skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It might not mean much to most recruiters, since most of them aren't technical themselves. But as someone who hires, and is technical, you would absolutely have an advantage if I were hiring for a marketing position (honestly, if I were, I'd reach out to you now). It's a no-brainer for me - especially for traditionally non-technical positions like marketing, where technical skills beyond MS Office are rare.

I think the bias against "University of Phoenix" type degrees doesn't really apply to online courses like Stanford's. Everybody knows that they're money-making schemes - so it frankly calls your judgment into question if you do it. I would wonder - why did this person choose to spend time and money on a University of Phoenix degree, rather than just take the free Stanford courses and learn on their own?

The issue with the Stanford online courses is that it's common knowledge that not many people stick it through to the end / pay attention. So having it on your resume would get my attention, but I would need to verify that you actually absorbed the knowledge. Once that concern is addressed though, you absolutely have an advantage in my book.
After the grand jury declined to indict Wilson, activists claimed that this probably happened because McCulloch convinced the grand jury not to indict

Another interesting result from this is that one of the grand jurors is suing to lift the gag order imposed on the grand jury so s/he can discuss the process in that specific case. The prosecutor has opposed the motion [1].

[0] http://time.com/3653815/ferguson-grand-jury-michael-brown-da...

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/10/mcculloch-ferg...
I gave up about 15k in salary per year(I continued to make money while in school). I also only took 4 years. So I gave up 100k and accounting for inflation my break even point is about 2.5 years.
There's a difference between (photo)realism as a goal and Photorealism as a modern school.

In art history, you won't often you find someone explaining what Estes, Close and those guys from the 60s and 70s were trying to do without also seeing a nod to Van Eyck and Vermeer.
Turn your ES5 code into readable ES6
How did they quantify "being good on the job"?
Paying for more judges, prosecutors, and defenders might be one solution. But consider that a huge fraction of our criminal justice system is occupied by drug-related offenses. Another large fraction is occupied by violent crimes related to drug trafficking. It would be an interesting experiment to unload that from the courts and then see how speedily the remaining cases could be tried.
> All the topics of computer science that undergrad students study at Stanford and MIT are publicly available.

That's certainly true, and the same for mathematics or physics or philosophy or any other subject. But I've met very few people who have on their own actually done it, working through the material you'd cover in a 4-year degree (let alone going on to cover graduate-level work). Not zero people, just very few. I've met many more people who've worked through the equivalent of a few courses of material (e.g. have self-studied SICP), but that's a much lower bar.

Of those people I know who have done so, most are mathematicians. Could be random draw of who I know, but math does seem to draw autodidacts who go all-in and teach themselves the equivalent of a 4-to-6-year (or more) course of mathematics.
Another way to see it is that there is a world of difference between writing a program that has to work once for a competition and writing a program that has to work and be maintained for years.
Cool observation -- pretty clear people don't like buying software. I can think of a handful of reasonably-new software security companies (agile bits, dashlane) that sell software to people.

And worth mentioning, plenty of people expect bitcoin will make a difference here. It (or some centralized system that makes it easier to buy things online, like iTunes) certainly has/will continue to make people more willing to purchase other kinds of ones and zeros.
I was an autodidact as a kid. I taught myself to program, and wrote fairly substantial computer programs.

If you'd looked at the maze of spaghetti code I wrote when I was 11, you would have definitely concluded that someone should teach me how to do things right...
I've always found this argument from voter apathy to be unpersuasive and arrogant.

The voting system in the United States is rather uniquely damaged with its first-past-the-post (majoritarian) elections, over a century's worth of gerrymandering that goes on strong as ever, stringent ballot access laws, public debate restrictions (which I take became stronger after Ross Perot) and so on.

It has all been meticulously crafted so that the odds are against any form of profound change, but rather to enforce the party dichotomy and have representatives maintain a comfortable status quo. The aforementioned gerrymandering strongly encourages vehement and almost parade-like, but ultimately empty and financially wasteful political campaigns, along with focusing one's efforts on leaving an impression only in certain key states and districts that are really decisive to one's performance.

Yet even people who are well versed in statistics and probability often seem to grant an exception for the insanity of voting in the United States, out of a perverse democratic ideal that ultimately isn't really there. Without some truly disruptive changes to how elections are structured (hardly a trivial matter, what with the rather fundamental chilling effect they'd have on how people have been doing things for so long), I personally find voting to be not worth one's time.
Nope.

