FZ1

Still incorrect. And I would urge you to read one of these books you reference - they ALL aim to achieve that agent's action ON ITS OWN - i.e., by learning from its environment, and NOT by being explicitly programmed.

Yes, there are many explicit if-else style programs in Russel & Norvig, & other books - but those are the 'training wheels', until better methods are developed. For actual AI, the training wheels are supposed to come off, and the agent learns and acts on its own.

Every program that has ever existed does this. So, you're saying that all programs that have ever existed, then, are all AI. You make no distinction whatsoever.

I would say that the more a program thinks on its own which actions to take to maximize its chances of success, the closer to AI it is.

If it's doing exactly what it's explicitly told, then it's not really intelligent, is it?

A* search, any kind of heuristic estimation, learning, or simulated reasoning. All of those things would count.

We don't need mathematical optimization to call it "AI", but there SHOULD be more than a simple if-then.

At least show me that you're path-finding. That's not even being done here - this is just path-following.

"I leave a trail, you follow it." Explain to me how that qualifies as AI. Simple BFS/DFS achieves a lot more than this - which is considered by most to not even really be AI.

A* search counts as academic AI. If-then statements do not.

AI does not mean ML

Hence the 'or' in my statement. Neither are present here.

the (possibly unattainable) ideal would be having everything expressed as "pretty much an if-then statement" indeed.

This is flatly incorrect - the point of AI is to have a machine achieve intelligent behaviors without explicit programming.

If an "if-then" must be written by a programmer for every single behavior, then this is called "programming". It is not called "artificial intelligence".

Why are they calling it "AI", though? There isn't any AI or ML.

You leave a trail for the enemy to follow, and they follow it.

It's not even path-finding, it's path-following. Which is pretty much an if-then statement.

It's a neat, simple approach, and fun to watch. But there isn't any learning, or knowledge, or other AI.

Adding the obvious numpy vectorization - I presume that counts as an 'open source project'?

Or maybe this is limited to little personal projects, and not major libraries ?

You're right that there is not any official standard.

But almost every major library follows a convention that's very similar to the cpython docs.

If you're making a language reference, shouldn't it look like the language ?

A key hallmark of Python is readability - which this cheat sheet has managed to royally screw up.

It looks more like an XML cheatsheet at first glance.

I work in python full-time for a living, and found myself having to re-examine several times to make sense of this wacky, non-standard notation.

-------

Edit:

Keep in mind there's a standard way to represent these options in a clear, consistent manner (lists, sequences, optional args).

No need to re-invent something that's hard to read and understand.

See: https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#sequence-typ...

The origin of the "standup" is just a regular daily coordination meeting - like thousands of organizations have always had.

Ever heard of a "morning sales meeting"? They've existed for decades - short, to the point, 15-20 min. No one's ever heard of scrum in sales meetings. This kind of thing exists in hundreds of other businesses as well.

Much like everything else in scrum, they are just trying to take credit for something people already did - so they can package it and sell it back to people as if it were a novel idea.

There's nothing new or special about scrum - except a reduction in productivity because of the additional overhead and meetings.

Just letting you know the link to the 10X article gives a 404.

I tried to read it, but "page does not exist".

----

Edit for clarification: First link in first paragraph after "10X" section header. About "visited the terrain before".

The think I don't like about scrum is that they teach that you literally don't need to know a single thing about the underlying business - in fact, that is discouraged - following the process to the letter is what counts.

It is sold as a one-size-fits-everything process model, which can be run by non-programmers with zero experience who took a few workshops and got a scrum "certification".

It applies to any business - now including finance, accounting, and more ...

So I'd say by definition, a scrum company can achieve level -1 or 0 at best. It fits the Level 0 description PERFECTLY.

An actual formalized process which could be optimized would have to be set by subject matter experts after some deliberation. And would be designed to make an impact on product and quality.

Scrum can never achieve this - because the fundamental idea is that you can manage any business with the same established process - it will fix all of them ... no matter what the problem is ...

Thank you for chiming in and clarifying. I was thinking of that 2013 page specifically - good to know it is now out of date.

"Elasticsearch has no concept of a user. Essentially, anyone that can send arbitrary requests to your cluster is a “super user”. "

https://www.elastic.co/de/blog/found-elasticsearch-security

This document says it twice verbatim - once as an emphasizes blurb of its own. It is also re-emphasized it in several other ways.

(same link as also posted by the Elasticsearch employee above).

Yeah, I read this link also - before posting above. There is no 'username' or 'password' term on that page - nor any positive checkmark in any security column for the open-source tier.

'Basic' tier does have 'File and Native Authentication'. But it is far from clear what that means.

More importantly, in several different places that _are_ clear about security in the Elastic documentation, it repeatedly says "there is no security", "assume anyone who can reach elastic is a superuser" ... and more ...

So if that is not true, the documentation should probably change ...

According to the docs, it's a 30-Day trial: https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/curr...

Are these docs out-of-date ? Does anyone know if any features remain after 30 days if you do not subscribe ?

