the first question seems a tad ambiguous to me. Is a contiguous rectangular block a rectangle s.t. all restaurants == P, or is it rectangle in which every P has at least one immediate neighbor == P?
33 karma · joined December 18, 2009
Yes yes, I've asked ever so foolish a question and missed the fundamental problem, really failed to develop an overall understanding of the root causes of my interests and their dynamic nature, and lack a general theory of communication.
That, or, I had hoped that the widely read and interesting people who take the time to read arbitrary questions from strangers and give coherent, considered replies might direct me towards exactly the thing that I described: an internet content aggregator that is, in aggregate, more focussed on the technical and aesthetic issues, and less concerned with embedding those issues within a specific economic framework? A specific one that I can point ol' Chrome at?
More science, less startup. That's all I'm askin'. I do not care what Steve Jobs said to a guy who's iPhone was too beepy. I do care that a professor at MIT has claimed he's got a widget to beat photosynthesis, and I do care that someone's unearthed a video of bookbinding as practiced in 1947.
Certainly, I appreciate that I would be doing myself a disservice if I insisted that all I read, watched, or heard were something that I had already approved. I have no expectations that a community perfectly support anything. The nice thing about HN as a community is that I can ask this question, and perhaps find a supplementary community to address the imbalance that I personally experience. Also, I'm calling startup kids dorks cause I think it's dorky.
--Summer Glau
A+
The API is weak, though. Everyone knows you lead with something interesting, and go to the name only after an actual conversation. UNLESS you're using friend-based authentication, where a third party initiates the handshake.
Evaluating them means being clear with yourself about what makes one a suitable candidate. Extracurricular projects of any sort are going to be invaluable, but ask general problem-solving questions and feel out how they do. Do they ask questions when they're stumped, but don't get stumped until they've chewed the problem over for themselves? That's the number one sign of a good junior programmer.
The test was given to students before the first bit of instruction in computer science (and for the sake of simplicity, let's assume it controlled for those with previous experience). Basically, students were given a problem set of code snippets in a non-existent language, and were asked to write what the code evaluated to, i.e. 34 @@ 14 --> [2], followed by possible answers.
It turned out that the students who performed well in their subsequent CS courses were not those who got the right answers, or those who got the wrong answers, but those who answered consistently. The best single predictor of a good student of CS (not strictly equivalent to a programmer in a startup...) was forming a consistent model of what they were looking at, and sticking with it.
That said, if you want to edit photos, or do pixel-based image manipulation of any sort, it's superb piece of software.
"I have a difficult time relating attempted solutions because I'm still not sure what the problem is."
To me, this says that you've already found the fundamental truth of desire-- you cannot sate it with its own ends, as counterintuitive as that is. I realize this is starting to sounds like the dreaded "get religion" solution, but there's no magic or mystery in these approaches. Just 2500 years of close examination human life.
Two specific, small things: I recommend a short, easy book, "Everyday Zen" by Charlotte Joko Beck. Try to sit still and just breathe for around 20 minutes. It's just as easy and just as hard as it sounds.
The other thing that works the same for every other skill is to teach it. Get a friend who feels the same, and teach each other math. This works pretty well when you're not even talking to a real person, even. Just having to formulate your understanding solidly enough to convey it to someone else reveals where you get it and where you don't.
The personal trick that will help though I find is the hardest to do consistently is to be OK with not getting it. You'll spend a lot of time not understanding, so get comfortable with that fact and keep going. For myself, I tend to back off the subject when I don't get it right away, but I learn much faster when I stick with the stuff that makes me uncomfortable.
Prescriptively, try looking at How To Prove It for an explanation of what's going on in proofs, and how to engage with them.
That said, it's got a decent hit rate of showing me links I'm interested in so far.