[Citation needed]. The cultures should only be compatible - not necessarily rooted in similar things. Japanese zen-buddhist shame culture is not rooted in similar things as America's typical protestant Christian guilt culture. To my knowledge Japanese immigrants did (and still do) integrate well.
Humans are ridiculously adaptable, I would argue the reverse of your argument - that there is no culture on earth that precludes any immigrant from flourishing in modern, secular western countries. In fact, voluntary immigrants are preselected for willingness to adapt.
[Citation needed].
And why should fear be the only cause to bar entry? Is that the standard you'd use for your home? I'd start with close friends and family, myself, then go from there.
One doesn't (and shouldn't) run a country like a house.
You get to limit your house to friends and family. Have at it.
You don't get to limit your country to that. Hell, you don't even get to limit your property to that, if you've got a sidewalk on it.
And much how the members of a household influence who to let in, the citizens of a country decide that as well, via voting.
Or do you consider yourself a higher authority on what they 'get' to decide on?
Same with immigration - courts have blocked plenty of enforcement measures and violations of human rights like long-term detention of children. There's a reason "majority rules" isn't the only way we do things in the US and most other democracies.
What is your opinion on fizz buzz problems? I've found it to be a tremendous help in the early interviewing process.
I suppose it's good at filtering out people that don't even know the syntax of a programming language, but do such people apply to programming jobs frequently enough for fizzbuzz to be useful?
Edit: Didn't intend to offend people. I just can't comprehend why a person would apply for a job when they don't know how to do it. I now get that it's a bozo-check, I'm just surprised there's s need for it. I hire in a similar industry and while we run into a lot of people that are obviously bad and or inexperienced, they usually at least know the basics.
Failing fizzbuzz is a quick way to indicate that the person is not a good programmer.
You are mostly right, but are there any cases that a programmer wants to join a company and he can't even write a FizzBuzz program?
I have asked that question to all the programmers that I've worked with (with various levels of skill) and all of them can write it.
Is there any data on that? I would love to know if that test actually have helped recruiters to identify bad programmers. Like if they can explain what Ajax is and how it works, but fail to make a FizzBuzz program...
Sorry if it's a bit off topic
Maybe I'm just being cynical but once you get involved in the process of screening candidates you realize that people will literally apply to any job regardless of their ability to perform it. So yes, there are thousands of cases every day where someone wants a programming job and can't even write FizzBuzz.
It's not even restricted to pogramming.
I've been involved in some recruitment for an English NHS trust, and people just apply whether they're qualified or not.
Some jobs have a hard requirement for a particular professional registration (you have to be a registered nurse, for example), and that will be clearly stated in the ads and job spec, but you still get people applying who are not nurses, and who don't even have any registration (allied health professionals).
You'll see someone who's done the equivalent of band 4 admin work, with maybe a bit of managements, applying for director level positions.
Then you now understand the standard of person that gets filtered out by fizzbuzz.
Of course it's a minority, but a simple test like a fizzbuzz that we can be done with in a matter of minutes can save a lot of time to both parties.
My personal theory is that many of these people constantly fail interviews and therefore skew statistics by reapplying, i.e. at any point the active market is filled with them. Nevertheless, I was shocked.
If you have 100 people, 95 of them are competent and put out 6 resumes every 3 years (on average 2/year), and 5 of them are incompetent and put out 100 resumes every year, then in a typical year the average hiring manager will see 95x2 = 190 resumes from competent applicants and 5x100 = 500 resumes from incompetent applicants. Over 70% of your pile of resumes consists of incompetents even though they're only 5% of the population you're sampling from. (Numbers are all made-up.)
Article in a math journal here: http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22...
Coincidentally, I also experienced a similar effect to the somewhat famous "two humped camel" programming aptitude test [1]. This paper argued that you can split candidates into two normal distributions based on aptitude. In my own tests, what I experienced was more of an extremely long tail on the right side, which is actually somewhat similar to the linked paper.
In our own tests, had a bunch of people fall into the 40-60% range, but there was a small bunch of people clustered around 100%, which are just people who could have scored 100%+ being binned down to the max score, and not a second normal distribution.
[1] http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf
[0] http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/18/the-camel-doesnt-have-...
speaking as someone who does hiring at a large software company: yes, yes they do. In significant numbers.
And if you haven't, what point was there in you commenting?
Here's one of the original blog posts that afaik made FizzBuzz famous back in 2007, it deals with your issue:
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/01/dont-overthink-fizzbuzz....
I'm interested because I work in a related field and I may eventually try to become a developer. I was just curious why this is viewed as useful when it seems so easy to me, a person that isn't ready to be a developer.
Another reason I'm curious is because it's hard for someone learning to program to determine what the barrier to entry is. As in, how much do I need to know before I apply for a junior role? I don't like wasting people's' time.
1. While you think anyone can learn fizzbuzz on day 1, a significant proportion of the population do not grasp the logic behind variables and loops (40% I seem to remember, don't quote me).
AFAIK the argument about why this is still rages, it might be because we're terrible at teaching programming logic, or it might be that they're really not capable.
These people can still graduate with a CS degree.
2. There's loads of people who apply for jobs that have absolutely no experience. Lies, half-truths, etc. This happens in all fields. They believe they can learn on the job, not knowing what they don't know.
3. The basic math of bad applicants vs good applicants. Good applicants only apply for a handful jobs (or none at all!). Bad applicants will make hundreds or even thousands of applications trying to get the job they want. See Joel's "Everyone thinks they’re hiring the top 1%":
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/01/27/news-58/
1 + 2 + 3 = lots of fizzbuzz failures
Making FizzBuzz a great way of weeding them all out.