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/6804/what-does-dd-st...
> knowledge that's hard to get without a structured course of study

You are omitting other resources no autodidact could replicate: Billions of dollars in capital resources (labs, systems, etc.), access to and personal instruction from leading experts and researchers in a wide variety of fields (professors), and large numbers of smart peers studying the same things.
> How is the user supposed to pay?

How about clicking on the "Pay with card" button on the home page?
A few other points:

- Common law vs Civil law... reliance more on legal precedent than on codified laws makes the legal field unnecessarily complex. If common-law defenses or other considerations are not included in the plain text of codified laws, the codified laws need to be fixed.

- Adversarial system vs inquisitional system. These need not be disjoint. Some sort of hybrid where the judge (and jury) can ask pointed questions of witnesses, or ask for elaboration on some point a lawyer is making, seems prudent. That's not to say the adversarial system is entirely bad. The notion, at least in civil cases, and for the defense in criminal cases, that the parties need their own dedicated advocate, is certainly valuable.

- Too many laws. The externalities of creating more and more laws seem lost on legislators (figuratively speaking; not truly lost, but ignored, since it ensures job security for lawyers).

- Reform of the incentives for prosecutors. The objective should not be to win cases, but to serve the public interest. Criminal prosecutions should not really have dedicated advocates intent on trying to convict the defendant, but that's what prosecutors in the United States usually are. Rating prosecutors by conviction rates is absurd unless you've already decided that every defendant is guilty.
My perspective is that this just takes time, because it's necessary for people making hiring decisions to have personal experience and knowledge with the material. Very similarly to how people who went to some college project their opinion (good or bad) about the program at that college onto other people who went there. I've done some hiring, and I've taken lots of online courses, and if I see a certification for one that I have taken and thought highly of, then it absolutely means something to me. But I'll definitely ask a bunch of questions to get a sense of how well you learned the material.

Edit to add: I think I left this too implicit: my main point is that as these courses become more prevalent, there will be more people with personal familiarity in higher positions, and that will make them more valuable.
About 40 UK businesses include “hacker” term in their company name
Thank you for your detailed response.

We have tried Gymboree at 1.5, but she had already grown out of it. We will try the Vasona Park, Sutlsaft park and other activities you have mentioned.

Many thanks.
It's worth pointing out that almost none of the work in the examples in your first paragraph is done by someone straight out of school with only a college degree. Surgeons, lawyers and engineers typically go through years of on the job training before they are allowed to install heart values, prepare complex trusts or design pacemakers. Which says little about the value of the college education, other than that it serves as a filter before someone can receive the hands on training and mentorship that is critical to performing those tasks.

If surgeons/lawyers/engineers say "I'm only go to offer an apprenticeship to someone who went to school for eight years like I did", then that's fine, it's their choice of who to invest their time with. But it doesn't prove that a traditional four year education is a necessary prerequisite to being able to do any of those jobs.
Just download reddit locally to circumvent having to remove it.
Good points.

Pertaining the 1st and 3rd points though, an important thing to keep in mind is that a lot of big scientific ideas come from philosophers and even science fiction writers, and I wouldn't be shocked if a few thoughtful comic strips joined the club. Most scientists are just technicians, applying existing knowledge to test existing theories. This means that a scientist doesn't necessarily have more qualified of opinions than any other person does.
Inuit https://github.com/csswizardry/inuit.css uses BEM and the most pedantically correct CSS framework out there. It is a bit more work to get into it as it doesn't provide design off the go--you'll have to add colours, shadows, bevels or whatever else you want. However, that's probably a good thing as it forces you to assimilate the architecture which is a transferrable skill.
Coming up with clever solutions is indeed very different from coming up with maintainable solutions.
> Don't be a snob, just enjoy the food you like the way you like it.

Or be a snob, if that's the way you like it.
Amused I got downvotes for pointing out a bug. :)
So what? It would display the same thing as going to reddit, which is what op wants to avoid.
If I type 55555 everything disappears
That's not a surprise really. A typical competition may be won by a programmer scoring 90/100 on four out of five tasks and 20/100 on the last one. Such performance at work would likely result in a quick termination.
Have other people look at your code? If it's easy to understand, to modify etc - it's good. Otherwise, less good.
I've also toyed with a similar idea. I'm not a huge fan of writing anything "significant" in PHP but it does make html templating convenient. I would rather write the bulk of my code in a language like C++ or Rust, and then pass off to PHP to do the html (or json or xml) view.
That's Google, so probably quarterly review scores.
This was discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9315424. This one is different enough not to be treated as a duplicate, but we did change the title to a more informative sentence from the article.
Willpower.
The Georgia Legislature Just Pulled the Plug on Electric Cars
... if they pay handsomely.
It has a higher barrier of entry though. I've been unemployed for a while and not qualified for most of the devops jobs I see. If I'm going to skill up, why not do it in something with best job prospects?
All fair points.

