p4wnc6

148 ms·

721.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
This is false. See Chapter 4 of Peopleware. There is not actually a trade-off between quality and speed of delivery, especially not when you look medium- or long-term, but also not even in short-term. When you incentivize people to solve a
722.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
Notice that I never challenged the result of the ruling -- I actually think it's totally fine to give employers the right to inspect equipment they own and I pedantically follow the advice you suggest by absolutely never logging into
723.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
A perfectly reasonable alternative, which is not really any more mathematically difficult nor harder to implement in software, is outlined in several sections of the Kruschke paper that I linked. In general though, I would dispute a lot of
724.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
> Your primary agreement with the company is a trade of your time and skills in return for money Not really. The tradeoff is not just for money but for a spectrum of compensation, which could be equity (which could confer voting or board
725.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
> Though I hope you are not calling Twitter a fly-by-night marketing startup :) That remains to be seen.
726.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I agree with you that it wouldn't be perfectly symmetric and a number of difficult follow-on issues would arise. But, I see a lot of emphasis being placed on the fact that it was a company-owned machine and that it was ostensibly bei
727.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I wonder if doing this, just the action of choosing to encrypt, would be held up as sufficient grounds for the company to investigate your activity, or even possibly regarded immediately as criminal or potentially criminal. I can see a lot
728.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I know everyone is going to shoot this idea down with a million reasons why, but even so: why are these laws never symmetric? Why can't employees also access things possessed and used by the employer, like, say, HR personnel files, or
729.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
It saddens me and depresses me greatly regarding the job prospects of working with statistics in modern tech companies when I read articles like this. I know others will disagree with me, but my feeling after working in a number of jobs in
730.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I think the reference to cellular automata is a bit misplaced. Yes, Rule 110 is Turing complete, but I don't think this has anything to do with the sort of lookup table that Searle is appealing to. You can write programs with Rule 11
731.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
> Searle uses a lookup table argument in the chinese room. I know that. I was asking about your claim that a lookup table can be Turing complete, as opposed to merely able to pass a given Turing test. A lookup table does not express univ
732.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I interpreted the parent comment as saying that CMU doesn't exist to serve national security interests, whether or not there is an entity, like the FFRDC SEI, that does exist for related reasons. On one hand, leading academic institu
733.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
MIT Lincoln Laboratory is an FFRDC affiliated with MIT just as SEI is an FFRDC (of which CERT is a particular division) affiliated with CMU.
734.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I don't think universities should get a free pass on whatever their affiliated FFRDCs might do. If the university wants to be disassociated from an unethical action, do so by severing the tie between the university and the FFRDC, and s
735.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
Can you elaborate on when you say "lookup tables can be Turing complete" as opposed to just able to pass some given Turing test? I feel like there's some conflation about what lookup table we're talking about. Also, my r
736.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I'm incredibly surprised that out of both previous threads, the piece "Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity" by Scott Aaronson [1] was only mentioned in one comment, and seemed to spark no further discu
737.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
But when it comes to something as medically severe as psychopathy isn't it the whole point that it shouldn't matter what you, or me, or any layperson thinks? If you already don't like this coworker because of disagreements an
738.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I understand that not every member-company transgression is due to the company. But sources like Moral Mazes give us a vast set of evidence to believe that companies are intrinsically organized to be able to commit such transgressions witho
739.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
To me, this article reads as an excuse for the company to behave in a sociopathic way, and then turn around and try to pin the blame on some employee when they (perhaps rightfully) stand up for themselves. I've been in situations where
740.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
But you surely can't suggest that this property of you should generalize to other people? Yes, there is a component of happiness related to feeling productive, but surely it's not 100%, and it varies from person to person. Your
741.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
> Is it ever an option? Literally anything about your terms of employment is open for negotiation. The worst they can do is say no and rescind any offer / end negotiations because they don't like a question you ask. But if some
742.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
It's similar with asking about severance pay. Employers, in fact, often count on the candidate feeling too nervous that they will look bad to ask about negotiating a severance benefit. However, in start-ups in particular where someone
743.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
> You may work your ass off, but if you do, do it because it is the right thing to do and you want to do it. Lana Kane style noooope. Do it for a wage/equity/benefits/vacation package that is satisfactory in helping you
744.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
> The explicit assumption of both GM and BMA is that only one gaussian or only one model is correct - you just don't know which one, and therefore need to average over your uncertainty to take into account all possibilities. This i
745.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
In short, when the posterior is arrived at as the average of a bunch of other distributions, as in Bayesian Model Averaging, it is absolutely fine to say that the posterior is itself an average (it is the average of a bunch of other distrib
746.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
First, model averaging is a bit different than when you describe it as (at least in my reading, but maybe you mean "single probability" differently than I read it): > even Bayesian model averaging collapses a distribution over
747.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I still think the other comment was mistaken. At a given moment just before drawing a sample from some random variable X, that random variable can have a lot of different possible outcomes. What do I believe X is? I believe X is every diffe
748.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
Since most unconventional ideas tend to fail (because people have thought for a long time about what would be good, and over time those things have often become conventional), it is a useful heuristic to go with conservative, conventional i
749.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
First, I did mention that when two things truly are mutually exclusive, it can be a reason for picking only one. Two designs that are entirely non-functional when combined could count as mutually exclusive. Even two designs that could be su
750.
by p4wnc6 11y ago
I think you are mistaken. Yes, a posterior is a probability distribution, which is exactly taking each possible outcome in accordance with its probability. I didn't say anything about collapsing the distribution down to a single point

More ›