Somehow we arent really adept at interviewing at what the day-to-day requirements of a position.
Instead were much more interested in edge-case stuff like bubble sort.
I wonder if this is some assessment of "are they capable of substantially more complex tasks, and if so, safe to assume they're capable of less-complex minutiae.
Seems about right, as often these evaluation type things are proxies.
Look at the systems which reward X behavior in Y sex.
Assuming that access to partners is a primary behavioral motivator ( it is, it just is ). Then what rewards exist for women undertaking novel enterprises?
Very little. Or substantially less compared to males.
The systems running internal to humans don't preference the sex-barganing position of a woman when shes got money / power which comes with starting companies.
More simply:
Power / money doesn't beget better mate-optionality for women in the same way it benefits men -- so why would she do it?
Would you please not take HN threads further into flamewar? And especially please don't break the site guidelines by calling names like "ignorant pandering". We ban accounts that do those things.
"Importantly, our work on rodent blood exchange establishes that blood age has virtually immediate effects on regeneration of all three germ layer derivatives."
Not in this case as the data I described is on embargo. The problem is more general for all genomic data that has already been made public but were funding runs out after 5 years or so. I happend to chat to a postdoc the other day who is involved in the ICGC cancer consortium and had already some thoughts about the problem. If you want I can ask him whether he wants to contact you.
"Dietary restriction just isn't in us." like ... unsure how to respond to this... Like its just so blatantly wrong. source: me, a person whos maintained substantially fasted states for long periods of time
Yes, that's you. Go outside. Look around. Do you think we _as_ _a_ _population_ can maintain diets? The existence of rare outliers (and anorexics) does not disprove the bloody obvious conclusion that at population scale telling people to eat less has no effect on how much they actually eat.
6) Efficiency lost w regards to minor changes. Youd actually write a comment to have someone change something and then RE-issue the pull request? Sure you would, because youre middle management.
Pull requests seem to be a hacky way for management to get involved with something they understand at the loss of control in arguably the most complex phase of coding: INTEGRATION.
You don't have to use the UI. If you're really anal about your git history, you can do the merge locally and squash everything into one commit. IMO, it's not worth the effort to do that, though. You probably don't actually care about the Git log - you care about the file history (i.e. git blame), which will usually point you to the right commit anyway, even if you have a bunch of extra merge commits in your log.
FWIW, you're not Linus. You don't get 17 million emails/day (exaggeration, I know). He has a very refined workflow based on many, many years of working with people all over the world on a gigantic project used by hundreds of millions of people.
Re point 6: You don't create another pull request. You just make another commit on that branch.
Github has a command line tool that lets you merge in pull requests by downloading and applying the PR's patch; that will keep your history clean. PRs offer a great UI for coffee reviews; just because you use them for that purpose doesn't mean you need to merge with the big green button.
Somehow we arent really adept at interviewing at what the day-to-day requirements of a position.
Instead were much more interested in edge-case stuff like bubble sort.
I wonder if this is some assessment of "are they capable of substantially more complex tasks, and if so, safe to assume they're capable of less-complex minutiae.
Seems about right, as often these evaluation type things are proxies.