arsenide

If you were interviewing for such a position and came across this candidate, would they have a "very difficult interview?" How would you treat them differently, and why is that okay?

Do you think, perhaps, after being aware of these biases it makes it easier to determine someone's "smartness" based on a sequence of interactions as described in the article?

If you talk to any professional or decent amateur of the board game Go, he or she will tell you that mastering the basics is fundamental, and is used at every possible moment in the game. In the same vein, this is how I often view programming: having strong knowledge of the fundamentals allows for immediate and precisely correct planning and action in the moves to come.

In one of my favorite Go books entitled Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go, the author Kageyama expresses the same sentiments: mastering the basics is fundamental for progression at every point in the player's career. He begins the book with what is very much an exercise taking some time and thought: there were no shortcuts to solve this problem for the beginner this book is aimed for. It is the same in programming: mastering anything (even the fundamentals) involves much time and effort.

As I become stronger at the game, I am finding new wisdom in the same advice Kageyama gives. I can read the same paragraph a few months apart and get different tangible results out of it. I have often had the same experience programming: I can use certain expressions and programming constructs without knowing the intricacies of them, but as I progress in my programming career, I am also able to understand these constructs, often at a lower level, to my great benefit.

I frequently go back to this book and always find new wisdom to improve my game. I strive to do the same with programming: just because I know how lambda functions in Python work does not mean I should be ignorant of the possibility that I may not know everything about them and tangentially related concepts.

From where in the post do you get this idea?

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by "bloated," and could you give an example of something "easier to develop with?", explaining why it is "easier" to use?

To clarify: I'm particularly speaking about the parent's use of the term "sidegrade." I'm not disagreeing with the idea that 24/7 uptime should be paid for (because I agree), but to call the change in terms of service a "sidegrade" is a misrepresentation of what it actually is: a downgrade in services for my particular use case.

You can call it what you want, but for what I (and others presumably) use it for, the 24/7 uptime is essential. Sure an argument can be made for needing to pay for 24/7 uptime, but it is very clearly a downgrade in such a case where such an argument even needs to be made!

But it is a potential conflict of interest, hence it is something worth addressing, no? Especially it's in the best interests of both the cops and the people.

Around my third year in mathematics, I had the same realization: I did not know what I wanted to specialize in. After some thought, I understood it to be because I did not know enough about all the various fields to make a solid decision.

Though mathematics and computer engineering are two distinct fields, consider that this may be a similar position to the one you are in.

For what reason would someone choose to use Quora over Ask(subreddit)?

(Serious question as I have no idea)

"their expected remaining lifetime does not decrease with age." (emph REMAINING) implies that two lobsters, at 1 and 10 years, each have the same probability to live for some number X years in the future for some fixed X. This seems to me a certainly false statement, where you claim otherwise. Can you elaborate?

Can you elaborate on your reasons instead of stating non-obvious "truths?"

Source? I've only heard of sound intensity (not duration of sound) contributing to eventual hearing loss.

I love this idea, and the website is so clear and inviting. I'd order some right now if I was on the other side of the US. :)

I use Mailinator[1] for these purposes (which has hundreds of domains to generate emails for), and I have not been convinced to switch. After going to this site, I have to press a button before an email is generated for me. This doesn't optimize my use of a similar service (in fact, it is slower): I come across some site that needs an email where I prefer not to divulge mine, and I put in something like "signmeup@mailinator.com". I then go to Mailinator and do email confirmation, if necessary, with this open inbox. Some sites don't even require email confirmation to make an account, so I don't even have to deal with Mailinator! How great!

In the case of this website, I have to open up a new tab and go here first, note the random email name generated to me, put it in the signup box, and maybe tab back and click a confirmation link mailed to the inbox.

Sure, it's a bit nitpicky, but I see no direct improvement made on existing services for my particular use case. If I need a "private inbox" for a website signup, I probably care enough to use my own personal email.

[1] http://mailinator.com/

I always read the comments first, and recently have rarely been reading the articles unless there is no discussion yet, or it seems really interesting.

I do have a personal rule that I will never, under any circumstance, comment without reading the article in its entirety first.

I will certainly agree: there should be more skepticism for such at article by a known untrustworthy author. Does that mean we should immediately dismiss something written by him?

Your advice is good to take in general: don't trust what you read without judging both the credentials of the writer and the content the writer is putting forth. But to dismiss it based only on the author is shortsighted. I see nothing in your reply specifically about the content of the article, does anything else truly matter? Sure, take the author's history and intentions into consideration, but at the end of the day the content is what matters.

Why are you judging the merits of an article by the author and not the content?

I don't hate it, but I don't like it enough to use it. Any apps I download I do from the App Store from my iPhone, and for music I use Spotify almost exclusively.

For cable/internet in my limited experience with Time Warner and Comcast (US), there is a "passphrase" to be used if account details are to be changed. This was the case for certain two years ago, but maybe things have changed now.

Also, the electric companies and cable companies are in fairly separate domains so I'm not sure your analogy is apt.

If you're sure it's not what he meant, it's not an ambiguous question.

"we'll see a fully polished Apple clone of glass that doesn't suck..." but it sucks? What do you mean?