Other abstractions are designed similarly to allow tests against pieces of the internal API in total isolation, though separated on different lines. Maybe you have transient state stored in view models while persisted state is stored in models. The isolation only helps as size grows, and it can keep size under control mostly by having a good data model for what each component / layer / aspect actually does.
It makes it easier to rewire everything when you start with a switchboard. UI changes are either "Oh my god we're going to have to re-write so much stuff if we do it that way!" and you wind up not making drastic UI changes or "Sure, we can make that thing tickle the controller instead of that other thing."
Why numerical methods?
* They might produce the right answer
* They frequently do
* They are easy to visualize or imagine
* You get used to working with a routine that is both fallible but quite simple and remarkably able to work in a wide variety of situations. This is what machine learning does, but there are more sophisticated routines.
At some point you need to make a decision to go down the road more focused on analysis & modelling vs machine learning & prediction. It's not that the two are exclusive, but they really do seek to address really big forks in the problem space of using a computer to eat up data and -- give me predictions or give me correct answers
Google needs lots of prediction to fill in holes where no data may ever exists. Analysis and modeling can really fall down when there is no data to confirm a hypothesis or regress against.
An engineer needs a really good model or the helium tank in the Falcon 9 will explode one time in twenty vs one time in a trillion. The model can predict, based on the simulation of the range of parameters that will slip through QA, how many tanks will explode. Most prediction methods are not trying to solve problems like this and provide little guidance on how to set up the model.
On the prediction side, you will learn all the neural net and SVM stuff.
On the analysis and modelling side, get ready for tons of probability and Monte Carlo stuff.
They are all fun.
Donald Trump just thinks a lot of things.
The author never made a valid argument, but lot of people up-voted, an indicator of the growing friction between the plutocrats and the plebeians.
One reason I quit was that all of the mounting promises were predicated on me in the end. If that's true, go alone instead of giving yourself bread through a middle-man.
> If the author's reading this, it sounds like you're fairly early in your career and learned a tough business lesson the hard way
Yeah. Second that. Experience is good. Knowing what it all actually looks like, the phrases, the mannerisms, is very valuable. You can take bigger risks when you know how the terrain rolls.
As an example of my senses getting more developed, recently I talked to a "CEO" of some startup I was interviewing and asked about someone else I liked who I knew at the company from earlier. Check this out:
"Oh, yeah [person] is really great...blah blah blah."
"So how is [person] doing?"
"Oh, well, they decided they wanted to do something else...blah blah blah."
Complete total waste of time was brewing if I didn't probe into the non-specific answer that artfully implied that [person] hadn't left the company and was soon part of my awesome team. I would have at the least researched them more. When you have to waste time on things like this, it makes getting where you want to be way harder and makes it harder to justify risks.
Normally. Normally. One would think that I would ride the company's reputation, not the other way around.
So let's add a little context.
I have back-salary that's overdue. I asked for a timeline. I got no timeline. I said I would sue in a month. I got a bunch of nasty stuff back.
I told one of the board members that I had resigned. They had no idea that I had resigned (almost three months ago), and I'm guessing that they were also the primary source of new leads for the company to raise. This is where "damages" and "best interests of the company" arguments seemingly deserve analysis.
My desire to distance myself from the company cannot be decoupled from my potential motive to derail the company by breaking the news. While I would consider it 100% right to enforce the ethics of disclosure on the company, I would prefer 100% legal if it goes to court, which it would do so as a big waste of time, but one that might require my attention.
I desire to spend zero time on this, and the other party has contacted me with the desire to also have no further interaction.
That's all fine, but what about the back-salary? A 3rd party would be right to say that I'm only after it because I don't want to be intimidated away from getting what's mine. A healthy course seems to wait for them to boil down and for me to get more stable in my new roll before asking for the payment.
The board member will probably want answers, so I won't totally be done for now yet.
And just three weeks ago, the CEO wanted to meet me in SF to catch up...
Background: Obvious burner handle. I worked at a company. I resigned. I told someone that I had quit, almost three months after quitting, and after starting a new job. I have a confidentiality agreement, which is valid for twelve months beyond my resignation date.I'm now threatened with legal action because I informed someone that I wasn't working there. Setting aside whether I can win...