> This is good for tech in the east coast. Fin-tech firms WILL HAVE TO compete against Amazon for (supposed) west coast wages, and could help build a much stronger tech industry than NYC has atm.
Amazon will represent a tiny portion of NYC's tech industry. Just a drop in the bucket. It won't move the dial much. Also fin-tech firms already compete with tech companies and they pay very well ( better than amazon ).
> Cornell tech much be so happy with their choice to open office on Roosevelt island. I can see them being the biggest winners out of this whole set of events. NYU is probably also happy, having acquired NYU poly a few years ago.
Neither cornell nor NYU needs amazon. It won't make a difference. The biggest winner will be amazon as they gain more political influence. That's what this move is about after all. Political influence in the two most important political centers of the US and the world.
Dan Carlin is not a historian, he is an entertainer. His podcasts are entertaining fiction, not history.
> The Mongols barely left any written trace but wiped out entires cities and regions [2].
They left tons of written traces - in muscovy russia, in yuan china, in mughal persia, etc. You can't maintain such a large empire consisting of many civilizations without records. Most of it disappeared over the years as the empire broke apart and different empires formed.
Much of the history of the mongol empire is twisted propaganda, like all history. But it's especially so for the mongol empire due to shifting change of nationalistic, ethnic and racial landscape.
Here in the west, the mongol empire is caricatured and hated for racial reasons. In other parts of the world, the mongol empire is admired. In most of the world, it's a bit of both.
Also, most old empires, including the chinese, romans, greeks, indians, mesopotamians, egyptians, etc left very few records relatively speaking.
> "Political adverts are - and have always been - banned on British TV and radio. That ban has wide support and has helped sustain the balance of views which is at the heart of British broadcasting - and ensures the political views broadcast into our homes are not determined by those with the deepest pockets."
On the surface, that's seems like nice sentiment, but on deeper analysis it's not. Firstly, all british broadcasts are already controlled by the people with deep pockets ( including the government funded state propaganda BBC ). Secondly, british media is extremely biased already. Thirdly, all this does is just helps the entrenched old money control the narrative. Fourthly, china, the soviet union, nazi germany, etc also banned political adverts.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. The people with the most money and power will win whether you ban political ads or not.
Democracy, whether here or in the UK, is controlled and managed and provide an illusion of choice.
This is not a valid argument for the BBC being an objective broadcasting organisation. One side can rightfully claim bias and then the other side can over-sensitively claim bias the other way because the BBC isn't 100% presenting it's view. The BBC could still be much more biased towards one side.
I'm not arguing they are perfectly objective evidenced by complaints from both sides. I'm arguing that they're not "government funded state propaganda" as GP claims, who would be expected to be pretty consistent in support of said government regardless of their views. :)
Overall, over the decades, I find the Beeb make a reasonable fist of being unbiased. With the occasional ludicrous attempt to balance by allowing a fringe a voice. Some instances of which have been apologised for.
When an opposition gets into power they still complain, no matter who Paxman or Humphries has had a pop at lately. I think any preferences of the types of stories they run are a reflection of the times, and perhaps the sort of people who choose to go into the media rather than any overt bias. Thus for some they are viewed as biased centrist or centre left in always seeking balance.
I wouldn't say that that allowing fringe voices has been occasional. Nigel Farage has had a very disproportionate number of appearances on Question Time alone.
More recently the BBC allowed Arron Banks to defend himself publicly against legal charges of election interference in a way which might well bias a trial.
The BBC might not be "government funded state propaganda" but BBC governors are chosen by the government.
Farage got his spot by being UKIP lead and seeking to cover the range of views and be unbiased. Which, of course, can lead to its own biases. Yes, he seemed to get far too much air time, yet we have someone else in this thread saying the Beeb was clearly pro-EU.
The Arron Banks interview was indefensible, and I haven't yet heard a reasonable response there.
Since regulation was passed to Ofcom and the BBC board was created the government get to recommend only some. Not sure of exact number, but think it's a minority. Supposedly to further distance them from claims of state control.
In my experience, the BBC tends to err on the side of opposition. It doesn't seem to matter who is in power... I'm speaking as someone who has lived in Canada for the past 18 years and has been subject to U.S. TV for that long.
I find the BBC really refreshing because they don't hyper sensationalize everything. The news is presented as if it's factual objective (not to say that it is, but it appears to be) and understated, much like the stereotypical English person.
When I watch British TV, I get a very definite feeling that I'm being persuaded to draw my own conclusions, whereas American TV, I'm blatantly being fed an opinion and told what I'm supposed to be thinking which I still after 18 years find incredibly irritating.
It doesn't matter if the BBC is biased or not. There's no competition, so it's always possible to make the charge.
For all its faults, I still prefer the American system better. It's not better in every way... commercials (especially political ones) are a plague... but I would rather err on the side of Free Speech.
The problem with American TV is you're blatantly being force fed opinions on everything. Being told what to think. Opinions are spewed at you with such a level of emotion and passion that you can't avoid feeling anything. Much as you try to brush it off, it affects how you perceive life.
The British approach to TV is "This is what's going on. Do with that as you will." It's presented as if it are objective facts, calmly and with a distinct lack of emotion. The only time you ever seem to be force fed emotional opinions are by sports commentators and Band Aid concerts.
I don't think the BBC supports a political party, but support for certain positions is certainly evident. They are clearly pro-EU and anti-Israel, for instance.
