selfish individuals. This has been used to justify Capitalism, much like the concept of evolution within social darwinism. If systems can be globally cooperative with selfish individuals, then we as individuals are doing our duty by being selfish. This is why a highly technical result within mathematics is so widely celebrated. This counter result undermines the first result - granted the first has been taken wholly out of context, but hopefully so will the second. But I'm not holding my breath...
Perhaps it would be better to leverage your position and your knowledge and come up with something before you write up a post like this? As other commenters have pointed out, you're in a prime position to actually come up with a working concept instead of just writing your opinion about it.

I don't open a link to Paul Graham's site to read "Shit's bad, guys, and here are some fairly shallow reasons why I feel I can make that statement". I go there to read something that's been thought out by someone 'in the know'. Same goes for when your name is on a post about crypto. This was just whining.

That may be totally acceptable to you, but I don't think I'm alone in expecting more than just an opinion.
It means that for pressure-sensitive applications mouse or touch input behaves as if the stylus was used with moderate pressure. Which makes sense if you consider something like a drawing application where the pressure makes the brush larger. You neither want no brush at all (0 pressure), nor something blown out of proportion (1) but rather what is similar to when using a pen normally. (Full pressure for a stylus is usually a lot of force that's rarely, if ever, used.)
Apple ordered to pay $533M for patent infringement
It's a tool, not a religion. Don't try to turn it into a cult.
Gemalto's findings of its investigations into the alleged hacking of SIM cards
For encryption to be pervasive, it has to support all clients, on all platforms, without explicit user action. We can talk all day about the UX of tools like PGP but the bottom line is that the UX for email are mail client(s), and nothing else.

Strong crypto for emails has to work like https does for web browsing. Picture if people had to use some command line tool to generate and keep keys in order to do online shopping in their web browser. Compared to just using a (any) browser with https built in.

The amount of people that would want to use some native desktop email client for ALL their email work is likely even smaller than the number that use GPG today! If I couldn't read my email on my phone or on any computer it would have lost most of its value already.
>If you wait until the end of the year and pay as one lump sum you'll likely be penalized.

In general, you don't have to pay estimated quarterly taxes in your first year of earning self-employment income. And after you file taxes for your first year, the IRS will inform you that you need to start paying estimated taxes. So it's not super-easy to accidentally get a penalty for this.
Look, dickbrain, I don't use USD either, but this isn't a political argument, it's just that when people give an amount without a currency they typically mean USD.

The OP could clarify this but has chosen not to.
In case you didn't know, Moxie is already doing that https://whispersystems.org/

In any case, your point still stands, generally speaking.
The idea seems be[1] that 'pressing super hard' should be easily distinguishable from 'pressing a normal amount'- which is understandable, but I don't know how preferable to announcing that pressure simply isn't supported...

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20109
As the speaker I couldn't agree more, actually check slide 39
https://speakerdeck.com/campoy/gophercon-india-evolution-of-...
Ah, thanks. I appreciate the link.
My apologies, you are quite right. The single most important thing is what currency he meant, and I was clearly being pro-America and anti-semitic by assuming he meant USD.

What do you want? A pound of flesh?
I believe it is part of the gradual realization in the commercial software development community that object oriented programming is a dead end on one hand and the fact that category theory captures abstractly patterns of composition, which with enough reflection yield elegant and efficient software designs.

Trivial examples are things like Map-Reduce, the first step describes is done by applying a monoidal functor

T B -> T A,

the fact that the functor is monoidal allows for the work to be distributed across lots of nodes with no communication, the second step uses some associative algebra

T A -> A

to compute the final result, associativity allows for easily parallizable computation of subresults.
They unify the way you deal with mouse, touch, stylus and potentially other pointing devices. While this can mean that developers using only one of those in a single application still have less to remember, it's mostly meant for actuall being able to write applications that support both touch and mouse, for example. For Microsoft, with a device that supports all three modes of pointer interaction, it's actually quite important if it's even possible (remember, you can write Windows 8 apps with HTML, too – and no one's going to be happy if your UI stops working with a finger or stylus just because the developer forgot to replicate the logic three times).

