tz18
I think that is great, really! but does anyone remember asking a TA or teacher or prof or parent and getting told you can work it out for yourself, or maybe just given a hint? What if that is an essential part of learning, having to work through things you don't understand, but that you have the tools, the foundation, to figure out.
A calculator can't teach you math. A forklift can't build your strength. This is really a double edged sword, as far as education or accessibility goes.
You have to constantly ask... what do I lose by not figuring it out myself?
How hard/slow is it for an American citizen to bring their non-American wife over these days? My friend is a dual citizen considering taking a job in the USA but he's a little concerned about whether his non-American wife and kid could join him. She has a B1/B2 visa already. Is there some strategy to it? I heard the process is super backed up.
>Comments like "don't do it" or "it's not worth it" were appearing consistently. While we were pouring resources into optimizing frame embeddings and acoustic models, the clearest signals were hiding in plain sight.
First, I call bullshit. There's no way you're the first person in the room to think "let's check for keywords in the chat". I can believe that being able to tell these kind of bullshit stories is what gets someone promoted at the big companies, but I think this one is not even particularly good. Wouldn't any interviewer be skeptical? Feels like a Feynman story. Then again maybe life is stranger than fiction sometimes. Or maybe the real contribution at the time was in suggesting a feasible mechanism to incorporating the comment data?
Secondly, I hope that whatever model you came up with extended to livestreams without viewers, or livestreams where the viewers were egging them on. Also "Don't do it" seems like a pretty weak signal when you consider the entire variety of dumb shit people do on livestreams, e.g. the cinammon challenge, ice bucket challenge, whatever.
Also this is Facebook we're talking about, shouldn't they already know whether a user is a suicide risk in general from all the data mining shit they do? Shouldn't there just be a report button on the stream so users can report such things?
Sincerely, guy who went from new grad to laid off in 3 years
2. by the negation rule, there exists a hat h in {liar's hats}, such that it is not true that h is green.
3. there exists a hat in {liar's hats}
This is really basic first order logic guys.
"For all x in {}, P(x)" is always trivially true without regard for P.
Similarly, "there exists an x in {}, P(x)" is always trivially false.
Are we really going to celebrate a new marketing term to sell the idea of knowing more than one thing back to engineers?
Like, hey, what if, hey maybe what if it was a good idea for people to know more than just the very narrow domain that we slot them into. Like, they could read books and things, and, have different competencies, and not necessarily approach every problem from the perspective of the STEMMIEST GOONIEST engineer ever. Maybe they could look at the same problem from different perspectives, instead of just steamrolling over all the others in a mad race to be the most engineeringest engineer that ever engineered, the kid that was building radios in his garage, getting stomped on by the kid that was writing linux kernel modules in diapers or some shit, all of us clambering over eachother to engineer harder. And when something goes wrong, the problem was you didn't engineer hard enough-- don't worry, there are ten or twenty brilliant engineers here who will be able to point out your engineering mistakes.
Maybe we should try to understand how we have accepted and profited from a society that increasingly only wants you to know how to do one thing, and that thing is engineering. Maybe even of the amazingly talented engineers on this site-- and I know there are truly many-- it is true that though engineering is what society will currently pay them for, it is not what society needs most of them. Maybe in fact it is paying them mostly to keep their heads down and not think, to work on smart fridges and disposable scooters and giant vacuums that suck up all your data and package it into a CDO. Maybe we all need to read a fucking book once in a while, and maybe that means we need to pay people to write the books so that we have something to read. Here's a shocking idea, maybe some of those writers have multiple competencies too, maybe some of them would actually make amazing engineers-- but actually society needs them to write more than it needs them to engineer. It needs to pay them to write. It needs to pay shitty writers long enough for them to get good as much as it needs to pay shitty engineers. That's what it means for something to be a real profession and not a hobby for dipshits, it means society agrees to pay you without you having to beg. Maybe we don't need comments, maybe we need fucking books. Maybe we don't need headlines, maybe we need stories. And everyone always has a take. Everyone always has a fucking take. Go shove your take. We're living in a fucking take machine here.
Maybe without all this shit, we are plowing forward into a future we don't understand-- towards goals we didn't choose-- because we get paid and hey, we're good at it. We're good engineers. We make thing work. We make thing go fast.
You wanna build something, you wildcard piece of shit, build a way to pay other jobs what they're worth instead of finding new ways to overpay engineers to build fucking Skynet / The Matrix / The Metaverse.
IMO to prove that code is correct requires a proof; a unit test can only provide evidence suggestive of correctness.