In the past yes, but that's not the case anymore.
-4 karma · joined July 5, 2020
Maybe such a course that covers what's needed to get into that top 10% doesn't exist yet but I'm sure it can exist and I would gladly pay for such a course to attain the required mastery rather than explore the space haphazardly myself.
Do any professional security experts know of such a course? Are any of you willing to start one?
The Magic comes more from things like games and computer graphics and deep learning.
All sources are ideas in itself and If all "ideas" under your definition have a source, this means every source also has a source because they are ideas themselves. By induction this leads to the existence of ideas with an infinite chain of sources... Which is impossible.
By logic, the Chain must terminate at an idea without a source. Thus it can be said that:
All ideas are built from an idea without a source.
The exception to this rule is the existence of a cycle in this chain:
An initial idea that refers to another idea that refers to the initial idea as its source; A closed loop.
What the poster means by "novel idea" as opposed to "idea" is the terminal idea at the end of these source chains.
In short, the inception of all "novel ideas" begin without a source. Again, we call this "novel idea" The axiom or the assumption.
The strange thing about the axiom itself is an entity that "bans the distinction between truth and fiction" and is ironically the foundation of all human logic.
Another word for this is a "paradox" something we both shun and use as the foundation for all human logic.
Freedom has pros and cons. The historical foundations of Freedom in America is an idealistic notion that should be tempered with modern knowledge about the price and complexity of freedom.
My friend in China has told me that the crisis has largely been contained in in their country. The irony here being they have less freedoms than we do but they can now go out in public without worrying about transmitting or receiving covid.
I agree this exists but I think most white people in general are just really afraid of being called racist and would never consciously do something racist. Overall, I think the racism that is most prevalent in Tech is subconscious. White people have a bias towards white people that they aren't aware about... that's all. Most white people keep friends that are also by majority white and likely they did not choose that outcome deliberately. So yeah, a "racist" hiring manager might keep an eye on an Asian, but they will likely not be aware they're doing it based on race. Again, not saying this is 100% the case and there are definitely people who consciously discriminate, but I believe that for the majority of white people, it is subconscious. I don't know your opinion on that, as a white person I'm sure you may have a better perspective.
>However, having been in predominantly Chinese and Korean social circles, I have had more than a few conversations on the subject and have observed quite a bit of racism towards Asian-Americans.
Racism is prevalent for sure, but again, I was just emphasizing a very specific thing: the lack of diversity in tech. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist. But for diversity in tech I believe it's mostly similar to the pipeline problem for ballerinas. There is an extreme lack of males trying to become ballerinas... I think we can both agree that the disparity exists not due to extreme sexism by females trying to put a complete stop on all males from entering the industry.
>I think the racism against black people in the U.S. is different both in kind and degree vs. the racism against persons of East Asian or South Asian decent.
It is different, no question. However I would say that the a great portion of the differences in treatment actually stem from a generalized reputation that is an exaggeration of very real statistical difference between races. You may look at a random Asian stranger and a random African American stranger and predict the Asian stranger is more affluent. This assumption isn't just a baseless stereotype... it stems from an actual statistical reality. Asians are statistically more affluent than African Americans. Is it racist to make predictions about individual people based off of probabilities? We use probability to predict all kinds of outcomes for all kinds of things... but it becomes immoral when we use it on race? I have no answer for what's the right way to deal with this moral conflict, but I feel it is important to pose the question nonetheless.
>As far as dating, as a white guy over 6 feet tall, I've run into a lot more Asian women who seem primarily interested in dating guys over 6 feet rather than Asian women who seem primarily interested in dating white guys. Maybe that's a common convenient lie because it's more politically acceptable. However, at least 2 of them later married 6-foot tall Chinese guys, and I think the majority were being honest about their preferences.
There's a very real race thing going on here. Just watch that video I posted, those women are clearly talking about race, not height. There's other videos as well...:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52dQSX-DCN0
While most women do have a huge bias for height and white males tend to be taller than asian males I do believe there is a separate phenomenon going on here in terms of race.
Where I stand right now even my own race, asian females prefer to date white males over their own race. If you don't believe me watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ8LzkIfmxw. That's just one aspect of the extent of racism we suffer from. It's so bad that females of our own race are disgusted with males of the same race.
I've seen a lot of racism, I've had to battle a lot of the challenges of simply being an asian in a white dominated country, my parents had an even harder time with the language barrier when they first jumped off the boat with literally a dollar in their pocket.