If you only deal with touch input then pointer events isn't more complicated than touch events, but with the added bonus that things work as expected with a mouse or stylus, too (except multi-touch, of course). Apple in this respect doesn't really need to care, because no one uses iOS with another pointing device than a finger (or a capacitive stylus, which, from a software standpoint, is just a thinner finger).
Jeśli mój przyjaciel we wrocławiu powiedział coś złego o Ameryce jego firma będzie upewnić się, że policja go uwolnić. Ponieważ jego firma jest amerykańska firma.
What a compiler does: Parsing
I would like to apologise for my bad advice. Do nothing. Continue struggling. I cannot tell you anything unless you clarify what currency you are earning in.

My sincere apologies for wasting your time.
Programming at the specification level with Haskell
Save yourself the embarrassment of realizing how dumb you sound roght now by never reading this article whenever it comes up.
No. If the search engine thinks I meant something else, it's supposed to ask "did you mean [something else]?" and not guess that I'm incapable of writing 4 characters correctly and serve me the wrong results.

That's over-guessing.
Correlation is not a causation.

If you eat a sugar pill with an "imprint of camomile" and it makes you feel different, it's neither the sugar nor the imprint, but your own belief that does that. However the "evidence based medicine" may conclude it was the spirit of camomile or the lovely sperical shape that made all the difference. Evidence must be supplanted by the reliable reproduction of the results with all variable factors accounted for. Otherwise it's just guessing.
Ironically they fail their own test with me. I got down to the spell it part and couldn't remember if it was nau or nua. And that the third obscure name they are on.
The last big interview I had was with a four letter company in Canary Wharf. The interview 'day' was me alone in a catered meeting room with a File->New assignment.

Despite end of the day praise and the acknowledgement that I'd be recommended for the next phase, not to mention a genuine rapport with the devs that sporadically popped in, the four letter firm acquired a software house and froze recruitment a week later.

I spent a day revealing tricks and patterns - something I charge a substantial daily rate - for nothing. But this is ridiculously common: the more effort required to interview the less likely I am to get the job.

Nowadays I'm happy to walk out of bullshit interviews where they ask open ended questions where only their answer is correct.

You get to a certain age/experience where it becomes apparent that a good interview is an informal session where you have a meeting of the minds not an adversarial grilling.
A group is a category with a single object and whose morphisms are all isomorphisms. There are plenty of groups, so you can't be right :). A morphisms can however have at most one inverse.
How leaky is shale gas production?
>> Give everyone a long probation period, and allowing them to seek feedback frequently as to how they can influence the decision to hire them on a more permanent basis so that the final decision will not be a surprise binary event.

Hypothetically, let's assume every company follows this method and around 30% of the employees who went through long probation period didn't make it through. Wouldn't that leave the employees in an even worse situation than getting rejected immediately, since they resigned their current job and now everyone in his professional circle knows that he or she didn't make it through company X's probation period? In addition to that, the employer will also accrue a lot more negative publicity from the employees who didn't make it through.
The comment referred to a claim by a user on Reddit, that they had been detained inside of Homan and essentially beaten and tortured, suffering numerous injuries.
What do you think about this app for football fans?
I also believe that some complexity is inherent to secure communication, so people are required to learn a little to properly use this. Hopefully, this will be taught in high school or earlier at some point.

However, I also (like Moxie) believe PGP is not at the sweet spot. It has too much complexity for the most popular use cases. Thank you Moxie and others who are searching for the sweet spots.
But you'll have to agree that after Pebble's Kickstarter sucess + the cash they got from it, they were in a much better bargaining position than your typical startup out to raise its first round.

It's not perfect, but at least Pebble didn't have to fork over 10% of the company for a few hundred grand in cash to investors who brought nothing to the table (besides money)
In the real world, if I manipulate a sheet of paper by swiping it with my finger, I expect it to move directly with my finger. If it's wobbly, or springy, my instinct is that it's less controllable and that I need to concentrate more. Intuitively I feel (i.e. I haven't done any research on this) that if something is unstable I need to put more neurons and metal effort into controlling it.

If I'm dragging something then I expect it to move directly as I drag it. I think that's something built into human brain, or learned and calibrated at a very early age as we learn to manipulate objects. So if I continuously transform the origin to the location of my finger at any given time, during a drag, the subject of my drag should move.

