dahart

47 ms·

841.
by dahart 2y ago
Got any evidence to share? It’s simply not true that “all” companies get a thousand applicants, whether you mean per job or total. Startups aren’t inundated with applicants. Neither are schools or hospitals or most web design shops or hundr
842.
by dahart 2y ago
That’s not reality. Not all companies have 1000 candidates. Not all companies have even 30 candidates.
843.
by dahart 2y ago
Hehe I’m sure you could manage if you had any valid theory critique or any actual answer to the fact that the outcomes of human evolution disprove your claim about body mass. I see why it’s convenient to drop here, so I understand.
844.
by dahart 2y ago
Naw I don’t blame them. I’m not suggesting anyone spend hours researching each company. And I don’t expect candidates to do anything, I’m saying the candidates who do are the ones that tend to land the job, but it’s entirely the candidate’s
845.
by dahart 2y ago
Yes that’s a fair question. Some companies do allow LLMs in interviews and on the job. But again the solution isn’t what the interviewer wants, so relying on an LLM gives them no signal about your intrinsic capabilities. Keep in mind that t
846.
by dahart 2y ago
Maybe not at the resume screening phase, but it’s usually still obvious once the interviews start when people aren’t interested in your specific company. Some people get lucky, sure, but the downside is that you have to get lucky, it’s wast
847.
by dahart 2y ago
> what you need now is someone with high creative potential and great teamwork skills. That’s exactly what we always needed, long before LLMs arrived. That’s why all the interviews I’ve seen or give already were designed to have conversa
848.
by dahart 2y ago
Interviews aren’t about solving problems. The interviewer isn’t interested in a problem’s solution, they’re interested in seeing how you get to the answer. They’re about trying to find out if you’ll be a good hire, which notably includes
849.
by dahart 2y ago
I’ve screened a lot of resumes and given a lot of interviews over the years, and it’s usually obvious when people are trying the scattershot approach, they just don’t match. I feel like treating it like a quantity game is unlikely to improv
850.
by dahart 2y ago
> it feels like there’s nothing I can do except do the same. Why does it feel like that when you’re replying to someone who already points out that it doesn’t work? Cheating can prevent you from getting a job, and it can get you fired fr
851.
by dahart 2y ago
> drop body mass releases calories for other survival purposes. Any increase over the critical need consumes resources better used for other things. Hahaha you just made the exact naive one-variable mistake you accused me of once sentenc
852.
by dahart 2y ago
Good! How do you know? That’s the part I was hoping to hear. The public statements are downplaying the risks.
853.
by dahart 2y ago
> The agency also said that, before the test flight launched, it required SpaceX to map out “hazard areas sufficient to ensure that the probability of casualty to a member of the public on land or on board a maritime vessel does not exce
854.
by dahart 2y ago
Did you read the section on the ear, or any of the entries under musculature? Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_tubercle > you don’t accept that organs not occurring in all humans are vestigial […] severa
855.
by dahart 2y ago
I wasn’t talking about reproductive organs… obviously . How about reading some of the link I provided? > if vestigial doesn't mean useless then it isn't relevant to my complaint against the headline Having some minor use doesn
856.
by dahart 2y ago
So cool! Should link to the project homepage http://www.nablaman.com/relay/ Or the news page with pics & videos. http://www.nablaman.com/relay/progress.php Last update was in 2011, btw.
857.
by dahart 2y ago
> The so-called vestigial organs probably all have uses. You’re right that some organs have been labeled vestigial and turned out not to be, but there are other organs that we know are vestigial because they don’t occur in all humans (sa
858.
by dahart 2y ago
Please elaborate, I think you misunderstood me. Are you defending the claim that 1% human body mass reduction is an evolutionary advantage? Your quip about biology should maybe be directed at @roenxi? I was talking about variation within
859.
by dahart 2y ago
There is only evolutionary pressure on things that affect mortality. Vestigial organs can and do exist because there is no evolutionary pressure on them, because they don’t affect mortality.
860.
by dahart 2y ago
> A 1% reduction in body mass is a huge advantage evolutionary That thought fails to explain the wide natural variation in body mass of humans, and within each species on this planet. Edit: for most species being smaller is a disadvantag
861.
by dahart 2y ago
Who said anything about a study? No study is needed to see that you obviously don’t understand what revealed preference means, you are contradicting the definition of the economic term. Take your question. The reason someone might do someth
862.
by dahart 2y ago
You can say and do and give your own credence to whatever you want, but the evidence you are providing repeatedly is that you don’t understand what the economic concept of revealed preference actually is. If you did understand what revealed
863.
by dahart 2y ago
No, there have always been free things. Revealed preference theory depends on the spending of money as the signal. That is the theory. It simply does not apply to free things. You’re trying to invent some other theory, for which you’re goin
864.
by dahart 2y ago
Wrong. Trading time for a good or service is simply not what the revealed preferences theory has evidence to demonstrate. You are jumping to a baseless conclusion. If it’s free, it’s not covered in revealed preference theory, by definition.
865.
by dahart 2y ago
No, that’s incorrect. Revealed preference theory applies only to purchases, not to non purchases, and not to whether to purchase. Revealed preference theory is tenuous at best*, and you are making incorrect assumptions and broadly misapplyi
866.
by dahart 2y ago
Your argument there is specious - tempting to see an implied point but on closer inspection doesn’t hold up. Only your first link about phones reveals any preference in the economic sense, and it’s irrelevant to this article. Your link abou
867.
by dahart 2y ago
Fair point, you’re right it could/should mention box filters somewhere. It has the let’s average samples over a pixel part, and it has decent citations (I noticed Alvy Ray Smith’s “A Pixel is Not a Little Square”). Connecting the avera
868.
by dahart 2y ago
It is a very useful topic for a graphics degree or someone writing a production renderer, I agree with that, but it’s obvious that Morgan made a conscious decision here, and obvious that the target audience of this book is not people writin
869.
by dahart 2y ago
It doesn’t really compare, very different topics and very different content. The Graphics Codex is about rendering, and Projective Geometric Algebra is pure geometry presented in a subset of Clifford Algebra. I think the only ‘conics’ cover
870.
by dahart 2y ago
This is a book mostly about writing a more modern Monte Carlo global illumination path tracing style of renderer, rather than, say, a rasterizer. This is why ‘antialiasing’ is replaced with ‘sampling’ and ‘integration’. When you start with

More ›