> That has to be attributed to the newer generations. They are more skeptical of propaganda than ever before. To them, the high production value media outlets are just a quaint legacy variety of content slop.
Right. The skeptical newer generation knows better. It's the generation that is immune to influence. They're so resistant to it that they've finally driven advertisers to realize that spamming YouTube, IG, TikTok, with ads peddling some new hype every week is pointless.
Sarcasm aside, the newer generation, in any generation, is always as naive as they're said to be. You're not born with wisdom and your parents can't save you from the candle fire, no matter how much they try. Sooner or later, you'll have to burn that finger to learn. Life is an experience game. No way around it.
> Is the colour you see the same as what I see? It’s a question that has puzzled both philosophers and neuroscientists for decades, but has proved notoriously difficult to answer.
> Now, a study that recorded patterns of brain activity in 15 participants suggests that colours are represented and processed in the same way in the brains of different people.
They're not asking the same question though. Neuroscientists are asking whether the brain processes the physical substrate (photons) that precedes the experience in the same way. Philosophers are asking if the subjective experience that follows (the qualia) is identical. The former is the easy question. The latter is the impossible question.
In fact, I think the latter is an even easier question. People’s subjective experience of colors is obviously different across a large enough population. Colorblindness and synesthesia alone prove as much.
The article may be philosophically ignorant, but there's still value in the findings here. It answers the question in a limited sense: if materialism is ultimately true, then your blue is approximately my blue because the physical brain state is the consciousness.
it's not meaningless, it has several direct implications about the nature of reality.
consider that subjective experience - to put it in the weakest and most general statement - clearly has a physical component. I'm being careful to not say that it is a physical phenomenon, is caused by physical phenomena, and so on, because while I think that's a reasonable assumption, we technically have no evidence for it.
but we do have plenty of evidence that, even if it is some supernaturally created magical process, subjective experience interacts with the physical world. for one, it clearly exchanges information with basic physical systems in your body - if it did not have some way to exchange information about what your eyes are seeing, you wouldn't be able to experience sight.
subjective experience is also easily altered with simple physical phenomena like chemical substances in your brain. so either these physics directly modify your subjective experience, or the subjective experience you have is mostly a physical product of your brain and the subjective experience part is only the end point of the process that receives all the information.
it's interesting because in physics, any exchange of information implies the existence of some directly measurable physical process. anything that is the product of such a process, you can generally speaking measure. all the things you can measure in an experiment are the things we eventually call the fundamental components of nature - like the charge, spin and so on of particles, as well as their place in time and space.
so subjective experience is either already some part we haven't observed of those fundamental components - which would in some way imply that everything is subjectively experiencing all the time - or it's an extra element we have not yet observed, but may be able to directly observe in experiment in the future.
Love it. Make code accessibility a first-class citizen. Turn the rule books and their principles into guidelines. A smart coder knows to follow rules. A master knows code is meant to be read and develops contextual awareness for when and why to break a rule, or augment it, as the case may be. So, reintroduce judgment and critical thinking in your coding practice. Develop an intuitive feel for the cognitive costs and trade-offs of your decisions. Whether you choose to duplicate or abstract, think of the next person (who sometimes is you in six months).
For those asking why author doesn't come up with their own new rules that can then be followed, this would just be trading a problem for the same problem. Absentmindedly following rules. Writing accessible code, past a few basic guidelines, becomes tacit knowledge. If you write and read code, you'll learn to love some and hate some. You'll also develop a feel for heavy handedness. Author said it best:
> It's not imagined, it's there and we can feel it.
We can feel it. Yes, having to make decisions while coding is an uncomfortable freedom. It requires you to be present. But you can get used to it if you try.
You might have opened the article thinking that it was going to be a discussion on cognitive load theory in general. It's not and I don't believe it needed to be for its purpose, since it's been well framed: code. Intrinsic, extraneous, germane loads? Why talk in abstract? The field of professional programming is an exemplar that evidences all those concepts. We pretty much live the theory. Programming is inherently complicated, we know how/why. We tend to needlessly add to the complexity, we know how/why. We are also notoriously ignorant, oblivious even, of our minds' true limitations and have strange beliefs regarding our abilities. Check, check, and check. Article can just speak plainly. "Don't make complicated things more complicated than they need to be. You're only human".
This is correct. To delve into a topic about cognitive load without talking about germane overhead disqualifies this article (i.e. similar to extraneous overhead in terms of effort but germane overhead is beneficial. Because it helps the coder's reading ability.)
The examples are good but every reader must not have the takeaway that every effortful code is bad (e.g. haskell is extremely hard to read at first but every developer swears it has very high intrinsic cognitive load)
And in the context of XP, which is where DTSTTCPW comes from:
The one you can use right now in order to get feedback from real world use, which will be much better at guiding you in improving the solution than what you thought was "best" before you had that feedback.
Real world feedback is the key. Get there as quickly as feasible, then iterate with that.
> Anyway, I just wish China would just continue opening up, namely to get rid of the great firewall.
