Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | _qc3o's comments login

Likewise. A Fields medalist deserves better. In fact, the first female Fields medalist.


If that's the only reason, then it's not good enough.

But then, we can see your tantrum over the matter above..


I don't agree with gp's inflammatory tone, but do you not think a Fields medalist is not worth a black bar? I can buy not agreeing with tokenism, but her merit stands on its own imo. We lost a great mind; nobody's saying we should be in sack cloth and ashes but I think it's worth recognizing in some manner.

That said, I understand how HN is not really a Math/CS forum, it's more about industry.


I'm referring to the fact that she was the first female medalist. That's not enough to merit a community that usually doesn't bb mathematicians to make an exception - that would be tokenism.


Time to learn how digital signatures work.


Much of complex analysis and linear algebra I think is beautiful and can be easily made accessible to the general layman.


I think you overestimate "the general layman". For example, complex analysis requires one to accept the existence of the square root of minus one and that multiplying by it is equivalent to a rotation.

In my experience, "the general layman" simply doesn't possess enough suspension of disbelief to get past such hurdles.


linear algebra, though, I feel is an excellent example.

Everyone has solved a system of linear equations in school. The concept is pretty accessible.


In 2D, I'll give you that, but in general, I would say "has struggled solving", rather than "has solved", and not even 'everyone'.

Few can, for example, reliably compute the intersection point of a line l' parallel to l through a point p with a plane P, and many would panic when given a problem in N>3-dimensional space.

I know people who memorized formulas for solving linear systems as used in macro-economics (on the order of 10 dimensions, but lots of zeroes in their matrix), and, because of that, couldn't work when given a slightly different model to solve (for example, if taxation became be a constant plus a fraction of income instead of just a fraction of income, or if capital gains tax were introduced).


What on earth are you talking about?

The first step in a linear algebra course is to codify the method that you use in middle/high school to solve systems of equations of the form a00x0+a01x1+...=b0....

That algorithm sets the stage for everything. The pace is natural, the math is accessible, no geometric interpretation is ever required, and it's built for problems that people of even average intelligence can understand. Frankly, it's astonishing we don't teach it in high school.


The YC network effect is the secret sauce. Most YC companies would not even be able to bootstrap if it wasn't for YC alums like AirBnB.


Definitely. For an organization that spent a decade teaching startup the importance of building moats, it's no surprise that they've built their own.


If they hadn't built such a moat it would surely be irony but wouldn't have unusual to do what they preach


If the problem you are solving doesn't map to being embarrassingly parallel then you will indeed have problems. This is not restricted to just "real-time", or more technically streaming DBs. Coordination has high overhead no matter what DB you are using.

Also, I don't see how their design avoids hot keyspace issues. Traditionally this is the main problem with partitioned designs because you move the problem one level up to properly designing the key that will be used to distribute the load across partitions.


Doesn't this already exist as WordPress themes?


Maybe we are getting better at programming but we still suck at delivering computing artifacts to end users. Who here has tried to ship a Ruby or Python application to desktop or even server users? Was the experience "modern"? We might as well be shipping punch cards.


Steam’s ok, itch.io is great. Do you vendor in your appp’s prerequisites?


You have to vendor. There is no other way. Or you pay the cost of vendoring at deploy time by having to pull in all the third party dependencies anyway. Whenever I rely on the end user or the platform to fill in the blanks I always regret it.


Good. The idea and intention behind bootcamps is a good one but the current implementation is suspiciously like university of phoenix.


My youngest brother went through Dev Bootcamp in 2012. He had graduated from a top 30 university but wasn't able to find a great job and had been doing some part time, low skill work.

DBC literally changed his life. Post graduation he immediately got a job at a dev shop as a programmer, and now 5 years later is a great developer gainfully employed in Silicon Valley.

Not sure why you would shit on the grave of a program that has done a lot of good for its graduates.


Trouble with anecdotes is that it is not data. I'm happy for your brother but that still doesn't change the fact that most bootcamps are overpromising and underdelivering on their promises of gainful employment. It's simply not possible to learn to program in bootcamp time frames.

