jshowa3

And most of their products are overpriced and poorly engineered. They only really make money on phones and branding. I can't think of single reason to buy any of their laptops or desktops.

Sounds like a horrible way to do a 1-on-1. I understand that you may not care and that may work, but the problem with a lot of companies is the lack of communication perpetrated by this. Sometimes this is the only opportunity to really inquire and ask questions about what's going on. And unless you've been solving the same problems and doing the same job for years, you're not really taking advantage of the time and neither is the manager.

This would be one long, wasteful meeting if I asked all these questions.

A result of the cancer that is continuously floating silicon valley companies in perpetuity despite them not making a profit for years. Tesla is overvalued simply by name. Same with Apple. Autonomous driving is still years out and their custom AI chip apparently doesn't do much in the way of helping that yet.

I fail to see how a custom AI computer will "invalidate the supply chain".

It's not like Tesla manufactured the chips and components in house unless I'm not aware that Tesla now has its own PCBA and component factory.

I believe it is some of the people that work there not all obviously, but it's mostly the system that's the problem. Ads nowadays are specifically designed to track you and harvest personal data about you at zero expense to you. They are often deceptive in that they advertise a product always as a cure all for everything and they use proven psychologically manipulative tactics to get you to buy the product instead of demonstrating what the product can do. Obviously, Facebook has skin in the game to keep this system going. Which is why they're doing a poor job of fact checking ads and would rather not do them at all.

There's a lot of problems. You may be advertising for a candidate you don't support just for the money. Most of the advertising has nothing to do with policy positions. The money paid isn't disclosed. It manipulates people easily because it's fad chasing and the candidate often isn't even in it. It promotes rampant consumerism, validation, and group pressure. Then again, there's a big problem with Facebook in general. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Anyone who has done a social media ad for Bloomberg has some serious integrity issues to sort out.

Compared to the hundreds of millions using languages like python, C#, Javascript etc.?

It's mostly a dead language. Didn't even hit the 2019 developer survey on stack overflow. My university never used it and no company I've ever been in has used it and I've been with 4 already.

The language that everyone knows and now no one uses.

I'm sure the NSA see's this completely differently. While I understand what you mean, it's very hypocritical when you have agencies like the NSA rolling around.

scientific method

You should add a resource on computational theory. Discussions of P-NP, finite automata, decision problems, etc.

CS graduate here.

Can confirm this site is legit. These are all standard recommended texts in CS curriculum.

You could probably substitute SICP with other modern language text books on programming, but you're not really starting from square one so I'd skip to data structures and algorithms.

That being said, from my limited experience with SICP, it's very good. Even the old MIT lectures are good. And it gives you exposure to a functional language.

The only thing glaringly missing is computational theory which you can acquire this by going here: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-404j-theory-of-co...

Or reading this book: https://tinyurl.com/rm6bgws. It's the one I used in my studies and it isn't that great.

This book is apparently good because it's less wordy: https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/second.html

WARNING: This stuff is very difficult to learn on your own. It takes a considerable amount of time to master and it would be worth it to go to university for support. You will often find that many of this stuff is not directly applicable to the workforce unless you're entering research positions. That being said, if you're a genius, unlike me, and extremely dedicated and consistent (also not me) you probably won't have any difficulty.

I've not taken the MIT course or read the second book so I can't vouch for its quality.

I consider Knuth a special case. He isn't really working on projects with pressing/shifting deadlines and timeframes. He does research and writes books. He's basically an author now. So doing things in "batch mode" as he says, makes sense for his particular work flow.

He also has his own secretary. LUL.

Yes, but a science lab isn't going to hire a high schooler with no science degree. And no business will pay a physicist with a degree minimum wage. That's the point. The result of obtaining higher education categorically results in you earning more income. And most people filling minimum jobs are not people with higher education.

Are people with higher education in low wage jobs? Yes. Is this common? No. And the only reason it would be common is if there was no income incentive to gain higher education, which there isn't.

I'm beginning to think you really don't understand what I mean.

Not everyone is a genius like you. And if you want to sit in your room and do tutorials and MOOC courses all day without speaking to a single soul, and you can figure everything out on your own without guidance, be my guest. I applaud you, because that's something I struggle with and maybe that says more about me than you.

Not only that, please tell me how many people can afford things like a mass spectrometer, fume hood, VNA, and other pieces of equipment that cost upward of 6,000+ dollars when they're in high school. If you want a real STEM education, you need to learn how to use test equipment unless you stick with CS or math, there isn't a lot of options to learn for "free". Even online courses cost money.

Sure there may be many people that get lucky and get into actual positions, but they're few and far between and are a direct result of success bias. The media shows you the thousands or so odd people that make it under extreme circumstances and never once mentions the people who never make it because that isn't "cool".

But they are. You make roughly a million dollars more in your life time than you would if you didn't graduate college.

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Exec-Summary-w...

Inflationary dollars are largely irrelevant as everything is more expensive than it was decades ago due to inflation.

This post led me to finally create my perpetual motion machine!

"Screw it, just do it right!?"

An increase income range is an increase in income. Most companies do not hire high school students or drop outs for more than minimum wage.

How you can reconcile a higher educated person being higher up the income ladder, but not making more than what they made working minimum wage at a lower education level, eludes me.

