formulathree

Have you been interviewing recently? The qualitative interviews that test design are actually the ones that are unreasonably challenging now. You have to cater to the interviewers design philosophy.

For example I tend not to prefer putting data into a class if it's not needed, but we had one interviewer who wanted all my logic as methods on a class even though it's fine to have functions operating on a data structure. Not a big deal either way right? But there it is... With the influx of candidates they measure this bs.

There are so many leetcode problems most people can't fully memorize them all and many people just don't.

I actually think interview questions that are more qualitative are worse. I have to freaking guess the "design philosophy" of the interviewer and cater to his viewpoint which is often pointless or just flat out wrong.

Charisma is one of those factors that bypass conscious mechanisms.

Experienced managers think they aren't screening for charisma but I would say 99 percent of managers who say this actually are, but they just don't know it. It's subconscious.

I can somewhat prove this to you because there's science on this. Charisma isn't very measurable or quantifiable but a physical attribute similar to charisma is, and that is physical beauty and height.

The more attractive you are and the more taller you are the more likely you are to be hired. It's absolutely true. There's so much studies around this it hurts. Just Google it.

There's even been a news segment in 60 minutes where they literally sent in a ugly dude with a shitload of Ivy league credentials and a handsome tall dude with nothing. And it was incredible. Ugly dude was grilled like a mofo and not hired. Handsome dude was a shoe in, didn't even get asked any hard questions.

The interesting thing is, the hiring manager wasn't even aware he was being biased. When asked in a subsequent interview on how he chose each candidate he stated credentials, but was completely unaware he wasn't even looking at credentials.

Now you yourself may be the exception just like how everyone thinks they're the exception and I'm sure you have examples to prove it too. But humans are inconsistent, I'm positive that at some point during your experience you mis-judged a person with rizz as being more technical.

Its human nature. We are wired to be biased this way. Nothing consciously immoral here. Just note that the first human bias being triggered by any reader reading this post is that they think they themselves are clearly above this bias. That should be the first thing the reader is thinking, and if I guessed correctly on that... Likely I guessed correctly on everything else.

I've been applying too. I've landed tons of interviews about 40 total. Did them all.

All failed but one. It's definitely harder than before. Much harder.

I got failed for the most trivial reasons. There were interviews where I passed and did all the tasks required and the interviewer gave me positive signals like "good job", "talk to you soon" and boom the recruiter told me I was rejected the next day.

There was one where I made it to the final round onsite. Everyone liked me in the onsite. Schooled the technicals with code that worked first run and they canned me because behavioral. One guy (the director who I wouldn't even be reporting too) didn't like my reasoning for wanting to work at the company because I focused on my interest in the technology rather then the mission.

Like literally I just didn't talk about the mission... a specific thing and that was it. Besides that 4 out of 5 people during the final interview told me "talk to you soon" and one told me "I hope we see more of you in the future".

So yeah it's harder, brutally harder not just on the screening but even up the pipeline. I would say my resume is impressive enough that recruiters still contact me and I can make it to a first technical.

I think the people who are getting hired the most right now are people with connections. Who knows who.

True. Occasionally the thing builds an entire cathedral out of nowhere and you're just shocked.

Leave it to Google to do absolutely nothing with this like they did with LLMs.

Buy ultrawide. Then tiling works without screwing over aspect ratio. It's a real estate issue. (5120 x 1440))

The author is describing something different. He breaks into day dreaming in the middle of changing clothes. Or in the middle of eating medicine.

It's a neurological condition. I find it hard to believe this is learned.

Daydreaming when you're bored is normal.

Human concepts can be placed under mathematical interfaces.

Inversion for gender

   ~male = female

   CEO > manager > worker

   Punch human + kick human = damaged human
   Kick human + punch human = damaged human

By fitting human concepts into mathematical interfaces you develop a sort of algebra dsl for the language allowing you to apply all mathematical theorems of the equivalent algebra to the domain. Those theorems are the generalities that improve design by improving modularity.

