If both systems have a good clock. Then the synchronization messages only need to contain the time delta to correct the time (phase?) drift to achieve full synchronization.
Although in this particular case, I tend to agree with Igor as he was employed as a system administrator not a software developer so it's unlikely that there were any real contractual constraints imposed on him in relation to copyright or invention transfer.
Absolutely! The backlog is enormous though, and much of mathematics requires a great deal of work to understand it to the depth required before a novel application becomes apparent.
The problem with exams is that everyone has a bad experience with a poorly written one. Well-written exams will have questions that test students at different levels of understanding across the whole curriculum.
So a student who only understands the basics should be able to answer most of the easy questions and students who have a deeper understanding can answer the harder ones.
Well-written exams should feel pretty fair and leave students feeling like the result they got is proportional to the effort they put into studying the material (or at least how well they personally felt they understood the material).
Exams almost filtered me out of this industry before I even got started. I later went on to be a lead developer! I went to a rural high school with a poor math curriculum. I understood the concepts, but I was slow. When I got to undergrad, my first calc professor gave us a 60 question test with 50 minutes of allotted time. He told us if we couldn't do the problems fast enough we weren't cut out for the work and it would be better if we quit now. I've never felt more inadequate in my life. It's one of my only Ws.
> a 60 question test with 50 minutes of allotted time
Is this kind of test - many short questions - a standard thing for math in your country?
My university exams were pretty much all "2-question", in 90 minutes.
The first half was an essay where you have to reproduce a lesson from the curriculum, in your own words.
The second half was "the formulas" - you have to develop one or two formulas from first principles.
I once got an A- even though I got "the formulas" half very wrong. As the teacher explained later, I simply chose the coordinate system beginning at not the same place the textbook did. And this was supposed to be a bad teacher - he actually gave Ds to almost all of us (180 people). This was a makeup exam.
Yes. You can do it a set number of times, opting to either retake the course for a better grade or simply not take it again. Either way it shows on your transcript.
Exams are kind of like interviews, at some level they are always at least a bit artificial and sometimes very artificial. I don't really think they do a good job of proving understanding but we also don't really have anything better.
Every class. Teachers think: "We want a curve, not everyone is getting an A". This pushes the teacher to ask questions not covered in the material. If they stick to what is covered it is hard to get a decent curve. So, in the end, teachers just hand out grades based on IQ, and there isn't a point of grades.
Courses aren't supposed to be pure memorization. If you can only answer questions directly covered in the material but can't apply it to new situations, you should not get an A.
> Teachers think: "We want a curve, not everyone is getting an A". This pushes the teacher to ask questions not covered in the material. If they stick to what is covered it is hard to get a decent curve.
If you can't transfer the course's material onto new, unseen questions, then you might have memorised it, but you didn't understand it. Getting an A requires understanding, not rote memorisation.
You're forgetting the a large percentage of the student body simply does not care to judge the material fairly. Any difficult exam where they receive a low grade is perceived as unfair and complained about online. Professors that test fairly are reviewed harshly online. Universities that prioritize education over graduation receive poor reviews. Top universities specifically coddle and push their students making it nearly impossible to fail.
I feel like there is a lot of nuance around this topic that is getting lost in the noise.
The direct and indirect financial impact of technical decisions are indeed hard to measure. But some technical decisions definitely have greater financial impact than others. Even if it's hard to precisely quantify the financial costs/benefits of every decision. It is possible to order them relatively. X is likely to make more money than Y. So we do X first and Y later.
There is a significant amount of chance involved in whether a product/feature will even make money at all. So even good plans with measurably positive expected value could end up losing money.
Just because it's impossible to be 100% certain of the outcome of any decision. Doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't think there is a bias in the field towards a youth narrative. I think there is a bias in the media.
Nobody I've ever met would expect a breakthrough from a 20 something year old no matter how much of a genius they are. Communicating a breakthrough requires time, effort, and credibility to begin with, which nobody has at that age.
Your 30's are when you can start to really do great things. And then depending on the field you can kind of just keep going as long as you have the energy for it. But lots of people begin to wear out into their 40's (for lots of different reasons).
In terms of great breakthroughs. If you haven't had your great idea by 40. It's probably increasingly unlikely that you'll have one later in life (but not impossible). Not everyone needs to have a paradigm changing idea to have a successful career though.
Because the capital owning class in America commonly has an aversion to labor.
Labor is other humans and all their social hierarchy monkey brain bullshit activates in a way that a machine doesn’t. That’s why you’ll see companies spending equivalent or even slightly more money for a tool to do a job over a human being.
Walmart employs this amount of workers only because it is subsided by food stamps and other government assistance. The minute they were forced to actually pay for the labor they employ would fire a lot of people
You are suggesting that if the government gives you a tax break, your boss would lower your salary? Why does your boss wait for the tax break or handout and doesn't just lower your salary now?
Also what's your counterfactual here? If Walmart fired their employees tomorrow and replaced them with robots, those ex-employees would magically no longer need food stamps nor government assistance? (Or more realistically: Walmart could pivot to the Aldi model of labour and replace many low intensity jobs with fewer higher intensity jobs. For the affected workers, the outcome is the same.)
If those ex-workers don't magically get off government assistance, if Walmart is out of the picture, in what sense is Walmart to blame for their poverty?
Conversely: if Walmart laying off these workers would magically improve their welfare, why do these workers wait for Walmart to lay them off?
> Walmart could pivot to the Aldi model of labour and replace many low intensity jobs with fewer higher intensity jobs.
Yes, this is the expected change.
> For the affected workers, the outcome is the same.
No? There are two classes of affected workers:
1. Workers who have been converted to full-time with benefits. These workers benefit from the change.
2. Workers who lose their jobs. These workers are worse off.
Your argument ignores class 1.
I don't think we'll get anywhere debating the relative merits of the tradeoff of those two groups, but I personally prefer the existence of class 1. At least with that class there are some winners.
There's practically no (1). It's a different class of workers, of people than who Walmart currently employs at low intensity and low pay.
People who prefer a higher intensity, higher paying job than the bottom rung at Walmart can already get that kind of job today. They don't need to wait for Walmart to fire everyone else.
Walmart has some of these jobs already, probably. But Aldi and other companies exist. The whole Jeff Bezo's workout at Amazon Warehouses falls in a similar category too: Amazon pays pretty well for the sector and requires no prior experience, but they expect you to stay on your feed throughout.
> Walmart employs this amount of workers only because it is subsided by food stamps
And then those food stamps are used at Walmart, its a win win for Walmart and Walmart. No other country gives their poor food stamps instead of money, I wonder why?
I don't think they're suggesting we reduce the amount of faculty. They're suggesting that you ask all the faculty to share less space, increasing the efficiency of the real estate holdings. Also by reducing the number of schools, you reduce the amount of expensive ancillaries.
Technically it's the same. But behaviorally it's not. When pulling in more dependencies is so easy, it's very hard to slow down and ask the question do we need all of this?
Mucking around with cmake adds enough friction that everyone can take a beat for thoughtful decision-making.
reply