Despite all of this, from my own personal experience I will say this:
The lack of diversity in tech is mostly a pipeline problem. Certain races or cultures or sexes simply don't want to go into tech or aren't willing to put in the effort. You don't even need to go to college anymore to get in, the financial barriers of entry for tech are extremely low.
That is not to say racism is not a problem in tech, but it is by far a pipeline problem by a huge margin. As a member of a minority who has experienced a lot of racism, I will say that for tech specifically, the racism/sexism problem is overblown. If you don't trust my anecdotal experience then google which race has the highest average income in the United States: Asians.
I haven't even presented data, I just presented a hypothesis using a BBC article about India as an anecdotal example.
The article is literally from the BBC. You are literally saying the BBC is completely wrong about India. If that's the case then really the onus of proof is on you. Why should I trust the arbitrary words of some guy on the internet over the BBC? I mean I don't even completely trust the BBC but I trust you even less.
All the stuff you wrote could be pulled out of your ass. Just reference your sources about inaccurate covid data from India if you want me to believe you, which I will if you provide at the very least a source that has equal weight to my own source... Like I'll even take Fox news as evidence enough to dispute the veracity of BBC.
>Your hypothesis assumes they are all not dying from low hygiene. They probably are, in large numbers, and are just not being counted.
I mean isn't what you just said just another hypothesis? Worth considering. The same quantitative analysis done on my suggestion will say something about your hypothesis as well. Either way worth looking into.
I mean, we're just talking about India here, my hypothesis extends past India. I can use other anecdotal data for comparison...
Given this: https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.STA.BASS.ZS/r...
The country with the lowest hygiene index is Ethiopia. Total corona virus deaths: 167. That's a small, small amount. You say shitty data as well? I say, it could be, but low hygiene needs to be investigated as this is what the OP's comment is suggesting.
So Obviously, it it Evidence? No. Worth looking into? Yes.
If I was jewish, I feel that right now I would just be slightly worried for myself. In general I wouldn't be too worried at all. I would, however, be more worried for my jewish kids, they may have to deal with that stuff in the future.
Although I would worry, I would question whether my worry is based on ethical grounds as that part is not clear.
In India, People throw trash everywhere, defecate everywhere, piss everywhere, wipe their rear ends with their hands, eat with their hands, and also shake other peoples' hands with the same hands... In general, it's well known that India is a pretty low hygienic country. Which may explain this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52435463
Basically low hygiene exposes people to more diseases allowing their bodies to develop greater immunity inline with the quotation you mentioned above.
There may be a correlation. I just gave some anecdotal data... Maybe some data scientist can find the correlation between two quantitative datasets: quantitative hygiene levels by country and deaths/infections of covid-19 by country.
As for genetics, most of your genetics are on display every time you walk out the door. People look at you and they can have a good guess about a huge portion of your genes. For example if you have a beard and a penis you probably have a Y chromosome, though this is more challenging to figure out nowadays.
Thus mostly their's really nothing left to hide in terms of genetics. In terms of finances... while I specifically have nothing to hide, more people have things to hide in this area.
From an individual standpoint I really don't care about someone out in the public knowing my genome. It's not like I store my passwords on my genome, how is this information going to be used against me?
Science and reality exist separate to your ethical constructs, and there is scientific evidence that proves it.
You view the world as a two sided hypothesis. Either nature or nurture with nature being racist so nurture is better. But you are aware that this isn't true on some level. You know that genetics influences differences in behavior between men and women so much so that men and women across the globe can be fit into certain behavioral stereotypes that are sexist to talk about but at the same time exist as a permanent part of the fabric of reality. Anecdotally it is literally impossible to ignore the masculine behavioral traits of a trans woman because the genetics influencing behavior are so prevalent.
That's not evidence however. Let's not get into that because anecdotal arguments can become circular: When I present an example and you rewrite reality so that it fits your ethical world view or vice versa. Let us consider scientific studies. Is behavior caused nature or nurture or both? Obviously both, but let us see what happens when we control the nature part by only looking at twins or triplets separated at birth. What are the behavioral differences?:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/5-true-storie...
I have long discovered that there's no such thing as a "mic dropper" the extent that humans will go to bend the evidence and examine improbable possibilities to maintain their ethical and moral world view is extensive. A logical argument will not convert a christian to an atheist and it will not change you. What follows from you, if you read this, is a long and involved break down to discredit my evidence a reexamination of the context from biased angles until you use the logic to construct a universe that fits the world how you see it rather than the world as it truly is.
