Don't mind me, but this is giving me flashbacks to 15 years ago when this was the Qt user's response to the FUD about license prices given out by certain developers who may or may not have later founded and joined Xamarin.
It does. It's the best native development system currently around imho and will, one day, be replaced by HTML5 probably. But that's not now ; especially with Forms and our own iOS API on Android/WP8 implementation, we are much faster to market with much better results than possible with HTML5.
Mobile developers are ironically stable, being forced to use the language of their platform and maybe whatever their companies cross platform layer is made out of. I've been doing ios dev for 4 to 5 years and it's only whatever is new for the new OS version in objective-c. I was paid to learn all the newness of ios 7 as I transitioned the app towards it. Swift is mostly objective-C in a new skin with welcome improvements, so learning it is easy.
"I often see people talking about how great they personally found a MOOC course, but that self-assessment is largely useless. To put it bluntly: you don't know what aspects of a topic you don't understand, were not told about, or whether the information you received was at all accurate, because you lack the expertise to determine that."
And? This also applies to to normal educational environments, not just MOOCS. Why do people assume that courses delivered on premises by an average teacher is going to be better than a MOOC delivered by world class guy. I'd wager that on average on premises course has more gaps/problems/mistakes than a MOOC. These on-premise courses will never be exposed to criticism, mistakes never seen. Moocs are exposed to every educational 'expert' there is, so lots of criticism pops up. That's a good thing. Normal courses don't have so many 'experts' looking at them.
You're dead on. Whether or not MOOCs reach the standards we want today, they allow far more scrutiny than the closed courses they'll end up replacing. Over time, this will help them improve, a great boon to everyone.
I like to think of Khan Academy, Coursera and Udacity as raising the lower bar for everyone. If your course / institution / whatever is worse, you can easily draw on them materials as a supplement. It you can find better, well, no harm done.
>Why do people assume that courses delivered on premises by an average teacher is going to be better than a MOOC delivered by world class guy.
Assume? I just gave you an example of a shit course delivered by a 'world class guy'. I've done plenty of real life classes in statistics and none of the teachers/professors were startlingly brilliant communicators but at least they were able get over the basic principles of the subject. They also didn't waste my time telling me how great they were.
You guys may be delivering good stuff, but there are a lot who are not. Remember how many community colleges/for-profits/universities/high-schools there are in the world. The majority of the teachers recruited were probably averagely talented. These courses will never be exposed to criticism, but moocs are. That's a good thing.
If you understand statistics you should understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and statistical data. You have one online course you're comparing to a handful of in-person courses you, personally, have taken.
There are hundreds of online courses and hundreds of thousands of in-person courses. You should know it's not a good idea to make inference about ALL MOOC's based on one example or ALL in-person courses based on a handful of classes.
If your statistics classes didn't teach you this concept, I'd say it was those classes that did a poor job.
It's interesting that in a thread about inferential statistics you are asserting inferences based on anecdotes with very small sample size, rather than statistics. It's possible that there haven't been enough MOOC statistics classes to really make a significant inference, but that seems to suggest "we'll have to wait and see" rather than "they're all shit".
It's not what it means, but it is something they are capable of. They can be charming, and they can be horrible. They decide what they are going to be like, to fit into an overall selfish strategy. If being shy is an advantage, they will become that. If being confident is advantage, they will become that. They can gain your trust, then flip when it is an advantage to do so.
In these tests, they know what to say, what to do, to give a certain impression. These tests can't catch them, because they are not honest, and lack integrity(No consistent values, only ones that benefit them).
More specifically, the psychopaths that you're likely to run into in a tech company fall into this class.
There are certainly psychopaths who are hopeless at concealing the fact. These are typically the less smart ones, so you wouldn't meet them; they are more likely to be in and out of prison than your office.
There are also psychopaths who are just about perfect at pretending not to be, and have no intention of ever doing otherwise. You can work with one of those for decades, and never notice a thing unless something extreme enough to make 'acting normal' seem a long-term liability happens.
Again, go read the links that the actual PhDs in psychology posted in replies to the parent thread. They provided documentation in the form of peer-reviewed studies that back the claims that this kind of personality is detectable despite your belief that they are not.
I agree, it will depend on the courses, but if the courses cover content that would make one a good fit for the team, the student has demonstrated the mastery of the content, and they have a good portfolio, I do not see why I would not consider hiring them.