HN user
Why not list the pros/cons of each method and let the candidates choose their poison. Whichever metric they think they would be best at given their constraints.
Still requires work and a subjective estimation of candidate skill because you have to make a judgment across metrics instead of within one, but I mean, everybody wins in this case, right?
Well, you're right. The people sharing the resources are doing it for education's sake - for anyone that's interested. I think it's more accurate to say I feel locked out
I get what you mean. I've been applying the skillset to Kaggle problems, each of which I imagine contain multiple subproblems which companies might face. But kaggle standings, in my experience, dont seem to be too convincing a metric for job openings.
The problem with the MOOC ecosystem at the moment is there's no clear path forward with them. I'd have imagined the MOOC certifications solving this problem, but I feel networking plays a much bigger role in the job market rather than credibility.
The only exception I see is Udacity, which, by its pricing has created a limited pool of graduates, and therefore are valued much higher
I work as a Mechatronics engineer and I have an interest in AI. I've personally gone through a lot of the online resources out there: 1. Andrew Ngs Deep learning MOOC
2. Fast AI parts 1 & 2
3. The old Google Machine learning course
But, what next?. From my experience, this doesn't give you enough credibility to get you a job interview at even a small sized firm, let alone Google.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate all the fantastic AI learning resources out there. Its incredibly enabling, but I feel like I'm missing the point of this - Is it to enable people to start companies using AI based tech, and grow the google compute based ecosystem? If its to grow the number of AI jobs and eligible people for those jobs, I have doubts whether that's actually working, or am I missing something?
I'm not sure if I agree with the author. Hackers do care about political issues. My question is whether political discussions over short form text do more harm than good to a community. To me, HN detoxing politics seems more like the librarian enforcing a rule of silence rather than encouraging ostriching. And polarizing topics like politics, especially over short form text, to me, seems like it would destroy that ideal of HN.
That being said, the Internet sure could use a proper forum for political discussions.
In my experience, It's never time which is the problem, it's mental attention. Having 4 hours of free time at the end of a tiring day is meaningless if you don't have the mental energy to actually use it.
Isn't it just more succinct to say we have tribal instincts because of our evolutionary origins? I see heated debates in politics, religion, even sports, because people identify from a certain "tribe". And I agree with Paul there, from what I have noticed, tribalism does seem to give you a certain blindspot to opposing arguments
I wonder how related this is to the mechanics behind confirmation bias. We all have a tendency to seek out get evidence that matches our "predictions" so to say. Maybe what we define as curiosity is actually just searching for the little hit of dopamine you get when you're right.
I came across this concept called "The jar of awesome" which on first glance seems really naive but I really took a liking to it. It's basically just writing down your victories when they happen and storing them somewhere in a tangible way. A collection of notes, post its, anything, but it has to be physical and it has to be stored. That way it feels "real", and its a great reminder of the small victories we tend to forget
I feel like this is good advice but presents only one side of the coin. Underestimating how difficult something is, is exactly what leads to ''planning fallacy''. I would rather err on the side of caution and overestimate how difficult something is