Author's description of twin paradox is incorrect. In fact, the paradox is not described at all. The paradox is that since motion is relative then from both twin's perspective the other twin goes on a journey and ages slowly. So why it is that on returning, only the traveling twin has aged slowly? The answer is that both twins indeed see each other age slowly but for the traveling twin to come back they have to slow down to zero and reverse direction. At that moment the frame is no longer inertial. While turning around, the traveling twin will see the stationary twin age very quickly (enough to catch up with their earth age), so when they meet there's no paradox. For each of them the other has aged as per their observations.
The twin paradox holds in a Pacman universe where there is no change in direction.
The main issue with the twin paradox is that it demonstrates where our euclidian intuition fails us.
There are several interpretations on how to resolve it, but they are all just flawed lenses, intended to help you along a curriculum until you understand the math, and also understand the limitations of intuition.
The 'turn around' explanation is part of that and unfortunately often sold as the ultimate resolution.
All I can offer without going into the weeds is that it is not the shape of the paths, but mearly the relative length of two paths though spacetime that matters.
Proper time and proper acceleration is possibly a pathway in flat spacetime?
Learning that the order, timing, and sometimes causality of events is also relative tends to be a barrier, thus some of these didactic half truths are useful.
The "Einstein train paradox" is the classic intro to the relativity of simultaneity if you aren't familiar.
In the SR case, proper acceleration is possibly the better option.
This is an extremely detailed explanation of the twin paradox that covers things from multiple angles, even situations that involve no acceleration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv5d5KHKDVE
Are you suggesting that two people in a shared inertial space when venture into other intertial frames but ultimately end up in a same frame later will agree on how much time has passed in between?
Because I lowekey believe this to be true but don't have means to prove it.
The whole site seems very much like it is AI generated. In particular the css is very close to what I've seen ChatGPT generate when I used it to create similar things.
Nothing lasts forever. Even 100 years is a very long time given the technology / cultural / legal changes. It's futile to try to come up with an eternal solution. Just host it on something that seems to be reliable / stable for the foreseeable future and tell the younger generation to migrate it after you are gone to whatever tech of their day is going to be. If the younger generation does not care to migrate your work, then it is not of value to their generation and it is OK for it to fizzle out. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is probably best to have realistic expectations about how much people would care about your work after you are gone.
The main (and possibly only) benefit of networking is that hiring manager will look at your resume. Without networking, your resume may never even been seen by the hiring manager. But beyond that networking does not matter for the candidate. In fact, FAANG companies go out of their way to make sure that the person who referred the candidate is excluded from having any involvement in the interview process. The days where you get to skip rounds just because you know someone are gone.
This process is quite normal. The reason is two fold - first they want multiple people to interview the candidate before making a decision, one bad interview doesn't necessarily rule out a candidate. The second reason is the candidate experience. Some candidates feel humiliated if their interview is cut short and will harbor bad impression of the company for a long time. The company doesn't want that.
> Some candidates feel humiliated if their interview is cut short
As someone over 50, that interviewed at several places, before giving up, and accepting that I'm retired, I can say that there seem to be a number of companies that actively seek to humiliate prospective employees.
It's entirely possible that it was not the usual experience, but I have found that modern HR philosophy seems to be "Always keep the employee/candidate on their back foot." Always make sure the corporation is Alpha Dog.
A humiliating interview is a great way to filter out candidates that won't roll over for the Alpha.
> modern HR philosophy seems to be "Always keep the employee/candidate on their back foot." Always make sure the corporation is Alpha Dog.
This is absolutely true. A good way of accomplishing a more submissive team is by making it more diverse. If the members of the team can't relate to one another, the less personal connection, and the more submissive each person is to the guys on top.
I am sure some people will think this is not the case and that companies just care about "making things right".
Sure, but do you think that's the reason why there is an interest in promoting diverse teams? For helping the people "grow up"? Besides, that's only true if the differences are relatively small, you can't understand and relate to everyone. You can obviously collaborate with them on a professional level.
I think mature individuals will be able to overlook significant differences in one another and focus on the outcome: helping the team and the business succeed. If I picked up a signal that a candidate wouldn’t meet this bar, I wouldn’t hire them.
Some of these guys hated each other, but, when the boss said "Go!" they put their differences aside, and all gave 110%, to meet the goal. They helped each other out, shared information, and never sabotaged anyone else's work.
Japan has the strongest teams that I've ever seen, but there's cultural reasons, and it would probably not scale to many other cultures. There's also tradeoffs, and many people would not be happy with those.
If you want a culture that is really good at ganging up on a problem, then Japan is a good bet.
They wouldn't dream of testing for "cultural fit," because that is assumed.
It's also a shady technique some companies use to preemptively soften up a candidate they genuinely want for negotiations. They really want you but don't want you to think that so they can get you to accept less in the negotiation. Needless to say, the antidote is to interview as widely as possible even when you're in demand, to get a more objective view of your market value. Also needless to say, it's a huge red flag for company culture. If they don't think you're great, why are they making an offer? Are all your coworkers and managers also going to be people they don't think are great but settled for anyway? Or is it that they're not very profitable and can't afford to pay for quality? Do you want to work for someone who may not be in business much longer?
> If they don't think you're great, why are they making an offer?
They could actually think you are indeed great but want to get you at the lowest possible price.
> Are all your coworkers and managers also going to be people they don't think are great but settled for anyway?
Extremely likely.
> Or is it that they're not very profitable and can't afford to pay for quality?