>These people can still graduate with a CS degree.
How the heck can someone graduate with a CS degree without grasping variables and loops? These are fundamental to computer programming. Variables are fundamental to algebra. You can't get a CS degree without knowing algebra. Are you talking about some kind of diploma-mill degrees or something?
Maybe the industry needs a new sanity test.
[NOAA HUMOR WARNING: Conditions extremely arid]
The dynamism of American society exists precisely to the extent that we don't let unthinking appeals to the validity of the status quo guide our behavior.
Like Alisa Rosenbaum?
Many probably also believe that being more intelligent means you're superior and more deserving than someone who's less intelligent. There's also a lot of anti-immigrant, "defend the homeland from the foreign hordes" sentiment around the world these days.
I'd wonder how these people would react to the idea of having even native-born people have to take a citizenship test that included some IQ test when they turned 18, and if the failed they'd lose their citizenship. I bet many elites would be ok with that because they'd expect themselves and their children to pass, but I'm not so sure about the rest. They'd probably feel they were entitled to citizenship just because they had a lucky birth.
It's idiotic the way we gate the top end of people trying to immigrate here legally, but were opening the floodgates on the low end. If someone is talented enough to get an H1B visa, or graduate from a top university, those are the people I'd roll out the red carpet for, rather than shackling them in pseudo indentured servitude or kicking them back to their home countries when their student visas expire.
is culture something that can change, do you think your culture, values .. changed over time, or could have
anyway .. check immigrants for crime records, check them for what they did, or do .. not what they think (or what you think they may do, based on what you think of their ideas), because you know what immigrants spend few years 3 to 6 usually in any country before being granted citizenship, during that time if they break the law in any major way, killed someone for example, this in most countries will prevent them from being granted citizenship ... so you see there is a way to see if they fit, and that is ... if they respect the law ... and the law should be fair, and the law can be changed, this is only to preserve freedom of expression and thinking
and i agree immigration is not like hiring, because a country is not like a company, companies are not democracies .. companies have owners, countries dont
I disagree - the citizens of a country are its owners.
what separate a citizen from a resident is ... in most place i know .. the right to vote
and an owner does need a vote .. he may have some restrictions imposed by law, or how to use what he owns, but beyond that .. he can do whatever he want with what he owns, not permissions needed
And the US is not the only place where one can pursue happiness.
Also, people get too fixated on the right to vote. That's not what defines a democracy, it's just a means to an end. A democracy is defined by a set of liberal values and freedoms and the vote is there to prevent those values and freedoms from being taken away.
> he can do whatever he want with what he owns, not permissions needed
Well, big companies have multiple owners, so one owner cannot do what he wants unless he has a majority. Also a company is subject to market forces, customers voting with their wallet.
So really, an owner can only do what he wants for as long as (1) he can afford it and (2) his peers tolerate it.
In a society we are all interconnected. People that fuckup get marginalised.
Being a shareholder means you have volunteered part of your personal treasure to be part of an on going enterprise in the hopes of earning more treasure.
In the modern world, native citizens put nothing up for their vote. Taxes are not voluntary, nor are they required for a vote.
> Also, people get too fixated on the right to vote. That's not what defines a democracy,
That is simply, plainly wrong. Words don't change to mean what you want them to mean. The essence of democracy, that which literally defines it, is voting.
>Well, big companies have multiple owners, so one owner cannot do what he wants unless he has a majority. Also a company is subject to market forces, customers voting with their wallet. So really, an owner can only do what he wants for as long as (1) he can afford it and (2) his peers tolerate it.
Your thinking is very muddy.
No dude, party members in the Eastern Europe's communists countries also voted. Our dictators called our stalinism a democracy.
The essence of democracy is the rule of law and the individual freedoms of the citizens, which makes it possible for citizens to participate, the vote being a means to an end and not being possible without the rule of law and without those freedoms.
And I'm not assuming too much here, but within this context, my opinion is that if you haven't lived under some form of dictatorship, you don't know what you're talking about.
Late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’
I don't know of any mechanism other than voting for gleaning the popular will.
> my opinion is that if you haven't lived under some form of dictatorship, you don't know what you're talking about.
I cam't agree with that. Your experiences make you special, as do mine me. But if you really believe what you wrote, no further discourse from you can enlighten me or others until we too have lived under despotism.
Sortition (choosing public officials randomly) is one possibility.
citizens cannot sell their shares of citizenship, they are not like shareholders
The reason why we have a constitution that permanently enshrines things like freedom of speech and religion is exactly because the founders worried that some form of "democratic despotism" would try to vote them away.
winnings the vote, doesnt give you owners ship of the country, it gives you ownership of the vote
Few major companies have a singular owner who can act as dictator.
Also, in the USA, idealistically citizens do not require permission to do whatever they want. All rights are given to the states & people; the federal government is specifically given delimited authority that it can manage.
1- not all shareholders have votes
2- as a shareholder your vote is proportional to your owner ship
3- you can sell your shares, you cannot sell your rights of citizenship .. to another immigrants for example
maybe as a citizen it feels good to think you own your country, but you dont .. really you dont
say you country goes to war and kill innocent people, are you really responsible ... yes, only in the case a vote was cast and you voted yes on the war
but in general you are not really responsible, because you dont own it, and because you dont own it, you dont control it ..
Just like shareholders in companies have the responsibility to vote for proposals that keep the company running.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
The puzzle is a bad implementation of the idea that we should test for intelligence. Again, like hiring. This is the fizz buzz test with all the same problems