Suddenly for ordinal concepts I can use a general min or max function across all domains. By using mathematical interfaces I am in the realm of the ultimate generality. Normally people would be writing some form of equivalent logic to derive the lowest ranking human in a hierarchy when really the concept of min covers it.

These basic mathematical interfaces that apply to basic numerical logic are found to be expandable across domains. There's no proof or logic as to why these interfaces happen to be more universal. It's just a gut feeling after using this interfaces more that they happen to be extremely universal. Thus there's no way I can prove to you what I'm saying is correct, you ultimately have to try it.

Python syntax has really good ergonomics around functional programming. I hardly write loops when I use the language now.

No, parallelism is useful, concurrency without parallelism is not useful.

Go and elixir provide some parallelism but the primary focus for both languages is concurrency.

"It's easy to hate the rich. But do you have the courage to hate the poor?"

The majority of the population is not rich and the answer to this question/quotation is self mostly self evident to the same majority of the population.

I'm more thinking in terms of logical primitives for the design of modules and components that can be composed, decomposed and recombined. I'm thinking less about proof based correctness.

I actually somewhat agree. I think there's a gradient here between modularity and useability. The more modular something is, the less user friendly it becomes.

The problem the GP is talking about here is a modularity problem right? He designs (aka guesses) the interface and finds out later that his guess was wrong. Mathematical interfaces deal with this problem better.

However mathematical interfaces are less user friendly and less intuitive, especially for someone not familiar with mathematical interfaces.

The reconciling solution is that the public interface can be very domain specific and made narrow in usage. The logic underneath this public interface can remain mathematical and therefore more amenable to future changes.

The language of math itself is functional. In fact "functional programming" is basically programming as if everything was math. Think about it, does math allow for variable mutation inside a mathematical expression? No.

Interfaces that mutate internal values do not exist in mathematics. So, in essence, yes. Mathematical interfaces only support functional operations.

Haskell would be the language.

There's another style of programming that has much of the required interfaces predefined in the language itself. A set of universal interfaces that conceptually work universally for all programming.

It's mathematical interfaces.

Commutativity, Identity, Associativity, Ordinality and more. For these interfaces, it becomes less about "designing" interfaces with gut intuition, guessing and checking... but more about finding the final design via calculation.

Math is known to be universal so it makes sense why mathematical interfaces have such wide application. When you use mathematical interfaces and compose everything along those parameters... it's no longer about "you never come up with the right interface at first"... That concept becomes less relevant.

It's hard to agree with me when I'm just saying it here. It has to "click" after you tried it with a language that supports this type of programming first class.

There is strict reasoning why ternary expressions are, in fact, logically better than a typical if statement.

The reasoning is because ternary operations eliminate programming singularities.

Example:

   var x;
   if (someExpression) {
       x = True;
   }
   //var x is undefined

   var x;
   x = someExpression ? true : false;
   // use of ternary expression prevents var x from ever being undefined.

Some people say ternary expressions are less readable. But Readability depends on your "opinion." There are no hard logical facts about this. So it's a weak-ish argument.

It is actual fact (ie not an opinion) that ternary expressions are categorically more Safe then if-statements. Therefore, they are factually better in terms of hard logical metrics.

This is the reasoning behind nested ternary statements. It's also one of the strange cases in programming where superficial qualitative attributes of "readability" trumps hard and logical benefits. The overwhelming majority of the population will in fact find many nested ternary operations highly unreadable and this "opinion" overrides the logical benefit.

Usually though, to maintain safety and readability I just alias boolean statements with variable names. The complexity of a conditional expression can be reduced by modularizing parts of it under a symbolic name, you don't necessarily have to reduce complexity by forcing the conditional into the more readable bracketed spatial structures favored by if-statements.

Example:

   isXgreaterThanY = x > y;
   isWlessThan2 = w < 2;
   isSubExpressionTrue = isXgreaterThanY & isWlessThan2 ? False : True;
   isFactNotTrue = isSubExpressionTrue ? False : True;

Imagine if you have a boolean condition that relies on multitudes of these sub expressions. By defining the final statement as a composition of Named ternary expressions you eliminate the possibility of a hole;... a singularity where one alternative wasn't considered. In my opinion this is the best way to define your logic.