- The four first examples ('rope effect' , 'swipe off stack', '2d waggle', '3d waggle') all involve expressing state changes in terms of movement.

- I don't know what the rope effect is for except to look cute. But it feels 'unstable' as above.

- I would much rather see a 'dismiss' button to get rid of something, and for it to disappear, than to have to swipe it away and process seeing it move with a 'swipe off stack'.

- I would rather an object did directly what I told it than do a 2d or 3d waggle.

- 'Compose modal' makes the new modal box slide on screen rather than just appear.

etc etc. I don't want to go through every example, but these are (mostly) all introducing movement when I'd rather not have to process it.

You probably like them. I don't. That's the point. You can argue about skeumorphism, flat, responsive design etc quite harmlessly. They matter, but they don't actively exclude people.

But I think this is something that, like colour schemes, should be researched properly and not subject to the whims of a designer. I'm sure plenty of designers at one point in history have said 'we'll make it red on green, screw the colour blind people'. Now we know better. I feel this is analogous on some level.
Yes, I was referring to the post itself, which is essentially just complaining in the end. I am surprised it reached the top of HN, considering it really adds nothing.
Also assuming the $50,000 figure (after ubers cut) is the equivalent yearly pay to the $19 hourly pay, then that requires working 50 hours per week, 52 weeks per year.

For anyone in the UK wanting to compare it to a normal permanent position, that takehome is equivalent to a ~£21-22k a year job (pre tax), but you'd be working 56 hours a week (47 weeks per year) and have no employment guarantees or pension. To be required to work this long in your job, you'd need to explicitly agree to it (and they can't make it a requirement of your employment or treat you differently if you opt out) [0]

[0] https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/weekly-maxim...
Maybe Apple is overdoing the hiring process but I think it's the right approach especially for a company like Apple. I rather risk to decline ten good candidates instead of hiring one wrong one. Hiring not fitting people will cost the company so much time and money that a expensive hiring process is justified. Question is which hiring process leads to good fits only but this is a different discussion.
He does build something: https://whispersystems.org/
Phoenix Arizona Medical Malpractice Attorney
I'm not an Apple fan, and wouldn't apply there myself, but this doesn't actually sound that bad. It moved along relatively quickly and he had a definitive answer in a fairly short time frame after his interview was done.
As someone who's travelled 10,000 mile round-trips for final interviews, only to lose out on "culture fit," I find it the most frustrating excuse for not getting a job I have otherwise proven over previous interview rounds that I am capable for. Why? Because it's totally unquantifiable and subjective. Fair enough if you find a hole in my technical ability which would limit my performance in the job you want me to do, but using "culture" as the excuse is a nonsense.

There could be any number of reasons someone might not appear to "fit" on a given interview day, which wouldn't necessarily apply in them in the day-to-day - jet lag, the stress of the interview process, being under the weather and many more...

People and cultures adapt over time, through contact with each other; if you're denying good candidates because of their "fit" in the now, you're artificially limiting yourself for the future.
4 months is quick?
Yeah, that helped clarify it alot :)

Just one question to check my understanding. That definition of a Functor is not completely general right? Since it always takes an object _ to an object F[_].

Like one functor could be to compose an arrow with addition of 0.5 . And that would map X->int arrows to X->double arrows, right? But that would not be compatibe with the Functor trait?
Society for News Design’s “Best of Digital Design” Winners 2014
I used to be good at these tests when I first started out 14 years ago (fresh out of university).

I have never had to implement a linked list in my career. I am a much better software engineer now, writing modular, maintainable applications, but they want to see what obscure algorithm I can implement in an hour and a half? Whats the point in that?

(I had a skype interview with Google before. Messed up the algorithm question, then half an hour after the interview was finished a good solution came into my head).
"Pretty much every job that you might apply to involves very large amounts of communication with your colleagues."

Yes, and the ability to communicate well with people who are culturally different is incredibly important.

Trying to find someone who has the same cultural fit as the interviewers is counterproductive unless your company is tiny or there is no mobility.

At my current company:

- We have close to 20% turnover and 10% growth in our software division.

- We have over 25 developers in our division.

- Developers frequently need to interact with the business arm, with the sales arm, and with the customer support arm. They all have significantly different cultures.

- Our clients have different cultures and as an "agile shop" our developers deal directly with them.