The bottom line is: genetics made your brain therefore it influences your brain and in turn, your behavior. If such genetic differences exist between twins and between sexes then it must exist between race.
And keep in mind... never ever did I say environment is not a major influence for behavior. I never said otherwise i am only saying that to ignore genetics and say that genetics do not influence race is scientific folly and irrationality.
Anybody have any first hand accounts on using drugs to calm anxiety before the interview?
Therefore her business interests are orthogonal to her opinions on "interviews." She may still be biased, but I don't think business interests color her bias.
We ask them this because, literally on the job our employees are suppose to program robots that make manhole covers. Daily problems we face include deciding whether we should program the robots to make square manhole covers or round manhole covers. Really hard stuff... and you really need to be able to figure out why manhole covers are round or how many golf balls can fit in a bus in order to do the job... If you can't figure this stuff out you're not qualified to work for my company.
Not to mention, as I said before, none of our programming happens using computers. We do it all on a whiteboard in under an hour while the client is over our shoulder watching.
Google is basically using anxiety to filter good candidates and eliminate false positives which works in a sense but is still highly illogical.
Why not use a technical filter to filter for technical candidates? Anxiety seems like a pointless filter.... how does that even eliminate false positives?
Science serves as definitive evidence which side is right or wrong.
What's different from you and many other people is that you admit and face your bias rather than justify it.
I'm seriously curious what google interview board members have to say about this study. People like Gayle Laakmaan have been saying things to justify the whole process for years; but now that there's actual science, what do they have to say in the face of science?
As soon as an issue is raised by our clients, they immediately kick off a 40 minute long timer and put a physical whiteboard in front of us asking us to solve the whiteboard problem in front of them in under an hour. All the while the client is physically behind us commenting on our code and watching our every move as we paint the whiteboard with a solution. This is literally what happens to me and my engineers on the Job. All of our code happens on the whiteboard (we don't use editors or keyboard or mice!.)
The only thing we need to deliver to our client is a picture of our code on the whiteboard along with some trivial complexity analysis and our client pays us money for coding under pressure.
Our interviews just consists of me doing the exact same thing as what happens on the job and therefore our interviews are 100% identical to our real life coding problems.
When science tells someone that the interview process they've been conducting for years is essentially wrong people have to sort of remake reality and their own reasoning to justify the science rather than admit fault. Obviously, this isn't what's happening with me or you in this case.... the interview process at my company is 100% identical to real world scenarios so I'm good.
I've always been telling everyone I know since before this article that I interview for anxiety not useless technical skills; anxiety is what determines whether a developer is great or not.
I'm Chinese, the topic was about educational fraud in China and I made a negative comment associating corruption and Chinese culture in general:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23781696
I felt the reaction by dang was out of hand and overblown especially given the fact that he likely has no actual first hand knowledge about the topic. It's also a reaction that I feel is unique to the culture in the United States. Definitely, there are racial issues in the United States with issues like Floyd, but I'm not commenting about that issue, I'm talking about freedom of speech and when it's appropriate to say things that are the result of "orthodox privilege."
The united states is one of the least racist countries in the world. This is a very commendable trait that every citizen should be proud of but every citizen should also be aware that in being the least racist country in the world, the United States, as a result, also has one of the most irrational opinions on race and equality.
A black person is generally bigger, taller and stronger than an asian person. Black people are so much further to the right with the bell curve on these traits that the olympic gold medals in strength based sports are typically taken by people of African descent while even rich countries like China with targeted programs to win gold medals rarely bring home gold for strength based sports. These are just biological generalities that are true and that are accepted that not all people/races are equal from a physical standpoint.
However if I say an one race generally has higher biological IQ then another race... I crossed a line. What black magic allows people to be biologically different physically but doesn't allow them to be biologically different behaviorally or mentally?
Sure, maybe none of the IQ differences are real and there might be research somewhere that normalizes racial IQ scores when you account for things like socioeconomic background... However, the backlash for even bringing up a topic on biological and racial IQ is outright vicious and as I said before: unique to the United States in terms of the level of intensity.
There's definitely government oppression in China in terms of what you can and cannot talk about, but there's none of this irrational touchy touchy equality stuff you get in the United States. Speech in the united states is regulated by culture and society rather than centrally like in China.. It Changes the overall nature of what is censored and what you can and cannot talk about...