If-statements, imo, should be reserved for functions that are impure (void return type).. code that mutates things and touches IO which is something you as a programmer should keep as minimal and segregated away from the rest of your pure logic as possible.

Example:

     if true:
        sendDataToIO(data)

     //the alternative of not sending data to IO is not a singularity. It is also required... a ternary expression makes less sense here. 

I completely disagree. communication via appearance starts from an early age. Young girls (less than 7 yrs old) try to look pretty.

This is because the behavior is ingrained in biology. But make no mistake behavior ingrained in biology is from selection pressure and that selection pressure is sexual selection. Men select the women who are more interested in making themselves look pretty.

There is communication too between girls via appearance. boys don’t enter the picture until much later.

The communication is this: If a girl looks prettier she is saying, "I'm better at attracting and manipulating men than you." That's the only thing communicated.

They communicate with looks.

You're thinking too much. Do men communicate by getting rough and rowdy? Do men communicate by playing sports? Maybe? But the extent of the communication is minimal and it's the same thing with women and looks. There's hidden communication network that men don't know about, that's much to imaginative. Additionally, if such a network existed, some woman would eventually spill the beans.

Agreed. This issue you're talking about is the forefront of the political climate in the US today.

Do we speak the truth? Or do we speak in terms of empathy so as to not diminish constructive conversation?

It hurts my feelings when someone says 99% of all rape cases are from men. I may get angry when someone says that and that is, like you said, not leading to "constructive conversation."

But the issue here is that the 99% statistic is also the truth. So that's the big question with social justice and liberal politics today. How much do we bend reality for the sake of feelings or "constructive" discussion? When does reality get so bent that "constructive discussion" is no longer "constructive"? Let's not talk about rape and let's not talk about how males are the majority instigators because it hurts my feelings and is not constructive.

Additionally there's very selective application of "constructive discussion". For example you see a lot of rightly placed discussion about the male/female pay gap but no discussion on the fact that males make up 70% of homeless people. The 20% pay gap is by far the bigger issue here. Why?

I wrote a lot here because I care about the subject. For my money, I would argue that your one liner comment against the massive content I'm putting up here is the one that is "dismissive".

What do you guys think of combining IaC with regular code? One language that does it all?

Get paid for selling oil for people to burn.

Get paid for capturing carbon from burned oil.

It's not exactly in conflict with their current business model.

Beauty isn't only shaped by evolution. It is shaped by culture as well. Evolution has given leeway to the human interpretation of attraction through imprinting. This leaves a lot of variety among cultures on "what is beautiful". As stated before, outside of this variety, there are several characteristics and attributes of beauty that are universal and do not vary drastically across cultures. It is a combination of these two things that defines what is beautiful for a person.

One thing that you're wrong about is that it's a choice or a truth. A human cannot reinterpret or redefine what he or she thinks to be beautiful. Much of this definition is created by genetics and cultural imprinting.

Skinny and bombshell are different. Even a bombshell model that is skinny is curvy and not the kind of neotenous androgynous ideal I referred to. You missed the point and clearly don't understand the significance of the difference.

Doesn't even matter, that's not the point. There are cultures in Africa that value obesity as beauty and those definitions are valid. https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937... You think I'm fixated on a western style definition of beauty. I am not fixated on it. I am simply saying that the western definition of beauty is a VALID definition. It is not a "misunderstanding", your initial post claimed it is a "misunderstanding."

You're emphasizing too much on specific examples with your preconceived notions.

You don't actually grapple with divergent local evolutionary pressures creating different, competing and often conflicting ideals of feminine beauty each of which make sense for a given evolutionary context, because it's easier to be intellectually lazy than to actually build a model that accounts for that evidence.

Except I never said anything on the contrary. When did I say that there aren't competing ideals of beauty? I'm glad there's a word for intellectual laziness because I clearly don't fit it.

