Art history. It's how we ended up with Impressionism, for instance.
People felt (wrongly) that traditional representational forms like portraiture were threatened by photography. Happily, instead of killing any existing genres, we got some interesting new ones.
The last century was characterized by two mega wars that killed tens of millions and social changes / revolutions that killed tens of millions as well. This century is off to an AMAZING start. Perhaps unprecedentedly good in world history.
And of course before this century, resource scarcity, lack of modern medicine, etc meant a grueling life of farmwork, living in a hovel, and being sent off to random wars. Now people complain because they can't get a 1500 sq ft home and garden. Come on guys be real.
Not to mention brutal state violence being commonplace , punishments being swift yet often unjust, etc. of course even previous conflicts used to show a brazen disregard for life. Thirty years, 100 years of war, etc
This is true but being able to afford a home, close to where you can find work and develop your social status further, is a pretty important part of life so not particularly surprising kids are miffed about that.
We haven't even got to the same point in the last century where the big war happened, and so far it looks like when we do get to that part of the century, we'll be doing the same thing.
Having medicine is good though. I don't think anyone's arguing that. "Things are worse" doesn't mean "everything is worse"
Given that the previous world police are presently treating international law as toilet paper, how do you propose global regulation of space would work or be enforced?
being cryptic and poorly specified is part of the assignment
just like real code
in fact, it's _still_ better documented an self contained than most of the problems you'd usually encounter in the wild. pulling on a thread to end up with a clear picture of what needs to be accomplished is like 90% of the job very often.
I didn't see much cryptic except having to click on "perf_takehome.py" without being told to. But, 2 hours didn't seem like much to bring the sample code into some kind of test environment, debug it enough to works out details of its behaviour, read through the reference kernel and get some idea of what the algorithm is doing, read through the simulator to understand the VM instruction set, understand the test harness enough to see how the parallelism works, re-code the algorithm in the VM's machine language while iterating performance tweaks and running simulations, etc.
Basically it's a long enough problem that I'd be annoyed at being asked to do it at home for free, if what I wanted from that was a shot at an interview. If I had time on my hands though, it's something I could see trying for fun.
it's "cryptic" for an interview problem. e.g. the fact that you have to actually look at the vm implementation instead of having the full documentation of the instruction set from the get go.
That seems normal for an interview problem. They put you in front of some already-written code and you have to fix a bug or implement a feature. I've done tons of those in live interviews. So that part didn't bother me. It's mostly the rather large effort cost in the case where the person is a job applicant, vs an unknown and maybe quite low chance of getting hired.
With a live interview, you get past a phone screening, and now the company is investing significant resources in the day or so of engineering time it takes to have people interview you. They won't do that unless they have a serious level of interest in you. The take-home means no investment for the company so there's a huge imbalance.
It's definitely cleaner than what you will see in the real world. Research-quality repositories written in partial Chinese with key dependencies missing are common.
IMO the assignment('s purpose) could be improved by making the code significantly worse. Then you're testing the important stuff (dealing with ambiguity) that the AI can't do so well. Probably the reason they didn't do that is because it would make evaluation harder + more costly.
You say that the connection would be permanently severed, but if the fibre is run through PVC can’t you pull a new run? Easiest way is to use the existing fibre to pull the new cables through.
reply