I guess my concern is that most recruiters aren't you, and probably aren't anyone commenting on this thread.

My bias is that mass-adoption (and ultimately, online learning as an alternative to a ~100k education) will only happen when an entry-level recruiter is able to filter through and use online courses as a hiring signal. So far, the only people I've seen get anywhere close to this, or care at all, are very technical founders hiring for a very small team, usually in the valley.

Even if they respect the course or what was learned, they don't actively seek these people out. I've seen startup founders aggressively seeking out and trying to hire Stanford / Harvard / Princeton alumni because they're alumni. Yet I've never heard anyone saying "Let's go recruit and hire CS184 grads".

... yet.
All the problems of exclusive content, in one Beyoncé song
I wonder whether that was when your neighbors hired attorneys.
I don't even think it is a "how is a person's brain wired up" thing. I think it is a college instruction caters to a subset of the set of available students. Which is kind of the same thing you said, just couched from a different perspective. I guess some people think it is the student's fault because they failed to conform, and others blame the college for failing to adapt to a multitude of different students.
I don't see how it would be negative correlation or even zero. Winning a competition shows a certain amount of raw talent.

For someone who only programmed for competitions and never worked on a serious project I could see it being a negative, but with some experience the competition winner should (on average) do better than average.
That's very interesting, especially as someone who did pretty well on those competitions. I don't doubt the finding, but I do think that it possible to put your mind in different modes. I frequently think about "running" vs "going slow" when solving problems at work. I use the former for whipping up a single use script and sketching solutions, and the latter for permanent solution, especially in hard domains.

I think knowing both modes can be useful, and knowing only one can be limiting, no matter which one it is.
The poster below is correct, the credential is valued more than knowledge and this is what is holding people back.

Why do most elite schools refuse to bestow online degrees for anyone who can complete identical coursework with rigorous test proctoring?

It's not about cost. Forget about the lower marginal cost of online students, in most cases elite online degrees are not even allowed if students are willing to pay full price.

There is also the argument that the experience of being on campus and closely working with peers and instructors is an integral part of the credential. Yet that can't be the reason either or else a simple solution would be to offer "on campus" and "online" versions of a degree to clarify what has been achieved.

The biggest reason not to offer online elite degrees for all who can complete the work is to maintain prestige for the institution. Artificial scarcity is used against students the same way it is used by luxury brands such as Ferrari and Hermes hand bags.

Any why should this change? No one at these institutions would benefit including alumni who have already made it into the club.

It's prioritization of brand above the betterment of society through education.
On art, chairs and being Saddam Hussein's doctor
> A college education is like money: It has value because we all agree that it has value.

Sticking with the same analogy: if you rapidly increase the amount of money in circulation, its value falls. The people whose wages and prices are rising in tandem experience little net change. But people whose wages don't rise suffer from the rising prices.

College is undergoing the same process. The fraction of people who go to college is up significantly. All those new degrees have pushed the absolute value of a degree down, which is why college is no longer an automatic path to high-paying, white-collar work. But at the same time, people without degrees are left ever further behind, and the relative gap between college and no-college is bigger than ever.
Based on the research I've read, one of the most valued skills for workers is communication/teamwork.

I'll speculate wildly that the loners who perform well at these tasks don't have the leadership/teamwork skills that are so highly desirable.
I'm pretty sure the competition winners are not one-trick ponies either. They probably can crank out a solution to the last one as well (if given enough time -- like on a job). That's probably not the problem.
People participating in competition and winning (or not) are in my opinion self driven individuals that are more suited to build their own company as opposed to be a good employee.
Don't forget the tightly-held media pumping out propaganda to remind The People that the status quo in America is the best in the world, is perfectly democratic and is exactly in line with how it was conceived by 18th-century philosopher-gods.
The Scaling Property of Randomness
for the non-leads a lot of the strategy is just herd mentality.
This was just a sensationalist title.
I think, software development is most often more like a marathon run and less like a sprint run.

For a marathon run exactly this behavior is negative, that makes you win a sprint run. When you start fast and are eager to have fast successes, you are likely to loose the marathon.

