vorhemus

I find statements like "boosted sales by x%" completely out of place on a resume. Imagine you are an account/sales manager at AWS - cloud sales will still go for a while, no matter what you do. So you are basically just riding the wave of booming cloud which is completely independent of your personal sales skills.

If attributes such as age or gender are strong features for certain dependent variables that improve the predictive performance of a model, then it must be allowed to use these variables. For example, it is well known that colorectal cancer is more prevalent in men over the age of 50 - so a statistical model used to allocate free colorectal exams would favor old men. Is that discriminatory? Likewise, for any given variable, one will find certain features that favor men or women, young or old; finding these dependencies is precisely the point behind statistical models.

I know it's an unpopular opinion but I have the feeling that most of these "Ethics in AI" movements are either pure marketing or an easy way in for free rider into the hyped field of AI even though they have little to contribute except shallow papers or promoting their political agenda.

What amazes me every time I read articles like this is that some companies are apparently so afraid of hiring the wrong people because that's costly - and at the same time they don't mind throwing abandoned projects that did cost millions of dollars on the graveyard every month.

I also have one: https://allagora.wordpress.com/2021/01/23/technology-makes-i...

I still don't understand what the benefit of those standard text blocks is.

That's a pretty dangerous attitude in my opinion and if you spin it further, it can quickly lead to a divided society: A bar decides that it doesn't serve Biden supporters. Would you say: No problem, go to another? What if this other bar decides it doesn't serve men in general? Such rules, perceived as unfair, would quickly lead to resentment and hatred among the affected groups and a feeling of not being part of society.

If people are excluded from services, there should be rational reasons for it and these reasons should be social consensus.

Media platforms should train their own engineers from an early age with their own money instead of hiring them "for free" after the public has paid their school education.

That's your style of argumentation and I doubt it brings us far.

That sounds like a religion: You don't know exactly what you get, there are no guarantees but if you really believe in it (and pay your marketing church tax) you'll probably end up in CTR heaven.

Isn't it a sign of system failure when a researcher has to beg and plead to get his results published and no one is interested in his publication until someone who understands the break through happens to stumble across it?

That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy: If a lot of investors and angels want them succeed, they will succeed. I doubt that it is always hard work and passion that make the difference in whom to invest, I think there are other variables that are less talked about (e.g. sympathy).

Good code is code that everyone in a team can understand, safely modify and maintain.

Every few weeks this topic comes up and the complaint is always the same: Coding interviews have nothing to do with day-to-day work. But who says that this is the goal of those interviews? Maybe these companies simply want young, ambitious and smart people and their coding interviews measure exactly that: Young (has enough time practicing leetcode questions), ambitious (is willing to spend time practicing leetcode questions) and smart (recently graduated and still has detailed CS and algorithmic knowledge in mind and is mentally capable of solving algorithmic problems).

It's surprising that the fact "Something that works for Google doesn't necessarily work for company X" is not common knowledge.

I wonder if citizens of Detroit made the same predictions in the 1970s.

It's tempting to just linearly project the status quo into the future but looking at this graph here (https://cdn.howmuch.net/articles/61-c98f-5e41.jpg) it is highly possible that IT/Tech will play a less dominant role in 2067 than today including that the next big corporations potentially grow and rise in completely different areas than SF and Silicon Valley.

The variety of tools that many software engineers work with today is so large that I find it virtually impossible to fully master them.

Let's say a software engineer writes a C++ application that stores documents in an inverted index and he also takes care that the program is stored in a docker container and deployed to Elastic Kubernetes Service via Jenkins. Good luck understanding your IDE, C++, Tries/Radix trees, docker, Jenkins and EKS "all the way down to the metal".

It may be possible for a small subset of those but if the expectation for great engineers really is to deeply understand "all that they touch", I wonder how many can keep up with this standard.

> Many technical resumes miss the results and the numbers

How are those number of any help if I can just arbitrarily select those that are in my favor and ignore the rest?

> Increased user engagement 27% by refactoring our front-end experience in React.

Was it really your refactoring that caused those 27% or something else? Did your refactoring had any negative side effects that you are not talking about? How do I know it was really 27 and not just 2%?

Numbers are useless without context and contexts are often company-specific or purely a matter of opinion.

It's a simple question of mass market: How many companies need (and are willing to pay) performance optimized C++ services? And how many need a plain old website and a simple admin interface to add some text?

My assumption would be that this can be easily solved by a bot in 2020 or am I missing something? Especially because every time I got the galaxy captcha so far, they always asked for the spiral one.

Pretending to be from a certain newspaper does not justify arrest, but he could have been taken to the police station for identity verification (possibly § 263 criminal offence of fraud according to the German Criminal Code)

I increasingly feel that coding interviews are primarily a company's marketing tool ("Look, we have such high barriers to entry, we're exclusive!") rather than real reviews of software engineering skills.

It looks like at least some of those ideas are inspired by quotes from people. If you click on the info (i) icon you see some background information.