Klockan

> I didn't fail those portions. Actually did quite well on them. So did my friends.

Then I don't see your point, what are you saying caused you to fail? I have a physics degree from an unknown school, learned to code in my thirties and got a job at Google by just doing well at their algorithms and maths questions so it is definitely possible to get in without ticking any of the hip boxes.

> I've got a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, am very math heavy, created a number of algos for my work over the last 25+ years (in physics sim, bioinformatics, systems management/orchestration, etc.), run sessions at an ACM conference, yadda yadda yadda.

> Two google interviews, and nothing. From what I hear from other people I consider way smarter than I, they also got nothing.

Then you and your friends weren't fluent enough with algorithms. That is the point, they don't care about all of your degrees, years of experience, conferences etc, they care about your fluency with maths and algorithms. This means that even a person with a shitty background can get hired at Google while a person with a stellar background gets rejected. Should you have gotten hired? Probably, but their system lets them find a lot of diamonds in the rough who wouldn't get hired anywhere else which is why they use it.

That is the point, a person who is good at mathematics and algorithms will get hired at Google even if she doesn't have a cs degree.

It works, see for example smörgåsbord -> smorgasbord. They have exactly the same meaning.

I think that Google plus is too integrated in things like youtube to be killed.

What would sales do in a B2C shop? In my mind you just create a product people want, slap AdWords on it for revenue and add a marketing team for growth. I have a hard time imagining what for example Reddit would do with a sales team.

Edit: Apparently Reddit have a sales team since they have their own ads platform, they wouldn't need it if they used AdWords.

> In economic theory, rationality is defined only as: when faced with a decision over many choices, the actor always chooses the choice they value most, according to their own "utility function".

That definition is correct but it isn't useful which is why it is never used in models. In the end we need to assume that the actors values something and that assumption will have a huge impact for any mathematical model. So the point is that since our assumptions about what people value can have so large consequences the maths doesn't really matter, it all comes down to people choosing their assumptions such that the result verifies their own beliefs.

The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic actors.

A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality.

Similarly if poor people were rational they would organize against rich people, forcing them to share their wealth in one way or another. This could either be via violence or they could democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them or they could even unionize to gain power.

The question then isn't how we stop inequality when all actors are rational, but how we stop inequality when some people have irrational tendencies to hoard wealth while others irrationally prefers to vote for those who stands for some abstract ideals rather than those who would give them the most monetary rewards.

That's a part of step 2.

It is fairly straightforward, created a pastebin showing how it can be done, you can also make it check that it is implemented at compile time but the logic around that is a bit iffy:

https://pastebin.com/DiFh4GuM

> Which can't be achieved in most OOP languages that I know of, except for Scala and that's because Scala has "implicit parameters" which are equivalent to Haskell's type classes.

C++ can do that with template specialization.

> As a manager, one of my main jobs is ensuring that the team's bus number is always above 1

Bus number of 1 would be nice to experience for once, I have yet to see a team with a bus number above 0...

Humans aren't magic but we don't start out from zero, we have a billion years of evolution behind us.

Diversity training doesn't work though and it often makes things worse.

https://hbr.org/2012/03/diversity-training-doesnt-work

I know, I work there. Most I know don't even bother applying since it is hard to get an interview, they don't see getting into Google as an alternative. All Google would need to Gobble up all talent in Europe is basically to start pestering every developer like they do in Silicon valley, they already pay twice of what 99% of developers are earning so taking everything would be easy for them.

Several products are already stationed in Europe so it is just a question of how much. Ireland does mostly support, yes, but both London and Zurich owns products.

Those are not issues when you have thousands of employees at a location, then you can base entire products there. There is plenty of people in Europe who would love to work for Google but there are so few positions here that it is almost impossible to get one unless you want to move to the US, it wouldn't be hard for Google to get ten times as many engineers here as they currently have if they just wanted to.

I don't understand why they don't open more remote offices instead. Around 90% of their employees are currently within the US, wouldn't it be a lot easier to find tech talent if they had a major position in other areas of the world as well?

Aren't most emoji gender neutral?

20% are women in the places I have worked so you would expect there to be around 2 on average then. The probability then that a team of 10 has zero women would be around 10% so not that common.

I haven't worked at a single team without at least one woman, why wouldn't people just ask them instead of going out of their way to get more? I mean, if we reduced the amount of sexism then the voices which are already in the field would suddenly be heard and we would no longer have the problem you are describing.

> You'll be buying lots of cheap carrots and potatoes and rice because that's all you'll have money for.

You are kinda ignorant, your food expenses will be less than $1 a day if you only buy cheap food like that. I've lived on less than $1k a month most of my life, totally doable, you can buy good healthy food for around $4 a day if you cook yourself.

Cultural appropriation of Mexican small shops. Note that I don't really see the issue, the name describes their business well.

> If startups are begging for more women

Why would they start doing that? Eliminating sexism just means that you don't have any bias, not that you suddenly see them as the next coming.

I am not saying that this doesn't increase the wealth gap, just that the money isn't being kept out of the system like the article purports.

> people with lots of money don’t spend it.

They do, they just spend it on buying things like factories, companies and real estate. This is usually called investing and will also get money back into the system since the things you buy when investing were built by workers as well.

The end result is that people demands more proof before accepting that your idea is exceptional. I'd guess that this could reduce noise making it easier to focus on relevant startups.

I have been prescribed several kinds but they didn't really fix the problem. I have also had both CPT and psychoanalysis sessions for years and they didn't really help either. They took blood tests etc and found nothing. In the end I realized that they didn't understand my problem any better than I did so I stopped looking for help and just did my own thing.

It wasn't something I just decided to do, 15 years of hating my life eroded almost everything but my basic needs. Now I can look back at that time and with confidence say 'no' when asked to do something which would cause me to relapse.

When I was depressed I had perfect trust in my ability to predict events, it was just that no matter how much I tried I couldn't predict a future where I weren't constantly in agony. I got over it by letting go of most things that were hurting me like friends, family, dreams etc. So now I live a fairly unassuming life but I am content. It might sound a bit boring but it is much better than living in agony every day for the rest of your life.