> Furthermore, the street cred can open many doors that otherwise would remain closed to you.

The assumption here is that technical screenings actually work. As many here have pointed out, technical interviews today are highly capricious and pretty have no correlation with actual technical qualifications. "Street cred" and even superb interview performance don't seem to matter anymore.

I’ve found that people who work for large companies are often not a fit for smaller companies. They may be good developers, but most of the time they come in with prebuilt infrastructure, processes, separate departments to handle the infrastructure parts etc.

Most small companies I’ve worked for, I’ve had to go back and forth between every layer of the stack - currently including the infrastructure set up. You just don’t get your hands dirty with multiple parts of the stack at a large company.

Pardon my naïveté, I never took advance physics, but if light can't escape from a blackhole, then how can we "take a picture" of one?

It's a photo of the absence of light (in the middle) and light/particles swirling around the black hole that haven't passed the event horizon (yet).

Same way we can take a picture of a shadow - by taking a picture of the stuff surrounding it. This black hole is surrounded by a bright accretion disk.

Not a neurologist so excuse the potential naïveté here but can one also make the argument that we can reduce a Chinese speaker's brain's ability to respond into a series of "manipulating symbols and numerals" as well, albeit, a extremely complicated one?

I think this is still an open question. Some people have claimed quantum effects may be at play, but this very controversial: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-spin-on-the-quantum-bra...

Most neuroscientists feel strongly that the brain is not (just?) a computer https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-informati...

My understanding is that the brain, to the extent that it is a computer, is not anywhere near Turing complete. It is not something more than a very fast (Turing complete) computer, it is something less. The brain makes up for the deficiency by being extremely fast and well optimized for the tasks it needs to do.

But as a consequence, we cannot draw the metaphor about the brain being a "computer" too far. The "software" in the brain is specific to the given brain, and not hardware independent.

Sure, if we imagine a Turing machine with infinite speed and memory, it might be able to run the "software" from every human brain, but we do not know if it is even possible to build such a computer within our current universe (if we require it to operate at real time). And if it is possible, I would guess that it would be so many orders of magnitude less efficient than a non-Turing complete machine that there would be little reason to build it.

Penrose and others try to smuggle in something like dualism through QM, but I don't see why that is necessary at all.

I think we just need to throw out most of the "Computer" metaphor that requires Turing completeness, and deal with the brain for what it is.

It's chemistry and physics from there down.

Searle's argument is closet dualism.

Interestingly, the article later admitted the club made it easier for the autio thieves so it was a positive externality after all.

>Product managers at Google (and everywhere else) don't get promoted for leaving good products alone.

But they should get demoted for making good products bad.

Most likely because he is a brogrammer. Brogrammers like to work with other brogrammers.

And what does the word "brotopia" and "brogrammer" even mean? Is there anything to these terms except feminists being sexist and insulting?

For those who doubt the validity of initiatives aimed at encouraging minority/women in STEM, here is an example of why they exist.

Senior level dev here (6+ years). My last job search was brutal. I aced my interviews but still got a lot of rejections. The feedback included

* the team thinks you’re a great engineer, but you didn’t show enough excitement about the company

* we think you’re a solid engineer but not quite at the senior level yet, it’s ok though, we reject 98% of our candidates

* we do a lot of code story telling at our team (I kid you not) and you weren’t a great story teller about your code

* the team didn’t get the sense you enjoy pairing and we pair a lot here

I actually think the real reason was poor personality match but companies don’t like being honest about that so they make up nonsensical excuses.

Code telling? What is that? I'm sorry about the job but that sounds hilarious.

It was stupid. They gave me a project to do and during the onsite I had to walk through the code in the project. I thought I was pretty thorough given the time constraint. I figured it was just a bad personality-fit and they had to make up something so they said "not a good code story teller".

For me, definitely. The first time I took psilocybin 22 years ago shaped my views on consciousness, among other things, and led to profound personal growth. I don’t think I would be where I am today without it.