Is there a word for making stuff up? Imagining that someone meant something when that person never said anything to that effect? What's the word for that? Delusional? No you are not delusional, but you need to understand that I never said anything to contradict your statement here.

Who's the ignorant one? The one who continues to ignore full evolutionary context, so still you.

Except you haven't given any arguments to contradict my stance. Your arguments here are in full agreement with my point. I really don't understand what you're getting at here.

Why do feminine beauty ideals contrast across not just cultures but socioeconomic class? Thinking just about feminine beauty, can you create a uniform rule about why certain strata and societies have historically prefer a more androgynous look and others prefer the more "bombshell" look? Why does what vary over time and wax and wane as certain looks go in and out of fashion?

Socioeconomic class is basically another culture in terms of influence. These two terms can be used interchangeably as they both have the same effect on the perception of beauty. Your question is something I can answer. It differs across cultures because the minds interpretation of beauty involves external experiences. That is why.

As for your comment about universal rules. Well that's also easy. Universal rules involve symmetry and youth. Possibly more, but those are some of the biggest rules of beauty extend past "culture" so we know it's part of biology.

Could you create such a rule which is consistent over time?

The answer is no. None of these rules are created by anyone or anything.

Do you think those rules would have been consistent by era, or would they have varied in times of famine versus times of surplus, and could you create anything consistent across civilization? How about by geographic areas which shaped the city states which served as centers of power in those civilizations, IE how feminine beauty may exist on the steppe vs on the coast, or in the mountains?

These rules vary by culture, culture varies by environmental circumstance and genetics. You're getting into a redundancy here. I think you misinterpreted my post. I DID not say that culture does not influence beauty. Quite the opposite. I said Culture DOES influence someones perception of beauty. Read my post, it is there. However and this is a big "However" you do not have a choice in the matter. You do not choose your culture and you do not choose the ideals that are imprinted onto your brain by that culture. Once imprinted on your brain you cannot change it. If the culture values skinny bombshell models then that ideal will be seared into your brain. There are variations and anomalies but overall it is generally consistent.

It's the same way that a baby bird imprints on the first thing it sees as it's mother. It does not have a choice. Your brain is evolved to assimilate itself into it's environment and culture without conscious choice from you.

That being said outside of this as I previously mentioned there are beauty standards that are universal that are not created by culture, two examples already mentioned are symmetry and youth (for women). We know this because surveys show that these ideals do not shift when observing different cultures. Additionally, quite obviously: men are generally attracted to women and women are generally attracted to men, there is some genetic influence making this opposite sex attraction preference generally consistent across all cultures.

Do not discount these universal rules. They are powerful biological instincts and overall... When in conflict they usually override cultural imprints of beauty.

Speaking about cold hard truth is challenging when working from a basis of archaeogenetic ignorance. You risk overestimating how universal your priors are.

Except this statement doesn't make sense. If everything I say is logically correct and everything you say has issues with correctness, then who's the ignorant one?

But I think that aesthetic beauty is multi-dimensional and temporal. A fine wine or a brandy; a sublime cheese and not a fresh glass of milk. There is a very specific kind of electric, youthful beauty which is ephemeral and fleeting. But there are other kinds of beauty which can be subdued and hard to miss, which can appreciate over time. I don't even mean that in a subjective "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but rather, that beauty objectively can come in more than one form.

I think the opposite. I think the higher level ideal is the illusion. What our base instincts tell us is beauty is the actuality and it's embedded in our biology.

For much of humanity woman have always been valued for their youthful beauty. Pregnancy is costly health-wise and men value youth and beauty because natural beauty conveys better physical genes and youthfulness conveys higher success to conceive a child.

Women are objectified for their beauty by men beauty for real biological reasons. And as a result women who obsess over their own physical beauty also end up being more successful in the mating game. Most of this behavior is the result of evolutionary psychology. This definition of beauty is cold, but it is reality and it is delusional to call it a "misunderstanding" of beauty.

The author writes this article and is drawing upon millions of years of evolutionary instinct and behavior.

I wish society would accept and circulate this truth rather than the other simpler, convenient, and yet so very wrong lie reflected by this article.