That one is 50/50, many companies, even those not very successful, can afford programmers just fine, but they want to get away with paying less.
> Do you want to work for someone who may not be in business much longer?
Of course not, this is why I am asking uncomfortable questions during the interview, like are they profitable, are their customers bound with longer-term contracts, do they expect sudden inflow of competition, are there any regulation changes on the horizon, and others.
That's an arm's length transaction with a counterparty you'll never see again.
An employer-employee relationship lasts for years, perhaps many years, and requires the employee to act as the agent of the employer, repeatedly.
Would you accept this kind of thing if you can help it from a potential future spouse?
Come on.
They're welcome to try this stunt. They're also welcome to lose their best candidates who would have been most loyal after showing a lack of capacity for loyalty on day zero, and instead select for only those candidates who are equally disloyal in return.
> They're also welcome to lose their best candidates who would have been most loyal after showing a lack of capacity for loyalty on day zero, and instead select for only those candidates who are equally disloyal in return.
I have been contracting for little over 8 years now and I can tell you this happens a lot. Likely, really a lot. Very often.
And then they moan that programmers are overpaid divas who can't achieve anything, while just yesterday their 20-year old HR girl refused yet another NASA level 40-50 year old guy who can practically solve half the tech problems of the company, because she couldn't relate to him in a semi-informal interview.
> A humiliating interview, is a great way to filter out candidates that won't roll over for the Alpha.
Having the employee commit to more interviews is also a great way to get them into a sunk cost fallacy mindset, which might lead to them accepting a lower offer. There was an article about this on HN a while ago, where it was revealed that Meta would lowball you, unless you had a competing offer on the table (which can be hard to get when you need to do several interview rounds at several companies).
For a round with a single interview, and a single decision maker, cutting things short can be a mercy. As a candidate, if you've bombed, it's a horrible feeling to know that you've failed but still spend 10 minutes at the end on asking the interviewers questions and exchange pleasantries.
But you're right about rounds with multiple interviewers - they obviously collect feedback from everyone before deciding.
I don’t buy either of those reasons. First, I’m only asking if I’ve failed. They should already know that. Second, my “candidate experience” isn’t being improved by evading a direct question. The problem is, the company doesn’t trust their employees to use their discretion. That’s a bad sign in my book.
> The second reason is the candidate experience. Some candidates feel humiliated if their interview is cut short and will harbor bad impression of the company for a long time. The company doesn't want that.
What leaves a bad impression of a company for me is being gaslit in an interview that they seem interested then getting a passive aggression rejection email later. If you know you aren't going to hire the person you're interviewing, you should let them know and immediately end the interview. That's the polite and decent thing to do.
And I want to become a quantum theorist. I think being able to manipulate symbols on paper and explain the universe is food for the soul. Grass always seems greener on the other side. :-)
> And I want to become a quantum theorist. I think being able to manipulate symbols on paper and explain the universe is food for the soul. Grass always seems greener on the other side. :-)
I don't think this is a case of "grass always seems greener on the other side", but of getting a job as a quantum theorist. It is hard to find (and keep for a long time) a job in your area of academia. :-(
That's not the correct analogy. In classical case, the color of the ball is fixed even before you open the box (you just don't know it). But in quantum entanglement case, the spin is not fixed until it is measured (because the wave function hasn't collapsed). But as soon as you measure the spin you get either up or down value. If you get up, then the other entangled particle will necessarily have down value when measured, If you get the spin down, the other particle will necessarily have the spin up. Now you may say that, the spin of the first particle was fixed all along and we just didn't know it. This argument is called "hidden variables theory". But it is proven by Bell's inequality that such a theory cannot exist, so the spin of particle 1 is indeed a random outcome. What's "spooky" is that in spite of it being random, it instantaneously fixes the spin of the other particle.
Yeah, but I didn't "get" (to the extent that I can without grokking maths) quantum entanglement until I had it explained with this analogy, and then the "but that's not exactly what's happening here" real explanation. Leading with the complicated (albeit correct) wave form collapse explanation spun my head around and got me nowhere.
Good pedagogy (like, you know, science itself) starts simple and adds complexity as you dive deeper into the subject.
While the article may have some truth to it, the emotionally charged language makes it difficult to see the article as having been written objectively.
This a good point... it is an opinion piece and the authors emotional reaction to her family's experience with this system. There are some stats but a more useful artical would be a fact based exploration of the abuses by insurance companies that are enabled from the inherent structure of Medicare Advantage plans.
My own anecdotal experience is how the insurance companies call the elderly (prey on the elderly - abusive practice) to schedule vists from nurses who do nothing more than ask 100's of invasive questions and provide 0 care. They are simply collecting data that is not protected by HIPPA. The data is immensely profitable to the insurance companies to drive the accuracy of their predictive models. The insurance companies then in turn charge CMS for this visit.
It's the element in quick sort that you swap around to make sure all elements before pivot are less than it and all elements after are greater than it.
You don't need to get a degree from a top college or even a good one. Just get any easy degree through online / distance learning program to get past filters and dumb HR criteria. For online / distance learning degrees you wouldn't need to compete with million other students. As you get your online degree, you can keep looking for jobs and also work if you can find a job.
I delivered pizzas and worked as a cook to stretch a gap before. You can keep applying while at the warehouse. Market is rough right now, I quit a well paying remote job where I was on a good career track and I'm kicking myself right now. I expect to find something by March next year and will probably liquidate my valuables to stretch.