For example if you're born with a big nose in China, that basically becomes your nickname in China. I literally have a friend with a big nose and everyone just calls him "Big Nose." I also have a friend in China who's fat and his Chinese nickname is Fatass. People just call him "Fatass" by name and it's considered slightly derogatory, inline with "Big Nose" but otherwise not a big deal because it's also the physical reality. This is in stark contrast to the states where there's a whole Body positivity movement is trying to change reality as we know it.
I'm not going to comment on whether being obese is healthy or not, it could or it could not be... but I will say that the Body positivity movement exists not because of there's scientific proof that being obese can be healthy... it exists because people are so scared of being insensitive and having their precious feelings hurt that they want to rewrite reality into viewing fat obese people as culturally normal. Again this phenomenon is uniquely prevalent in the United States and not only unique to race and weight. Another example of this occurs in gender pronouns but let's not get into that, I'm sure you already get the point.
I have a different conclusion than Paul. I would say that you're conventional minded if you're afraid to talk about or think about very real yet hard to stomach taboo topics that are True. Cultural biases caused by guilt from past injustices in the United States has taken hysteria and fear to unreasonable levels. I would tell Paul and anyone in a similar situation to take a good look at themselves. If you can't comfortably have a scientific conversation about biological IQ, weight, gender and race without fear of losing your job or offending someone how is that different from the christian religion making you feel uncomfortable talking about evolution and natural selection?
The cultural biases and conventional thinking exists in the people who are incapable of talking about truth, not the other way around.
It could be my personal situation was not representative of the norm.
In reality, for this specific topic, the canyon is not so wide as you believe and I don't think you have the relevant cultural context to make such a judgement call on how wide it is. It's a century old question... how much freedom of speech and how much censorship and at what cost?
In this case you chose to censor something that could potentially be flame bait (but wasn't) at the cost of preventing any discussion about a very real and general truth about China.
I'm not into showing off ranking or pedigree but I do genuinely believe that the higher the pedigree your school the more likely the exams will be harder and require total understanding and even creativity over rote memorization.
The reason is because memorization is trivial. Students able to get into any top school will likely all easily achieve full score on an ordinary tests. The professors at top schools need to make these tests brutally hard in order to produce a bell curve.
I literally had one new professor at my school actually give a mid term that was what would ordinarily be called fair in any other school or college... but the entire class ended up getting nearly full score.
He realized his mistake and the final was way, way harder.
I think it's hard to look at yourself. You gotta look at other people. Do you think this is necessarily true? Do tons and tons of stupid people think they're smart and tons and tons of smart people think they're stupid?
In general I've seen some of the former and almost none of the latter... mostly people know their place and how good they are relative to the entire ecosystem.
You didn't contain anything. You didn't even respond to the subthread where people were were actually starting fires. You just threw a warning at me after most of the conversation already played out. Not only did a fire not happen, you showed up after most people left the premises.
>I'm sorry, but I have to pull rank about this,
Go ahead and pull rank man. You can even ban me if you wanted to, it's your right. I'm not trying to say anything to the contrary. The servers are based in the states, but they're private property so you are 100% in your rights to do whatever you want.
>The issue is the expected value of the subthread
No offense, but your "years of experience" or "expected value" is equivalent to your "biased opinion" because, as other people in this thread and I have shown, we had another "biased opinion" on what that probability distribution for the expected value looked like. To me it doesn't look like flame bait and it looks like their's plenty of flame retardant as well. Either way, none of these predictions or opinions really matter in the face of what actually occurred.
The expected value of a post is a moving target that eventually coalesces into the actual demonstrated value of the post.
The actual value of this post demonstrates that no flamewar occurred. So you were wrong while other people and I were right.
Whatever... if you want me to add more "flame retardant" next time I'll add it. It doesn't change the fact that for this thread you showed up onsite with a firehose to put out a fire that never occurred.
The context is fraud in China. The context involves multiple people from all walks of life and society in China contributing to the fraud. A stark contrast to how corruption occurs in the states. I don't think it's obvious flamebait at all. The definition of what is flamebait itself is rather vague..
A good way to definitively define flamebait is to call it any comment which starts a flamewar.
This means a definitive classification of flamebait can only be crystallized after the posting of the comment in question and observing the resulting aftermath...
In this case I see no flamewar, so I don't believe my comment constitutes as such.