Society doesn't need to circulate anything. Any person with a brain recognizes physical beauty and they know the meaning of the quote "Don't judge a book by it's cover". What's going on is just people are continuously lying to themselves when convenient.

You're saying it here as if someone let's me know of the "truth" and suddenly my instinctual definition of beauty will completely do a 180 and change? No. Unfortunately the cold hard truth is this: You have minimal choice in what you find beautiful. Culture and biological instincts shape your preferences far more than individual choice and you have little control over it.

It's like choosing to find the female form beautiful or the male form beautiful. If I had that choice I can be gay at will. It's convenient to define beauty on your terms when you encounter a woman lamenting the fact she's not beautiful, but your definition of beauty completely flips when talking about sending homosexual people to training camps to train them to be straight... yeah as if they or anyone has a choice. Like I said, your definition is a lie we tell ourselves unconsciously when the situation is convenient.

Sorry to be a downer. But hacker news is a level up above other sites. I think we can handle the truth. In fact I think we prefer it. I prefer to talk about the actual science behind why she feels the way she does and how evolution and biology has shaped this behavior.

Keep in mind it's not one sided. Women objectify men as objects of success and this no doubt shapes mens behavior as much as mens preferences shape women. I have more interest in the interplay of behaviors between men and women then I do idealistic re-definitions of beauty.

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, but that eye is built by DNA by which ALL humans share 99.9%.

The tragedy of the commons ends up making local-ism non viable at any level of legitimate scale. Any of it that does get implemented therefore becomes negligible in effect.

The problem is none of your solutions are viable either. Even if they were executed the results are usually negligible. In fact most of your solutions end up making us feel better about ourselves. But this is all illusion.

For these huge environmental problems humanity is facing, I'm sorry to say the only way it to do huge drastic unrealistic changes that will never occur because humanity doesn't have the will power to pull it off.

The real honest answer is that there no "solutioning" the worst case scenario will likely play out.

To translate more what he means. I think the person you replied to is asking:

"Is what we see the result of a form of invisible matter?"

Invisible matter aka dark matter is the "theory" he is referring to.

Nonsense.>Python "generates" this: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/me/test.py", line 3, in <module> print(x[3]) ~^^^KeyError: 3

So? python generates that but the point was demonstrating type checking. The output you see is not generated by python. It's generated by an external type checker. The type checker caught the python exception without running any code.

> The contents of a string can't be type checked […] Nonsense. This may be true for Python's type checking tools, but that's not a general limitation of type checking.

The context is python. We're talking about python. I'm making a statement about python. Nobody is talking about scala. I don't know why you're getting into scala stuff.

There is literally nothing in my statement to indicate I'm making a general statement about type checking. But I will say checking for the contents of a string is rare for a type checker to do. That is a general statement that is generally true.

Some people have indeed infinite egos. If there would be just anything else besides that… I wonder every time why the most clueless are the loudest. That's so embarrassing.

Hey can you please stop being rude? The guy made factually incorrect statements and so did you. That's not an ego thing. It's just true that he's wrong. Everybody makes mistakes... people shouldn't get worked up about someone else identifying a mistake.

I too made a mistake. And I admitted my mistake. See my first couple of posts. I admitted I was wrong: the python interpreter doesn't do type checks. It was an error on my part for not clarifying I meant python development in general with external tools.

Of course it still is. The type hints have no runtime semantics whatsoever.

I clarified my meaning in another comment. You're right, I meant to SAY modern development involves type checking with python. But not with the interpreter. My mistake for not being clear.

All Turing-complete languages match each other in power…

I obviously mean type checking. Additionally what you're saying isn't even true. Not all turing complete languages match in power or capability.

Python doesn't have a static type system in the first place, so it can't compete with Rust in this regard. That's not even the same game.

Modern python development is done in conjunction with a type checker. Sort of like how modern javascript development is done with typescript. That levels up the game to where python is roughly in the same class as rust when it comes to type correctness.

Depending on the type checker python matches the power of rust, roughly. There are differences, but for ADTs they are pretty similar in capability.