In my experience, software development (in larger scale) needs a lot patience, planning and great staying power.
My favorite "this should be free" has to do with when Qt was released under the GPL. It always bothered me when people selling software would complain that they couldn't use the GPL version of Qt. At some level understood that software costs money to make which was why they were not giving away their software, but at the same time they didn't want to pay for software. And then when it was put under the LGPL people still complained. Having lived through Qt being released under the QPL/GPL/LGPL I understand that when selling pure software there will always be people who want more and they should just be ignored because they are not your customer and never will be.
Thiel:

> it implies a bleak future where everyone must work harder just to stay in place

Not at all. It implies a future where people are more productive, produce more, and earn more. It's not just an implication, but fundemental economics.

> a tournament that bankrupts the losers and turns the winners into conformists

College is not a zero sum competition; everyone can be winners and get degrees. Also, most people complain that college encourages too much non-conformity. I've never heard, and it certainly wasn't my experience, that college creates conformists.

> Is higher education an investment? Everyone knows that college graduates earn more than those without degrees.

The focus on earnings is very narrow. Increasing your knowledge, your understanding of the world, your exposure to ideas, and especially your critical thinking and other cognitive and intellectual skills, helps you in every place in life where those things in apply. Not only as an employee, but as a citizen, a member of your community, a member of a family, as someone managing your own affairs, as an autodidact in your learning after college, and as someone seeking a fulfulling life.
Fucking. Sweet. I actually wrote this story!!
I'd like to have more information on this. But I don't find this surprising.

I imagine people that win this type of competitions capable to work obsessively on what they like, but also to be prone to ignore other things they find less challenging.
> Giving cryptic names to software is a well-established UNIX tradition

God, this is so true! I seriously think that world would be much better already if we would just rename many of well-established binaries and C-functions to more-intuitive, better convention. Even without changing APIs that much (which would be great too, of course).
How common is it for LaTeX to be used outside of academia? Even in academia, I only see a handful of people using it (in engineering).
Mixing many USB web cams on the cheap for a robot drum machine
Since job interviews and competitions are somewhat similar, I wonder if this also applies to job interviews.

I mean, job interviews are very competitive, they are time constrained, and they result in a binary decision made by some external authority, just like competitions.
I haven't really played video games much the last couple of years, which in part is due to hardware, but when I listen to coworkers talk about the video games they play, I have no desire to do anything about my hardware situation.

I have the feeling that in video games, like in big blockbuster movies, the trend appears to be replacing substance with special effects / fancy graphics and recycling the same old ideas over and over. (I am probably overgeneralizing somewhat, but I do so to make a point. If there have been any games lately that really disprove my point, I would very much like to hear about them!)
Two sources with absolutely no pro-Estonian bias. </sarc>
The conclusion this article offers is drawn from a badly flawed study from over a decade ago, which Google decided neither to publish nor to use the conclusions from.

A machine learning system was trained at Google as an attempt to do "scientific hiring." As their ground truth, the team used the performance reviews of people who had already been hired at Google. To optimistically give it the benefit of every doubt, this study says that Google put too much emphasis on success in programming competitions when it was making hiring decisions in the early 2000s.

To look at it more pessimistically, the possibility of correlations between the features cast doubt on that conclusion as well.
Working conditions and competition conditions are really different and the psychological implications of a competition has it's toll on the applicant.

Target applications, time limits, thinking, documentation, help usage differs in both conditions and better results for business can not be accomplished with artificial/inorganic restrictions.
I stopped watching/reading all forms of news including television, newspapers, Google News, Yahoo, whatever. Trust me, you won't miss anything.
Just the 9 weeks so far.
I thought that Google interview process was similar to this type of programming competitions.
A lightweight paste service with a Snap Feature (like Snapchat)
Also: Everyone should know this. There are still huge issues that need to be figured out before this becomes a commercial product. The 7% figure is bound to change depending on the speed you walk at (diff. speeds will likely require springs with diff. stiffnesses for optimal efficiency). Both Steve and Greg talked about future incarnations that could switch between multiple springs.

...and I didn't write that headline, or the dek (the thing under the head)
Programming contests are winner take all. Contemporary professional practice emphasizes collective success, teamwork, and group ownership of code. Two processes that select for opposite traits will often have negative correlation.
نقل عفش بتبوك
Two different, mis-aligned objectives and outcomes from the same origination point. And optimization for one doesn't equate to optimization for the other. You don't say?
https://github.com/FZUG/f21relparty