Getting along with the 4 people who interview you means next to nothing in light of the above.

I want people who can get behind our vision, who are good at their work, and who can get along with people whom they might not be best friends with outside of work.
Anything goes in a war against squatters.
Our X "workstations" running Slackware back in the day used to have 16MB RAM. I don't remember how much disk space it had, but probably 300MB-400MB - I do remember 500MB drives were not that common yet.

I've run Linux in embedded systems with 4MB flash and 4MB RAM too.

It's harder to keep Linux slim these days without sacrificing all kinds of things we've gotten accustomed to, but yeah, it's pretty much down to how minimalist you are willing to go rather than how small it is possible to get.
It is a neat idea, indeed, but from a design perspective it is pretty bad. A general purpose implementation of a collection should always copy read results to a separate buffer. Otherwise a malicious client could use the pointer to modify the content of the collection or at least, if the memory is read-only, read the content directly potentially bypassing necessary checks.

Further without external synchronization writers may at any point overwrite data still not completely processed by a reader. This could be solved by first just peeking at the data and only after the data has been completely processed performing a read to indicate that this data can now be overwritten. But this obscures the semantics of the operations and breaks multiple reader scenarios because all readers will see the same data until the first reader finished processing it.

There may be and there probably also is a use for this trick but 99 % of the time you should probably not consider doing something like that.
10% of Python devs is a very large number of people and it'll only grow larger. Python 3.4 is very pleasant to work with and library support is pretty good (I'm working on a py3 code base daily.)
Just wondering, does Go finally has a package manager with proper versioning of modules?

Edit: Somebody is heavily downvoting me on every reply, I would love to know why. I like Go and want to get into it since a few months but the missing package manager held me off. So what is wrong about my question?
- not having to deal with HTML quirks;

- not having to deal with CSS quirks;

- not having to deal with JS quirks;
I wouldn't be doing that at the job either. Who writes algorithms under time pressure on a whiteboard?

You have all day to write code on your computer at a job. There is no rush. But the interview is much different than what you'd be doing at the job.
I have been on the other side when consulting at a 4 letter company in that location.

Most of the time you know nothing about the interview until someone asks you to give them a technical screening an hour before. There is also no formal process or seeming involvement from HR, it's just a, "is this person any good". From my experience it often comes down to, in order of importance:
- Are they willing to be perm
- Do they know what they are talking about
- Will they fit in the team

The first one seems to be a trump card, even though most perms end up leaving before the contractors.

This brings me onto another point in which the best interview process is hiring someone as a consultant, and then converting them after a year or so if you are both happy to.
arguably the worst kind of dead, then.
It's snake oil -- entropy isn't "depleted" in any meaningful way; once your kernel PRNG has accumulated enough entropy that you'd be comfortable using it to generate a crypto key it is not going to cease being suitable for that just because you continue asking it for random numbers.
Gemalto: NSA/GCHQ Hack ‘Probably Happened’ but Didn’t Include Mass SIM Key Theft
Talking heads on TV who hold the "wrong" views or journalists who ask the "wrong" questions just don't get invited again. People still get fired for holding unpopular views, and many high profile people in the western world are still afraid to speak up out of fear of losing their position.
Best FREE Sites to Listen to Music Online
You read my mind, I'm going to ask my physician if there is value getting the 3 shots despite having already been sexually active
We should torture in Quaker meeting halls: A modest proposal

We don't keep records. We speak when moved by a greater power. No one knows who "owns" our spaces. Very few attorneys in presence. Holding people for 12-24 hours is common. I think someone died during meeting last week and no one noticed.
Thorn Within…
Clever Marketing gig for TextSecure which has been rumbled by the third commentator on that page:

> Okay, since you want to play in the same league as OpenPGP: where can I find the RFC describing TextSecure? How many independent implementations of the TextSecure protocol currently exist?
I agree with the general idea behind this article, which is : don't become religious about one method, one tool, one language...

However, the conclusion is really pessimistic !

"Great developers create great software not because they follow the strictures of some methodology but because they are truly great, gifted artisans."

So...non-gifted artisans will never produce great software ? We shouldn't try to increase the average quality of software by figuring out methods that work for the rest of us that are not "gifted" ?