What stagnant income means is, they aren't making more relative to their productivity. Meaning salaries have not changed all that much for about 2 - 3 decades through raises despite high productivity.

I don't know what university you went to, but there are such things as bad universities. Just like there's such things as bad Internet courses.

However, the university I went to, could be classified as "No-Name" and I use what I learned in school almost everyday. In fact, I used K-maps to help a senior engineer struggling with a complex logic problem by simplifying it. The CS fundamentals I learn prevent me from writing ugly code and at least give me a sense for what's slow.

I also went to a university with a built in co-op education program where you got credit and paid for being an intern. And let me tell you, most companies treat interns like shit. They sometimes don't even bother having them do anything besides mediocre grunt work. My intern experience was not the greatest and arguably worse than my college experience. Most the time I was left on my own having no idea what to do and spent most of it reading programming books. Whatever "real-world" skills I picked up, like doing actual projects, was moot.

But again, it's mostly relative. So making categorical statements like "universities are useless" and "credentials are for cheaters" doesn't really help and certainly doesn't speak the truth.

Ridiculous.

Do you have any idea where the majority of massive breakthroughs in technology come from? They come from university.

AI started in university before it was even a thing. Autonomous vehicles were a university funded DARPA project. Nearly everything, even this guys research, is an important derivative of this.

Why do you think this guy chose to publish his paper in a academic journal? It's because it's peer reviewed. The Internet is not peer reviewed, it's public reviewed, as in anyone with an opinion can say whatever they want and get a million other opinions accepting or rejecting that opinion with little evidence. That's essentially what the entirety of Hacker News is. Very rarely do I see a post, including my own, that's properly sourced.

Let me ask you, do you think it's stupid that I paid money, like most people, to build a solar power management system? Do you think it's stupid that I built a memory management system, and text message system from bare bones hardware? Do you think it's stupid that I built my own shell? I did all that in school with equipment that I could only dream of owning with people that spent more time helping me than writing blog posts trying to get famous.

It's funny, I was actually glad this guy got where he wanted. It must be nice to be a genius. And to be honest, I'm probably not as smart as this guy. It's great that he had a lot of drive and achieved greatness. But he doesn't need to imply that I'm some liar because I chose to go to university. I worked incredibly hard to get my degree, spending hours and hours in the lab doing assignments. Hours thinking I was dumb and that I'd never make it. Months trying to find a job.

And all I see is people that did it a non-standard way and then have these warped views of the traditional way despite the decades of people lifted out of poverty because of it. And despite having never even attending a university! I see all these smart people and how they're the only ones that matter. College did a lot for me. And I try and do my best every single day because of it.

Sure, I may not be able to write an ML paper in a year like this guy, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to defend myself when he essentially implies I cheated my way in because I got a degree.

Statistically, higher education does increase incomes when factoring in multiple disciplines. The data is pretty clear on this.

I don't know why people think getting a credential does nothing or that people "copy and paste" the assignments. Sure it may be possible, but what prevents people from copying and pasting public git repos?

Either way, this whole focus on "portfolios are everything and credentials are meaningless" spits in the face of all the work I did to get my university education. And it didn't involve "copying assignments". And you come out with one hell of a portfolio if you take your education seriously.

I mean I don't think self-educated people are without merit. I happen to think they're really important. But I only ever see them rag on higher education, despite them having "never been there".

Just another example of wunderkin super genius knows all because he was able to follow a non-standard path and make it. Glad he was smart enough to become a Google employee. But I question whether he should be giving advice on paths to get there when there's always many paths to a position. And especially after reading his brief comments on how credentials imply you're a liar.

Horrible as always. Constantly stressed out. Pulled in 3 different directions at work. Can't get meaningful work done. Procrastinating. Etc.

No. It's just most people don't view it as themselves being the problem. Which is why it's all mostly a lie.

Even Elon doesn't seem to care about why he misses deadlines because he keeps making them.

I don't know. What I learn is that I either: a) suck b) am slow c) drastically underestimated my ability d) drastically underestimated the projects complexity

Either way, most of it is negative. I can't think of much good coming out of missing a deadline other than it makes you look incompetent.

Except for the fact that Elon Musk nearly always misses his own deadlines so what's the point of that rhyme if you don't even know what the deadline should be?

Making deadlines tight for the sake of it makes no sense other than to keep you working longer. Not that that's a bad thing, but if you end up missing the deadline, well... I don't know what you would think then.

What I don't get is how does one know they will solve a problem? I run into many problems that I don't have a good solution for and can't seem to figure out nor find how to get one. So I usually need to ask a co-worker for help and even then, they usually have to do it for me because they can't find time to show me how to do it. And if they do it or even show you what you need to do, are you really solving that problem?

Guess it's one of those things no one seems to be able to figure out since most of these pieces never really describe, in detail, what their process actually is for something that's unsolvable for them.

The worst part isn't lacking opportunity. It's knowing that you lack the ability and are forced to live your life that way without any ability to do anything about it.

Opportunity is at least, largely changeable. Ability isn't.

Being average is the worst thing imaginable in today's society because nobody cares about average people.

I would give up anything to have the brain of an inventor. But it's something that has constantly haunted my mind knowing that I will always be sub-par.

It's even worse when you go through school and you're a top performer in your school work. You're given a false sense of being one of the best, only to be exposed in the real world as a complete fraud.