never a more laughable thing has there been uttered. UF has an "incubator" that consists of wet labs repurposed for house software startups (we were literally in a room with test tube holders and sinks and no proper desks). there are some random coworking spaces (like the one that doubles as a dorm lolol) but mostly everyone is a complete wantrepreneur. tech talent coming out of UF is also solidly mediocre (anyone good goes to SF or NYC). finally unless you love football and/or nature walks (not hikes) the town is dreadfully boring.
Most of the engineers at those companies (and really all companies) don't work on those projects. Some people work on truly complex projects, but those people are a tiny fraction of the entire workforce. It wouldn't even make sense for a company to allocate people that way.
Also, I'd contest the statement that Google or Facebook works on the most complex software. They don't work in fintech, medical, hard real time that I know of (waymo does, but they've been spun out), and many many more fields of SW, HW and CS.
They work on hard stuff, but don't discount the complexity that other companies deal with.
i mean do you speak from experience or is this just more conjecture? what people on the outside fail to realize is that while individual projects might not seem complex (maybe frontend engineering on FB is less complex than pytorch) it's the scale of the systems you have to orchestrate that is incredibly complex.
couch it however you want but you're deluded if you think your projects stack up against even a BS grad at FAANG if you're discounting their abilities just because they got in through grinding LC.
>The department, which says it takes more illegal weapons off the street than any other local police force in the United States, said that it took a record 12,088 guns off the street in 2021.
I don't know who knows this and who doesn't but getting a legal gun in Illinois (especially Chicago) is very hard; Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) cards have 6-12 month wait times. On the other hand, in Indiana it's open season (so to speak)
>Indiana is a shall-issue state with Licenses being issued by the Indiana State Police. There is no License required to purchase a firearm, and firearms do not need to be registered.
This is a fact that is very conveniently omitted by the right-wing media when they castigate democrat run Illinois.
You mean for editing? The part I worked on was not very large, so I had source mounted as NFS share. It worked fine, but I don't use much code intelligence. I think for the larger projects we had a local git server with some hooks to upload and compile. In the local network it works fairly fast.
this is one of those things that nicely illustrates the gap in network/access/info that ivies+ grant.
i too had no idea of such a thing until i attended (as a guest of a columbia econ phd student) an invited talk by susan athey at columbia where she alluded to the exact same consulting rates (though not for this exactly). at the time, it just didn't register because i couldn't connect it to anything i'd ever had experience with (i was an undergrad). that student has now gone on (after graduating) to work in a consulting group that actually does work on M&A type stuff (though she doesn't bill at that rate). and i am now at one of the schools mentioned in your linked article (as a phd student) and this is so well known that it's completely unremarkable.
When people say "I'm sure" I'm always just floored. Why are you so sure? Have you spoken to these supposed cloud providers and had them tell you this?
Here's one I'm sure about: no one cares about Mathematica except a couple of schools, professors, and finance wonks who've clung to it since the early days of CAS. The language is wacky enough that no mainstream user would prefer it (even with all of its built-ins) over Matlab or scipy. And I say this as someone that has developed things in Mathematica.
>If you back basic high school skills then you're not only probably not suited to Engineering, you're also probably not going to cut it.
Quiet part aloud right here.
What you're saying is that if you haven't been raised in a certain way (in an environment that prioritizes formal schooling) then you're not fit to be a professional (engineer in this case) no matter how smart/talented. There's a word for this: classicism.
But I'll tell you something. As someone who grew up exactly like that but is now getting a PhD in CS at a top school and who has excelled in several FAANG internships: you can teach/learn high school skills. You can't teach/learn aptitude though.
So if you think it's some kind just/effective/correct that these kids are kept out (just because they don't have good essay writing skills or something) well I have to wonder if you're just someone trying to keep the labor pool small to inflate your own salary (or for other reasons...)
You can definitely teach 'conscientiousness' and the 'basic high school skills'.
You can't teach 'aptitude' but I think you can encourage those things i.e. reading, curiosity, exposure.
You're right though that rich kids probably have a huge advantage in prep for Eng in terms of the former, but whether or not you call it 'classist' is besides the point: teaching your kids to show up to class and pay attention, do homework etc. is not something that costs money (of course it can help).
"So if you think it's some kind just/effective/correct that these kids are kept out (just because they don't have good essay writing skills or something) well I have to wonder if you're just someone trying to keep the labor pool small to inflate your own salary (or for other reasons...)"
For a PhD you're having an odd bit difficulty with leaps of unsubstantiated assumptions, because there's definitely nothing in my statement that would remotely hint about 'What I'm trying to do' about anything. I mean seriously, "I'm trying to keep the labour pool small?" What?
>teaching your kids to show up to class and pay attention, do homework etc. is not something that costs money (of course it can help).
of course it does. it costs money in the form of time - you have to be not working at home to have the opportunity to teach these things. it costs money in the form of energy - if you've never argued with a young child about the relative merits of homework and television then you have no idea how much it costs.
>because there's definitely nothing in my statement that would remotely hint about 'What I'm trying to do' about anything. I mean seriously, "I'm trying to keep the labour pool small?" What?
really? then what is the purpose of this part of your response?
>then you're not only probably not suited to Engineering
If you 'don't have basic high school skills', you're 'not suited' to Engineering.
There is not much to interpret from that statement.
