tangentspace

They described a culture that encourages asking hard questions, and doing the right thing in ethically complex situations, even if that meant turning down a business opportunity. It came across as frank and sincere, and I didn't get any sense they were grooming for a cult, more that they were looking for people who were smart and passionate.

I'd say it's an excellent way to get a feel for what it takes to build a home. There are a TON of details, especially if you don't want it to rot.

If you intend to heat it in the winter, be sure to consider the effects of condensation. I made the mistake of building my first shed without proper ventilation, and it was like indoor rain when I turned on a space heater. For my second, more permanent shed I've followed building codes for real homes to avoid making any more big mistakes like that.

I agree that this is a flawed article: the ads are irritating, the grammar is flawed, and calling boolean algebra an algorithm is inaccurate.

But looking past the flaws, I wouldn't describe it as vapid. I see it as more of a very high level survey of some truly important algorithms targeted at general population and students. This kind of writing can be an incredibly important source of inspiration for young people.

The problem introduced by that approach is how to manage a large number of CF stacks. First I used a homegrown Python library to manage them, then switched to having Terraform manage CF.

At first Terraform on CF was just intended to be an expedient measure to facilitate migrating everything to Terraform, and eventually we did migrate to pure Terraform. But then we started hitting all the rough edges in Terraform. In hindsight, the hybrid approach had actually been more stable and manageable than using either tool in isolation.

He focuses on the intuitive concept of a particle having a spinny arrow attached, the arrow rotates as the particle flies through space. He only casually mentions that this is in fact a complex number, whereas the bulk of the text focuses on developing intuition around arrows.

I read that book in high school, and it certainly influenced the direction I took in university. It helped to understand that the physical universe often appears to behave in extremely non-intuitive ways, but using mathematics we can develop a model that transforms the phenomenon into something that actually does make intuitive sense.

I think some of the harder concepts in math are difficult because they act like stepping stones into aspects of our world that just don't make sense based on day-to-day experiences. But modern technology depends on this! Pedagogy is improving, but it still lags advances in technology.

I found this doc on the origins of the name (author also agrees it's terrible): http://www.glennshafer.com/assets/downloads/talks164_The-inv...

Sounds like it got mangled as work was being translated back and forth between Russian, English, French, and German.

The kind of math that was traditionally taught in schools is still relevant and important, but I think we can leverage modern visual and interactive media to help children develop a broader class of mathematical reasoning skills, which includes much, much more than a bunch of rules, symbols, and rote procedures.

There may be some amount of drift over time, but you can go to the research library of any university math department and find books from pre-WWII that are still totally readable because although style has shifted somewhat, the basic nomenclature hasn't.

I agree random variable is awkward, though. I always avoided stats courses because it's full of so much jargon that collides with nomenclature used by mathematicians.

The result of the determinant might be negative, which doesn't make sense for a volume, so you need to take the absolute value to interpret it that way.

Another way to think of it is the change in volume caused by the linear transformation determined by the matrix (http://algebra.math.ust.hk/determinant/01_geometry/lecture3....)

The definition of a vector space says nothing about whether it does or does not have a multiplication operation defined on it. A vector space having a multiplication operator has additional structure, but is still a vector space.

Example: The space of NxN matrices. There are 2 distinct forms of multiplication on this space: between a vector and a scalar (scalar multiplication), and between vectors (matrix multiplication).

Wouldn't that cause much, much greater confusion due to mathematical nomenclature being a moving target rather than remaining stable?

Fully understanding the math in this book requires a solid background in linear algebra, calculus, differential equations. But I find it an incredibly interesting book even without understanding all the math: the engaging writing style and numerous illustrations capture the intuitions behind differential geometry and relativity, but without sacrificing the rigorous mathematical formulations underlying it.

They can talk about their chosen topic at many levels to many different audiences, from general audience (who may provide funding to them), high school students (outreach and recruiting), university students, and peers. This flexibility is an important part of being a very successful mathematician, and you have to burn it into your brain to reach that level of fluency.

What he likely did have in his head was an index into the contents, that's the crux of my observation. If I am very good at organizing my workshop, I can quickly grab the tools and materials needed for a particular task without breaking my flow of thought. Same basic principle applies to mathematicians and other intellectual workers, just as it does with physical trades.

Some mathematicians seem to index facts based on geometric images, others seem to be more inclined to symbolic or algebraic statements. Whatever the representation, when confronted with a new mathematical situation they then scan quickly for matches to various aspects of the problem at hand.

Maybe to some degree my observation here is obvious. But I thought a lot about it while I was in grad school studying a book called Geometric Measure Theory by Herbert Federer. That book is enormous, and full of highly intricate technical proofs that require pulling together a large number of detailed technical facts.

The book is also very highly structured, and that led me to conclude that the text likely mirrored how Federer organized this information in his head. It reads like code for a complex but cleanly architected software system, and that's a big part of what led me from math to software development.

I've heard students complain that graduate qualifying exams are a form of hazing for people hoping to become pure mathematicians, and although I don't entirely agree with that sentiment, they do play a similar role in weeding out people based on preparation rather than ability to generate deep, novel insights.

> with the launch of our Infrastructure-as-a-Service platform Google Compute Engine, we noticed an interesting problem: customers were paying for a lot of CPUs, but their utilization rates were extremely low because they were running VMs. We knew we had an internal solution for this.

Later,

> most importantly, we were able to work with lots of great engineers, many of whom really understood the needs of businesses who would benefit from deploying containers

That does not read like a decision to pursue this for the betterment of the world. It sounds like a decision to pursue this for the betterment of their customers. That's capitalism, not benevolence, and they're pretty transparent about it.

What has not been so variable are things I'd consider more core aspects of professional behavior:

* caring deeply about customer needs and expectations, exercising grit, determination, and ingenuity to satisfy them

* understanding business concerns like cost management and delivering value to both investors and customers, striking a balance between competing demands

* understanding and caring about teammates, working effectively with a team to achieve above 2 objectives. maintaining a solution oriented mindset.

Here's how I might apply my interpretation of professionalism to the hypothetical situation that you were a capable coworker at Weber Thompson who felt uncomfortable due to the approximately 16 degree temperature excess on a hot day: propose partitioning off a space and installing air conditioning there for those who want it.

I don't see any inherent technical obstacles or insurmountable business concerns in that solution. It would balance the desires of some employees for connection with outside air, without causing discomfort to others who for one reason or another have a different preference. Customers might appreciate the flexibility to make the space suitable for a wider variety of preferences, and ask if we can do the same for them.

I admit the possibility that this whole article is a puff piece meant as PR for this firm, and in reality they're all miserable inside but maintain a charade of happiness to hide from potential customers the fact that their heat chimney was in fact an engineering disaster.

The simpler explanation, which jibes with my personal experience as a longtime Seattleite, is that it's just not that big of a deal to do without AC here as long as its a relatively small building and you get the airflow right.