This amazing Ted talk [1] on the potential for ketamine as a miracle anti-depressant presents at least one reason; namely, that they don't own the patents to the drugs and therefore can't monopolize their production. Instead, iterative waves of SSRIs are pushed to the public, as Big Pharma stands to profit more from SSRIs they hold the patent to, even if they're arguably much less effective and more harmful.
I worked in undergrad as a research assistant in an astrophysics simulation project and was involved in some of the numerical programming. I found the work very interesting and intellectually rewarding.
Unfortunately, IME, the effort vs financial reward ratio is completely blown out of the water by general software. I make >3x what the postdocs were making with less experience, less education, and (speaking generally) less intelligence.
Obviously there are industry positions that pay better, but the general trend is you will be compensated far less than you could doing general software development.
> To be frank, if you don't have the time or ability to review 1-2 classes worth of college material, then that raises some serious red flags.
Not nearly as much of a red flag as your stance is on this.
These questions have their own tricks and expectations. For example, in place shuffling. The way that question is worded implies you would know "oh yes fisher yates shuffle". Without looking it up, would you know what that algorithm entails? Would you know to study it? Would you even be guaranteed to cover it in your studies?
It's hardly a consideration about IQ when you have questions like detecting a loop in a linked list. (Theres a restriction that common question has.. but the solution of it was the product of an academic research paper in the 60s) Asking someone, where that's not fresh in their head is no longer an iq test but a trivia hazing ritual. Will they use that in their job? (No they shouldn't)
So back to your statement-
Reasons why they didn't have enough time:
1. They just got laid off and they're navigating the new life change and possible loss of income. It's really hard to manage the interviews, the recruiters, opportunities, and emotional challenges at that time. It's not a conducive time to interview well, go through all of these coding challenges, and review 1-2 classes worth of college material (which may or may not be relevant at the time).
2. They have a family or dependents (there are laws that protect against this)
3. Their current work place is expecting unrealistic hours and they're trying to get out. (Weekends+nights)
4. Their age, the longer you're in software engineering, the less that it becomes about "I submitted optimal code always" and the more it becomes about managing the project in the correct order and execution. (Are good practices being followed, how do we identify the nasty corner cases, etc) If you're a senior engineer or higher and they can answer about how to implement a red black tree from scratch.. that's a red flag. (Also, Age discrimination is illegal)
Google has a bank of vetted questions that can be asked during interviews. It's obviously against company policy to share this information, just like it is against internal policy to share any other private, internal information.
I speak hindi, and in fact he is actually encouraging spam and is BSing in the response. He has said to look for repos with low traffic and do a pull request changing the readme and to do it 20 times, so if most will be marked as invalid, at least 4 wont.
This is literally how DigitalOcean is advertising their program, too. It’s just that they intended their audience to be people who fully understood the goal of what this was supposed to be, and the YouTube video was watched by many who didn’t.
Hindi is my native language. CodeWithHarry, in fact, is actually subliminally asking the users to create very low quality PRs. Or at least very heavily implying it.
In one part of the video he mentions that last year DO was not able to distribute all the t-shirts as they didn't have enough PRs. He goes on to mention that "this year, we don't want any T-shirts to remain".
If I get time, I'll point out more lines from the video where he is promoting PR for the sake of PR.
I do agree that it may not be totally his fault in the whole larger context of things.
I looked at the video and it seemed fine. Only problem is that complete rookies were watching it too.
I hang out in some rookie forums and it seems like every other day someone posts a snippet and I find that they have used foo/bar somewhere in the code without realizing it was supposed to be a placeholder. CWH made a tutorial on how to get some text from your computer into an open source repository and that is commendable, but his viewers have forgotten to do the bit where they actually produce content worth merging and that is not his fault.
I meant "new" in the "Spotify just figured out they should get into the podcast game, so they swallowed a bunch of podcast networks" sense and "edgy" in the "some of the guests on his show are promoting snake oil and bad decisions" sense.
Why do so many tech employees feel that they're entitled to be arbiters of morality? Tech companies should have the backbone to fire every annoying internal activist group that tries to sabotage their efforts.
First off this isn't a tech issue, if you sign a 100 million deal with someone that usually comes with strings attached. The political side of it aside, Rogan can't seriously believe he can say whatever he wants and damage Spotify's brand in the process. If he wanted full autonomy, pretty easy, don't sign that deal.
Secondly on the political issues, at the very least his enabling of Alex Jones is irresponsible. He's giving a complete lunatic who does nothing but spread conspiracy theories an uncritical platform. This isn't even a matter of ordinary politics any more, platforming someone who calls the victims of a school shooting crisis actors is reprehensible. Not really sure how anyone who has some sense of morality wants to enable that. I fully understand tech workers who want to put a stop to it rather than enabling it for financial gain.
This is honestly the first time in my life where basic decency, honesty and factuality are politicised.
The article makes it clear that this is a group that does not have leadership backing. I very much doubt this internal group of staffers is attempting to push back against leadership due to business concerns. This is definitely political.
Also, the article explicitly mentions that this is a breach of contract, so there's very little chance this actually happens. Just more political noise from the same type of people that always generate political noise.
Because your work is owned by Spotify and they can do what they want with it. Yes, it's well within your rights to form one of these internal activist groups that attempts to sway company policy by loud-mouthing your employer, but it's also well within the company's right to fire you. I simply wish tech companies had the courage to do so.
It is owned by spotify when I do the work. Don't listen to your workers and watch as everything goes to heck at the extreme or at the least you don't do as well and competition eats away at you.
When you are a 100% tech company then you better listen to your tech workers.
Surely the tech-minded folks of HN understand that this doesn't actually occur under any reasonable definition of "active." This article is a clear example of how the media twists reality due to their lack of understanding and/or maliciousness.
>> Researchers found that when they followed public Facebook pages containing Holocaust denial content, Facebook recommended further similar content.
I can understand that being precise is crucial when making statements like this but instead of getting hung up on that detail, the tech-minded folks of HN would also understand the main argument about the perinicious effect of such feedback of "similar content" reinforcing the false beliefs and conspiracies.
