I believe there is certain part of population that chooses to be outside the system. Not much to do with them, but occasionally shelters and mental health support.
On other hand the number of working people living in cars and such is the really worrying thing to me. Indicating that on systematic level something has gone horribly wrong.
You just can't trust any Google product anymore. They shut down your account by mistake and it's almost impossible to get it back. Or they shut down an entire service and all value you had in there is gone.
If you know Accenture you also know that they love to hire fresh graduates and put them on projects as quickly as possible. Needless to say as a developer coming directly from university or a bootcamp you rarely have experience with writing good tests or documentation, developing maintainable enterprise software at all.
The only thing I'm wondering is how companies can be so naive thinking they get experts with multiple YoE from Accenture.
It needs it. "Here are 10 ways to think about reservations in Azure" vs "GCP auto-applies a discount if you use a resource for more than 80% of a month."
Wait, so all that text just for telling us that a company - driven by capitalism - is not giving away cloud compute power for free? What a surprise! And AWS is better in that regard because...?
Sometimes I wonder how articles like these can make it to the hot page.
Media productions are daughters of their time. We currently have a situation where the elite in Hollywood are desperate to bring diversity and blackwashing into the stories. When a new LOTR series is shot in 50 years from now, this will no longer be an issue.
As a fantasy series, it seems the ethnicities of the actors are quite irrelevant. I can understand that it can be a bit odd in historical dramas, but male actors used to play the female roles in plays. It seems pretty secondary unless the plot is explicitly about race. And historical accuracy, even in historical dramas is usually tenuous at best anyway.
I’d suggest that when you say “blackwashing” people are going to take that as a signal that you have some pretty toxic politics.
I think it’s an opportunity to explain how elves and dwarves ended up with different skin colors and whatnot. It’s a good opportunity for world building.
In the Hobbit movies there were some black elves and they didn’t describe anything about them. Just that there were some Black Forest elves mixed in with all the other elves.
I guess it slightly distracted where every minor detail had some back story and history, but I don’t think detracted from the story. I don’t think leaving out these details was in the top 100 flaws of the Hobbit movie.
As someone really into Tolkien, I’d rather see them expand or adapt the lore than just swap out details. It’s not that it’s the end of the world, but it’s dangerous to change details from someone else’s work because I never know what was the actual important piece. I suppose I could change Michaelangelo’s David’s sex but it would be hard to recreate it with the same qualia as Muchaelangelo as I’m not him. It’s not the sex of the sculpture that’s important, it’s my implementation. I’m sure Michaelangelo would have e carved an amazing woman, or African, or Asian, or any background. But few are Michaelangelo.
An example of this that I think went kind of well is the Kevin Kostner Robin Hood movie where they cast Morgan Freeman and gave him a back story of being a Moor from the crusades who returned to England. I think this worked out better than if they had just randomly changed a Robin Hood character ‘a race.
Because it was mentioned in the article: I looked at the resumes on the Forbes richest people list and found not a single person among the top 100 who came from poor circumstances. The opposite was the case, many of them became rich only through inheritance.
> Believe me when I tell you that I could have worked on the entire software myself in 5 months.
I find this way of thinking very short-sighted. It may be true that this application can be written in net time in 5 months, but much more important than writing code is to know clearly what is needed, what users need. Moreover, requirements and wishes change over time. I have seen more than once that months of development time were wasted on something the users didn't need, so good product managers and senior software engineers who question things are often more valuable than engineers who write hundreds of lines of code a day.
I think the problem here is that the company has software engineers sitting "idle" without any good requirements.
I don't think it's uncommon at all. The "hard" part of almost every project I work on isn't the ultimately the code, it's the "soft skill" of extracting a good specification from stakeholders.
What's the reason for the dysfunction here? It could be that the software development team is just overstaffed. Maybe if they had lower headcount, they wouldn't be idle so much of the time.
Of course, it could also be that there are too many stakeholders providing incompatible requirements and muddying the waters, and that there's nobody in a position to make a decision about the real requirements.
I think it's easy for an organization to misidentify an organizational problem as a technical problem, then throw more technical headcount at it while ignoring the underlying dysfunction. And this is how you end up with "bullshit jobs."
If you're not gonna release the data, then don't do the project in the first place (especially not under the implication that it'll be shared with everyone). Saying in hindsight "oh we can't release all the data due to sensitivity issues" is just weaseling your way to keeping the most valuable data to yourselves as if the stated issues couldn't have been predicted.
I think that approach is akin to the honor system and based on my experiences on the internet I fear that it won't scale well. For some types of images, just because the uploader is ok with the file being shared doesn't mean it's a good idea to redistribute it. For a bland example, think of a photo where the uploader doesn't have copyright. I'm sure you can imagine what would happen if someone on the seedier parts of the internet says "hey, if you upload your images to this website, Google will host it for free forever!"
One negative, I guess, would be uncovering the moderation algorithm so a malicious user could circumvent it.
Another negative would be release of Bad Words or illegal content submitted by malicious users. Depends on the task.
But the actual raw data would be of more use to researchers than one cleaned from an output of algorithms. Perhaps there could be a program for educational researchers?