No - I'm trying to say that people often don't even know what the DE really needs to do. They know they have back-end problems, and need someone to clean them up.

But often the hiring manager believes it's probably mostly SQL or mostly python, and advertises that. They really don't know - because someone left, and they are trying to replace them.

So you get there, and talk to the hiring manager, and they're like "are you good in SQL?".

Then you talk to someone closer to the problem, and they're like "most of it's in Java - how's your Java?".

Then someone even closer to the position says, "well, most of the work we need done is really in Scala".

It's your job to just take it over, and make it happen. "Fix the data" - using our existing patchwork of tools ...

This isn't always the case - but given the nature of the problem, this happens a hell of a lot more often than with Soft Eng's.

SE usually at least knows what language they're expecting you to mainly work in. Not always the case for DE.

hmm ... I didn't think about that. I wonder if the term is building a negative connotation?

It's the job of the job post to clarify the requirements.

I couldn't agree more. That's the exact thing I'm saying is a problem here.

When stuff is wrong, and we don't have enough people, and don't have a well-defined job, but need someone to just handle it .. "Data Engineer".

You get there, and everybody has a different idea as to what you should be doing, and what skills you should have.

I feel the term "Data Engineer" gets used for a lot of catch-all "we have problems that need an owner" situations.

There's not much consistency across job postings and interviews for this kind of thing.

I just interviewed for one "Data Engineer" position which consisted of nearly 100% stored procedures. No one knew what else to call it, and they didn't want to advertise for a DBA, because there were no real DBA responsibilities. So "Data Engineer" was chosen.

Another "Data Engineer" position was almost entirely Spark. There was no SQL involved - they expected all applicants to be Spark experts, with a deep knowledge of Scala.

It's hard to know what to expect out of "Data Engineer" positions until you walk into a place and start asking questions in the interview.

What else are they supposed to do? Apply to the same job again? There's little you can do if you never make contact or hear back. You just apply to other positions. But what if you don't hear from those either ... ?

Open to suggestions here - but no stalker advice, please - I do not condone friending hiring managers on linkedin/fb, or some of the other creepy tactics we've seen recently.

I think the skillful students generally believe that investing effort to become skillful is all that's needed - and that doing so will eventually pay off.

This is sadly not really true as a general statement.

I have had many 'successful' students - who got more than one offer to choose from. Once, I asked one - who now works at a major investment bank - "so, great job - any advice I should pass on to other students if they ask about job-hunting?" (taking note for myself also - as I am a soft. eng mainly, and only teach part-time).

I expected something like "invest in your skills" or python, or java, or databases, or interview questions ...

The response was: "yeah - copy and paste the job description to the bottom of your resume, and turn the font color to white - so humans can't see it, but the machine will still read it and label you a good match for the job".

My point here is that the current system seems to work best for those who 'game' it to behave in unintentional ways - as opposed to filtering for actually skillful applicants.

How many people respond to your job ads? Where I live (major US metropolis), it's about 200-700 per job (according to linkedin, anyways).

The biggest trouble for a soft. eng is getting to a real person. Once that is done, convincing them that you're median or better is the easy part. Most resumes are just screened out by a machine, or reviewed by a clueless HR dept that has no idea what a median-talent software engineer looks like.

I have taught hundreds of CS undergrads in this city, and have had some of the very brightest tell me they've put out 500-600 resumes, and never heard back a thing. Many do get jobs though - even some of the worst performers.

It's very hit-and-miss - not nearly as deterministic as you make it sound.

Thank you. Probably not felony, but definitely illegal. Not to mention high civil liability.

my age has never been brought up. Not even once IIRC

No one will ever bring it up.

Do you really think someone will take on the liability of discussing your [age|race|sex|sexual orientation] in an interview? ESPECIALLY as a reason to NOT hire you?

You don't need to be a 20-something to land a good job.

Agreed. However, your chances drop precipitously as you age.

Studies have found this to be the case repeatedly - with very little evidence to the contrary.

Sure you can. You just choose not to.

Much in the same way that you can jump in front of a moving bus if you want to - you just choose not to.

The implication is not that it's _impossible_ to walk away - it's that it just doesn't make any damn sense, given the likely outcomes.

Young people starting out in the labor market often have The Fear that they will never find a job or never find a good job or another good job.

Young people fear it. Older people know it.

Quit.

Not everyone is a 20-something silicon valley kid with companies falling all over themselves to throw money at them.

Hiring is effectively broken these days - especially in the software world.

If you're not from a top-flight university, maybe a little older, or in any other way less flashy/attractive in the job market, it can take months or sometimes years to get decent job interviews.

You can't just walk away from a decent income because idealism.

UUOC is a pedantic ford-chevy argument.

I don't disagree that the "thinking" process is entirely a physical process (electro-chemical, etc.).

However, we're not even at a point yet where we can articulate specifically what that physical process _is_ - much less reproduce simplified artificial versions of it.

To imply we've somehow captured the essence of thinking in a DNN - and that it just needs to get bigger and more complex - that is exactly the type of thing this guy is mocking (deservedly so).