To become the next Rome, China would have to open up and let itself be infected by the rest of the world. It's a rite of passage, with no guarantee that it will have the constitution to endure the culture shock and the subsequent fever. How do you expose 1.4 billion minds to new perspectives, while also keeping everyone paddling in the same direction?
> But China proved you can pair authoritarian politics with a market economy. It offers a bargain we thought impossible: prosperity without freedom, development without democracy, safety without expansive civil liberties. And for the billions of people who remember being hungry, who want their kids to have better lives, who care more about rising wages than free speech—it's getting harder to argue they're wrong.
Author sounds like someone on their way from a week-end in the Huxleyan London of Brave New World. Everything was so beautiful. Freedom? Fuck that.
The hallmarks of ghost job posting are so obvious that detecting them could probably be automated now.
- Recurrent and yearlong ad for the same position, with numerous applicants (sometimes in the hundreds, if not thousands). This is probably the poster child of the ghost job ad.
- Unrealistic compensation for required skills, guaranteed to weed out the junior (skill issue) and the senior (comp issue). This could also signal that the company is looking to hire from offshore markets.
- Plain unrealistic skill requirements. Even companies that hire "full-stack" know that there's a practical limit, beyond which it's probably better to spread out responsibilities, if we want any kind of productivity gain. Being unreasonably greedy about skills might be a sign that the poster wants a cop out when candidates actually turn up. "Yeah, he was capable of writing his own OS kernel as we asked, but his CSS was shit".
If endeavors like the present proposal prove inept, there are enough tools to supplement posted job ads with metrics meant to easily signal to job seekers and investors something useful about the companies posting them, with a nice and accessible UI.
The other day there was an article about streaming services driving viewers back to piracy due to their shenanigans and the resulting subpar user experience. If LinkedIn and friends continue to pretend that it's technologically beyond them to solve ghost job posting on their own network, eventually it will be addressed somewhere else.
I'm not familiar with the process of passing a law. Is it one of those situations where the ask is open to negotiation? Like, if I want to be given a finger I first need to ask for the whole arm kinda deal? If it's the case, then as you said, perhaps the real ask is what's in the summary.
The devil is in the details. There is one interview process that is bulletproof but it's NEVER going to be adopted in mass by private companies: university / police academy admission exams.
Basically you have a set number of places, say 50 jobs and accept candidacies up to a certain date, when ALL candidates (say 1000 candidates) take the SAME exam, under the SAME conditions. They all get marked from 0 to 100% and top 50 of them get the job. If anyone of them drops out, the next in line is admitted. There can be litigations filed to dispute the mark and it's objective because the criteria is the same for everyone.
The perfect system already exists, and it's used here and there. My first intern job,out of the university, was such an exam at a small business. We were some 10 candidates, 5 or so were hired. My current big corporation employer uses the exact same approach for hiring interns, only now in today's shit market it's still some 5 jobs but 500 candidates.
The real problem is that the IT domain got filled and every year the universities and bootcamps and all churn more candidates. Gotta face the fact that most people who want to become cops, who compete at the cop entry exam, will never become cops. IT is the same now.
This process only works when you're hiring for an entry-level role and also don't care about differentiating for anything that isn't on your exam.
I don't think it's possible to create such an exam for senior or leadership roles, where a candidate's (professional) background is the key differentiator. Say you have two candidates for a C-suite role. One was formerly with company X and demonstrates A, B and C attributes. The other was formerly with company Y and demonstrates D, E and F attributes. How would you have created an exam that differentiated between the two, without the benefit of hindsight?
I would say, when you have 2, 3, 10 candidates, you don't need an exam. Problem is when you need to be machine gunning waves of assault soldiers. An exam seems better than the usual and increasingly sick alternatives: have people waste their time talking to AI, when it's obvious all that time goes down the drain.
There's no real process with respect to what the statute would end up saying; it would be intensely negotiated (and unlikely in this political climate). The simplest thing to go on is what the actual proposal says.
Just to note. 80% of recruiters doesn't mean 80% of ads. A recruiter that has posted thousands of legitimate ads in their career, technically only needs to have posted 1 fake one to be eligible for inclusion in the 80%.
Although I understand, and to some extent share, your skepticism regarding the "study", I have no problem conceiving that a trend might currently be setting around the practice of posting fake ads, for whatever reason. It doesn't require much. In an unregulated playing field, simple peer pressure and survival is all you need to drive everyone to shady practices.
So, the study might be moot, but the number isn't so surprising.
Right. The skeptical newer generation knows better. It's the generation that is immune to influence. They're so resistant to it that they've finally driven advertisers to realize that spamming YouTube, IG, TikTok, with ads peddling some new hype every week is pointless.
Sarcasm aside, the newer generation, in any generation, is always as naive as they're said to be. You're not born with wisdom and your parents can't save you from the candle fire, no matter how much they try. Sooner or later, you'll have to burn that finger to learn. Life is an experience game. No way around it.