aplusbi

A ninja developer is someone that no one on the team has ever seen or interacted with but somehow gets their work done. Usually in the dead of night.

This reminds me a phone screening that I self-sabotaged:

In the "skills" section of my resume I have a list of technologies that I have "limited experience" with, on which I have included C# and Python.

During the interview the interviewer started a question with "In C#..." to which I interrupted him to mention that my knowledge of C# was pretty limited. The question turned out to be a pretty easy question about OO (or something like that). The next question started with "In Python..." and I again interrupted him, only to have him ask an easy question about dynamic vs. static typing.

This is sort of the opposite problem, where I was so afraid of overstating my abilities to the point where I made myself look bad.

I always find it interesting how we (as humans) are not expected to act the same way as companies.

A company can end an interview early and it's not rude.

A company can terminate an employee without notice and it's not rude.

A company can change dress code and it's not rude.

That's not to say that people won't complain, just that these things are perfectly normal.

I'm glad you are motivated enough to give yourself a complete college education with an internet connection, and smart enough to parse all that information in a vacuum without advisors/peers to help.

Not all of us are as fortunate as you are.

I live and bike in NYC and often carry two locks, one which cost me $80-90 and another that cost me $40-50. My commuter bike is more expensive than my locks, but not by that much.

From the article: "For others, it might be hanging on the couch, eating Taco Bell and watching bad cable all week."

It doesn't sound like FullContact requires you to use the money in any particular way, they just won't give it to you unless you take a "vacation" (where vacation may be staying at home working on your hobby).

Do you agree that the best way to dispose of liquid explosives is to carelessly toss them into a large trashcan in the middle of a large crowd?

The ads are targeted towards trade schools and GED programs.

You're falling for the same fallacy that altrego99 is: your opinions and experiences are not the same as others.

For some people, having children is not worth it. For others, having children is.

The title is a bit misleading and I'm not entirely sure what the "1 hour" actually refers to. The author suggests studying 10 minutes at a time, preferable twice a day most days of the week (so that's 1-2 hour a week). He also suggests going to every office hour (so that's at least another hour per week). That's in addition to treating class like you are studying (2-4 hours per week).

In reality, this is "how to get a 4.0 without cramming".

It does make the situation more complex, but sexual harassment isn't black and white. There is a huge difference between investigating a harassment claim and determining that no harassment took place and completely ignoring it.

Most "office workers" have humanities degrees. I remember hearing that a degree in English was a useful default-major because "it's useful everywhere."

This isn't the case anymore, for a variety of reasons, but it certainly used to be true that graduating from college with a degree in anything gave you an advantage in the job market.

Not my analogy, and I agree it was terrible.

Are you not familiar with Locksport?

It sounds like people are [mis-]using the word "hard" to mean "selective".

I don't think Walter Bright meant that listing the courses you took on your resume is going to make you more (or less) employable. I think the point was that taking difficult classes will better prepare your for work.

I slightly disagree with this position, difficult doesn't mean better (depending on your definition of better). For example, I would have been better served to take a class on databases rather than a class on computational geometry.

Well that's okay, they did it wrong in the movie anyway (they get the constraints wrong).

Those kind of questions should be taken out back and put out of their misery, but I don't think there's anything to suggest that adestefan was asking those kinds of questions.

And people who know the material should be able to answer those questions without any difficulty. What's the problem?

I think your latter assertion is the point - the statisticians refused to gamble and many of the hotels' services are provided at a loss to help bring in gamblers.

I thought Ruby and Python were in the Perl-class of programming languages.

The S2 fits in my pocket better than the HTC G1 did as it is so much thinner. The real problem is that it's too big to fit in my hand. I got the S2 not because of its size but because it was the best Android phone at the time (in terms of hardware anyway, battery life leaves something to be desired).

The point is not that women adopting their husband's names is misogynistic but rather that the need to excuse women who don't is misogynistic.

If it were really purely functional it wouldn't even warm up. When you compile your code, referential transparency would result in your executable being nothing more than the final value produced by your code.

I never said he wasn't asking for money, just that he wasn't trolling. He is well within his rights to ask for money and I personally don't think it's unethical for him to either. The Daily Mail is profiting from his work.

I wouldn't say HN is anti-copyright but rather anti-copyright-troll (certainly there are anti-copyright people on HN but I believe that are the minority).

This is a perfect example of why copyright exists in the first place - the original creator wishes to be compensated for the use of work that he created recently.

The problem is when copyright is owned by someone other than the creator, owned indefinitely, used to stifle innovation, etc.

Yes absolutely. If he made no discoveries at all we wouldn't even know who he was.

Do you honestly believe that using this discussion as a starting point for a general discussion on having scientists on money is insensitive?

Obviously not, it's near impossible to get into a discussion about Alan Turing without bringing up the way he was treated. However British money already features scientists (Turing, if selected, will replace Darwin) and this has far more to do with recognizing Turing's accomplishments than his treatment.

There are many people who think that it's a good idea to feature scientists on money and making that suggestion for US money isn't in anyway taking Turing's treatment lightly.

The context of this is "put a famous mathematician on the £10" so it hardly makes light of anything.

They are "retiring" Darwin and will be replacing him with someone else anyway. May as well make it Alan Turing.