'Basic High School Skills' would be general subject matter competence, basic diligence and conscientiousness with respect to attendance, participation, learning, homework, socialization, organization.
Engineering is fairly advanced, it requires an even higher degree of general competence than most Uni subjects, and even those need a level of competency only found in the upper tranches (say top 1/3) of students in high school.
If you're not 'Generally Not Good At High School' then you are not going to make it through Engineering.
I don't think there's anything controversial here.
>If you 'don't have basic high school skills', you're 'not suited' to Engineering.
begs the question.
>and even those need a level of competency only found in the upper tranches (say top 1/3) of students in high school.
yet not a single one of these things has the slightest to do with technical aptitude
>'Basic High School Skills' would be general subject matter competence, basic diligence and conscientiousness with respect to attendance, participation, learning, homework, socialization, organization.
i'll repeat myself: you can teach each of these things to a kid that is good at math and physics but you cannot teach a kid that has perfect attendance, diligence, etc etc etc how to be good at math and physics.
>If you're not 'Generally Not Good At High School' then you are not going to make it through Engineering.
<shrug> i made it through a physics+math BS, and I'm well on my way to finishing the PhD (as in aced my classes and my quals) and i graduated high school with a 2.2GPA and 40 absences senior year. so not just bottom 2/3 but probably close to last. so along which axis do you think you're wrong? either a technical degree doesn't require the kind of "diligence" you think it does (i'd argue it does not) or that diligence can be learned fairly easily (i'd argue that too).
"competency only found in the upper tranches (say top 1/3) of students in high school.
yet not a single one of these things has the slightest to do with technical aptitude"
?? Aptitude is definitely correlated with academic performance. There is no debate there.
I'm sure on your journey you've taken enough stats to grasp that your personal anecdotal experience doesn't count for that much? I mean, being last place in school, absent all the time ... would it be reasonable for you, the Uni, or anyone to believe that you were 'well suited' to Engineering, or at least more suited than those with good grades, GPA yada yada? It's great you did well, but you must agree that wasn't likely.
In the aggregate, both GPA and SAT are highly correlated with Academic performance in University, so you're arguing against the wind here. [1]
(Do I really even need to provide a data point on this?)
And you must know that being 'Last Place' in High School would preclude most kids from even being accepted to Eng. programs, let alone Uni.
Students who do poorly in High School generally won't succeed in Eng. programs - let alone be accepted in the first place.
Everyone knows this, and it's why they use Grades and SAT as a primary means of admission.
And FYI raw aptitude can't be taught but all sorts of other things can i.e. having basic mathematical literacy and just 'keeping up' from grades 1-9, means that kids have the confidence and opportunity to participate in 'STEM' things which they would be blocked from doing otherwise. Peers, Mentors, points of Inspiration also give kids the extra energy and ethos to work through the issues they might not otherwise care about, in effect, there's a lot of 'passion' hidden inside 'aptitude'.
You're literally commenting on a thread about how the SAT is being removed from criteria and your whole point is that the intangibles (you used a bunch of ambiguous words like diligence and etc and I explicitly pointed that out).
So have you lost the thread of the conversation?
>Students who do poorly in High School generally won't succeed in Eng. programs - let alone be accepted in the first place.
You really need to look up and understand the begging the question fallacy that I alluded to
>And FYI raw aptitude can't be taught but all sorts of other things can i.e. having basic mathematical literacy and just 'keeping up' from grades 1-9, means that kids have the confidence and opportunity to participate in 'STEM' things which they would be blocked from doing otherwise.
I do not understand what you're saying. On the one hand not being diligent and having good attendance should preclude students but lack of "confidence" shouldn't?
>One annoying bit about Go's generics is that you can't use type parameters in methods.
i haven't written go in a long time (generics would/could get me to go back to it) but are you saying that functions can't be generic? or is members here vernacular for class (struct?) associated functions? i thought those were called "receivers", which you mention further down. so it looks to me like you're saying that functions can't be generic. to which i ask: wtf is the point of generics when functions can't be generic...?
You can use type parameters in functions, but not methods. Methods are functions which have a receiver, so:
// This is a function, you can use type parameters here:
func Foo[T any](g T) { ... }
type bar struct {}
// This is a method, you can't use type parameters here:
func (b bar) Foo[T any](g T) { ... }
In the second case, "Foo" is a method which has a "bar" instance as a receiver.
I've edited my original post to make it a bit clearer.
Doesn't C++ have a similar restriction, in that virtual methods cannot be templates? And in Go, with its dependence on interfaces everywhere, every method is the equivalent of /comparable to a C++ virtual method.
Not saying mixing OO and generics could never have any merit, but.. Isn't a method just a function having an object as first parameter. Does Go change this beyond "syntactic sugar" somehow? Been a while from coding Go, so interested to hear.
The rationale seems to me that generics be functions first (ok, procedural), and not complecting it with objects and OO too much, whatever that mix could mean..
never a more laughable thing has there been uttered. UF has an "incubator" that consists of wet labs repurposed for house software startups (we were literally in a room with test tube holders and sinks and no proper desks). there are some random coworking spaces (like the one that doubles as a dorm lolol) but mostly everyone is a complete wantrepreneur. tech talent coming out of UF is also solidly mediocre (anyone good goes to SF or NYC). finally unless you love football and/or nature walks (not hikes) the town is dreadfully boring.