I went to a "meet the senior managers" public feedback event at the BBC a few years ago. The Chairman, Director General, controller of BBC 1 and a few other top level people were there to hear the views of the public.
They were repeatedly, in turn, accused of being both pro-Israel/anti-Palestine and anti-Israel/pro-Palestine by various audience members, each using their own cherry-picked examples.
If you can attract that level of criticism from both sides of the argument, I think you can lay a reasonable claim to being fairly neutral. They certainly weren't "clearly" anti-Israel to some people.
> is still that the majority of C# developers let themselves happily trap by the Microsoft marketing machinery.
Or people choose what works for them? Or they have to deal with sunk costs?
> They just swallow anything which so-called MVPs and conference presenters force them down the throat, primarily Azure which is by all measures inferior to the other two and they don't even know.
Please get off that high horse of yours before you hurt yourself. Nobody is forcing anything down anyone's throat. Your argument is so petty. People go to microsoft-centric conferences and listen to MVPs for microsoft-centric products and talks. It's like you complaining that a linux conference or talk doesn't talk about windows products and hence are forcing inferior linux products down their throats. What do you expect when you go to a mysql conference? Talks about SQL Server?
> Visual Studio is littered with SQL server and Azure tools which doesn't even make sense.
A significant portion of windows development involves SQL Server and Azure interaction? You do realize that much of what is in Visual Studio is a result of customer surveys and usage data ( telemetrics )?
This is why I cringe at fanboyism. Whether it is F#, Ruby, Rust, etc. People get so irrational and consume by zealotry.
In most companies, the CEO reports to the chairman of the board and the chairman of the board reports to the shareholders ( particularly the major shareholders ).
The biggest TSLA shareholder is elon musk and many of the large shareholders are friends/backers of elon musk.
So this is a purely superficial move for optics.
She gets a nice sinecure with a fat paycheck. Musk gets the feds off his back.
The CEO reports to the board. The Chairman reports to the board. The board reports to the shareholders but only indirectly via shareholder meetings where votes will decide on renumeration, board composition etc.
The chairman is typically elected by the board, but there's a lot of variety. Some smaller ones just make a schedule early to basically rotate through members for two years periods. I think there's a lot of variety in this part depending on the company, board, shareholders, etc.
We don't know if it is an emergent property. That's what we think it is likely. but we won't know until we find out what consciousness is. And we won't find that out until we crack the secrets of the brain.
There once was a time when we thought our bodies moved because there was an "emergent property" called the soul that instructed our bodies to move. It took a very long time for humans to discover how our bodies through the science of physiology.
Maybe for superficial bugs in small toy programs. But a real bug in any sophisticated program requires a bit more than looking at the code most of the time. User feedback, log/trace data, performance data, system events data, memory dumps, etc.
Of course the bug could be in proprietary software your code is using. How would you fix that by purely looking at your own code?
That seems managable when you have 3 candidates. What happens when there are 10 or 20 candidates? Would voters have to list their top 10 or 20 choices?
If all your choices are eliminated, then for future rounds it counts as abstaining. If enough people do so that no one crosses the threshold, the process repeats until the last candidate remaining is (normally) deemed elected without reaching the quota (though it could also be treated as cause for a rerun if preferred).
In practice here, even in such large contests the top 5 candidates normally end up with 90% of the vote and there's enough overlap between the parties (the further left parties transferring to centre left, the two centre right parties transferring to each other) that there's normally a clear leader by then, it's rare that e.g. a candidate with 48% gets eliminated in favour of a candidate with 49% in the last round.
No, you would only have to specify/rank as many choices as you want your vote to carry over. If you only like 5 candidates and hate the other 15, your vote will simply be thrown away and not counted if you don't specify any of the other candidates.
> The practice interview point strikes me as odd. In large, because I have never done one. Do folks really typically do that many practice interviews?
I only did practice interviews for my college internships and my first job because my resume was so light and my experience in the industry was nonexistent. When you have so little to talk about, it's smart to come prepared with a handful of questions.
Once you have 5 years or so of experience, other than light prep, practice interviews are not necessary. You know what to expect in interviews and you have tons of work experience to talk about and industry experience to ask pertinent questions to the interviewer.
But that's just my own personal experience. Also, after my 1st job, I've never had to take "technical or IQ tests" either. The interview process was more center around my projects and work experience rather than technical know-how.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of places have you been interviewing? I'm at about 5 years, and I'm still getting mostly the same old "write down the solution to these leetcode problems" type interviews. I would say 75% is leetcode bullshit, maybe 25% more applied type interviews.
Literally anywhere that doesn’t think of itself as a “tech compan.” or the job as a “tech” job.
I’m on the line between neuroscience and machine learning. Interviews for “neuro jobs”, even ones where my major responsibility would be coding, usually involve talking about things I’ve done and how I would tackle new problems. Put a similar position in an org that thinks of itself as “tech” and suddenly I’m traversing graphs and drawing trees.
Amazon will represent a tiny portion of NYC's tech industry. Just a drop in the bucket. It won't move the dial much. Also fin-tech firms already compete with tech companies and they pay very well ( better than amazon ).
> Cornell tech much be so happy with their choice to open office on Roosevelt island. I can see them being the biggest winners out of this whole set of events. NYU is probably also happy, having acquired NYU poly a few years ago.
Neither cornell nor NYU needs amazon. It won't make a difference. The biggest winner will be amazon as they gain more political influence. That's what this move is about after all. Political influence in the two most important political centers of the US and the world.