Reply since edit is dead - I am not crazy. Many of this user's posts were marked [dead] including this one. I see this is no longer the case for posts that earlier looked dead, and I have never seen that before.
This really just highlights the difference between the artificial coding interview via some web based half-assed IDE, and being watched coding on the job.
The comparison would be more direct if the surgeon was asked to operate on a dummy using a kitchen knife in front of the interviewer.
Then there's the problem that there's no way in hell a software company is going to let another company watch their employee work on proprietary code.
>If Software Engineers want to get rid of algorithmic interviews, all they have to do is come up with a professional exam and a strict licensing body... just like most professions carrying a tittle (MD, Lawyers...).
By the time the exam is designed - not complete, designed - it will be obsolete. By the time the exam is completed, there will be 3 new languages invented.
This would be like changing what animal you have to study as a doctor every six months for the test.
Definitely not. The vast majority of computer science and software engineering practice needed for successful product delivery was developed back in the 50s to the 70s and has not substantially changed since.
The library and framework of the week is not fundamental experience.
I always advocate computer science training really needs more history of the discipline. So many new languages and libraries turn out to be a rediscovery of ideas thoroughly explored in decades prior, just that the creator didn't know.
An orthopedic surgeon gets new types of tools and implants in their toolbox through their career, but the structure of the bones they operate on is the same forever. It's the same with software.
Our imperialism, weapons tech, and exploitation of the working class are top notch. The amount banks take from people with no money in overdraft fees alone should be cause for a revolution.
>Ask HN: Do you think Agile/Scrum is beneficial for software delivery?
Yes.
>Besides being a dream for micromanagers, it seems to be more about signalling progress vs. actually making progress.
It is. Management being able to change direction every 1-2 weeks is fantastic for management but can be really bad for burnout.
Every day you have to talk about what you worked on and what you planned to work on like you're toddlers who can't be trusted to do work.
Every two weeks you have agonizing meetings where you're expected to analyze the past weeks, and come up with plans to improve them as a team. This sounds good on paper but after years of it, you mostly want to shoot yourself.
And that's assuming your team doesn't agree to a 1 week sprint, where the total meeting load can be 10% of the time spent working.
And that's at companies that are pretty good at it.
So yes, it's good for software delivery. But for something called agile/scrum, it's awfully process heavy, and it sucks as an engineer.
My professor (head of CS dept) referred to these as 'weed out classes'.
If that sounds evil, imagine the grief, wasted money, time, frustration, and stress of letting people get 3-4 years into computer science and then dropping out because it's fucking hard.
So my second hardest classes were freshman year. 3rd year (micro-architecture and assembler)finally bested them.
>The people who know the domain should be able to maintain (and really, create) any automation of that domain themselves.
This is a recipe for disaster 100% of the time. One needs to know both the domain and software to change software in the domain. People who 'know the domain' but not software, when given the tools to modify software within the domain inevitably create an unmaintainable rats nest of more difficult to change rules, almost invariably in some proprietary WYSYWIG tool that creates more problems than it solves.
Well they don't hate us "because of our freedoms" they hate us because we meddle in and around the countries, overthrow their governments and kill their citizens.
Here's a recent quote from Alan Dershowitz that's illustrative:
> I received off-the-record information that an order had come from the very top: CNN executive Jeff Zucker didn’t want me on CNN any more. My centrist, nuanced perspective was anathema to CNN’s emerging brand as the anti-Trump network.
That should make it clear that a very small number of media executives ultimately decide what we see on the news.
Not to go way off topic here, but Alan Dershowitz is the type of person to say anything as long as there’s benefit for him (see: extremely highly paid defense attorney for billionaire child rapist Jeffrey Epstein, and last year Harvey Weinstein), and while he may not be wrong your comment sort of holds him up as having any sort of credibility on the inner workings of the media world. Nobody should take that man at his word.
As a lawyer it's his job to defend people accused of horrible things. If we aren't going to celebrate the fact that accused people can get a good defense, we might as well just do away with trials all together.
I wasn’t arguing about the merits of having aggressive attourneys, I was just indicating that this is a person who’s entire career is built around distorting the truth in his (or his clients) favor.
I agree that it's important to have lawyers defend people accused of horrible things because they could be innocent of those charges. The thing I think I disagree on is that when it is a single lawyer or a group of lawyers constantly defending a group of connected (through power and money) people, it tends to become a lot less clear that they're doing the moral duty of defending all accused instead of defending the accused that will line their pockets the most. The problem here is the one observed in the justice system as a whole, which is that routinely people with less money are disadvantaged in the system due to the lack of money to "convince" these lawyers that shield their actions behind the high-minded moral of defending all accused individuals.
In theory: All accused get representation regardless of accusation
In practice: Only the rich who are accused of vile things get a proper defense.
Perhaps the other way around. The media was Hillary’s tool. She asked for increased coverage on Donald Trump because she thought she could beat him easier than anyone else (if you don’t like Trump, thank Hillary) asking to the pied piper strategy from the Podesta emails. She was funding the DNC so she could deliver or withhold media access.
Small point and while I agree overall I’m not sure the media ‘selected’ Hillary. I think Obama Admin did, and after all, it was her turn.
I mean, I know Labradors will eat fucking anything.