I'm certain if we saw actual numbers it would not be a pretty picture.

For the truly motivated it is much better to go to recurse.com or join a learning Meetup. Get a day job to pay the bills and learn at your own pace. Programming is not going anywhere even with all the fancy AI startups. In fact if I was just starting out I'd just learn Python and R.


I fully support this comment, and have been doubling-down for a while on the notion that people who come out of hacker schools and "do well" just had a knack for it in the first place.

We have been looking for a very entry-level dev to be in a pretty entry level role that would be perfect for someone to get their feet wet in the industry.

Every single person we've interviewed from a "hacker school" has been from Hack Reactor. I'd say something like 40% of them would actually be able to be some sort of "developer" given that they keep up the practice. About 20% (at best) are what I would consider an actual "entry level dev intern"

Entry level in this context is basically just the ability to code some basic html, css, javascript, with a computer given to you, and a task to work on over the course of a day. Many of the previous Hack Reactor students we had interview (at least 60%) (some even being "assistants"), in my opinion, have no business in software development. They were technical enough to understand "web dev" in conversation, but just couldn't manifest that into anything useful without huge amounts of guidance for menial tasks.


Are you paying below market? The good ones probably are shooting for better paying companies. I know some Hack Reactor alumni have made their way to Google.


Love your use of speculation to counter my anecdotal data. Incredibly intellectually dishonest.

It is possible to learn enough programming to within 10 weeks to get a job programming. Of course they won't be the best programmers at that point. But I've hired bootcamp grads and have had other friends go through, and they have been positive outcomes. Yes, that is anecdotal data, but it categorically proves false that "it's simply not possible to learn to program in bootcamp time frames."


+1 to justin's comments. It's true that an anecdote isn't a complete data set, but it is one data point. Further, it's one more data point than the pure speculation that dkarapetyan's comment provides.

Let me add a 2nd data point- as a 2013 DBC grad, I would still be in my previous career (completely unrelated to engineering) if I hadn't attended DBC. My instructors and classmates were instrumental in helping me get out of a job I hated and into one I love. It wasn't a perfect experience, but it was a life-changing one, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

> For the truly motivated it is much better to go to recurse.com or join a learning Meetup.

Speaking of data, care to provide any which supports this opinion?

> most bootcamps are overpromising and underdelivering on their promises of gainful employment.

You generalize about an entire industry without providing evidence, and then you use that generalization to denigrate a specific company within that industry which may or may not buck a trend. A trend which you haven't even proven exists, btw. Nice.


Here's some actual numbers that HR released: http://hrhqdir.s3.amazonaws.com/outcomes/2017/April/CIRRRepo...

I'd like to hear your thoughts.


>for the truly motivated

No matter how motivated you are, you'll be casting around and learning aimlessly a bunch of random material about "programming" because you don't really know the nuances of the market as well.

Me: Turbo nerd, generally well-informed in the ways of technology, but outside the industry. Was working as a teacher and then a recruiter. I even took Harvard's CS50x class, so I knew the very basics of programming (some languages are compiled, others... aren't?), but I didn't really know that web development was the hot hiring field, I didn't know Javascript was the language of the web, that you could even use it for backend if you wanted. In fact, I didn't even really consider that there was a difference between front and back end.

So for 17,000 I was able to have all that sorted for me in 3 months flat, then kicked out into the industry a viable app developer. I went from a shit set of jobs straight into a bonafide, legitimate, and stable career trajectory. ~5 months total time investment. It simply would not have been possible to be so efficient by self-teaching, I wouldn't have known where to begin, what to study, that web dev had the lowest barrier to entry, etc. Literally the job placement stuff was completely useless and unused to me, I was a recruiter and so didn't use any of that stuff from my bootcamp, the thing that made it valuable to me was the curriculum.


I worked on my own for about 6 months time with a job, but in the 8 weeks that I have been at a well known bootcamp, there is no way I could have developed 1/10th of the knowledge that I have now during the same time period working a shitty job.


How do you know that? From anecdotes? :)


Most top bootcamps are very transparent with their numbers.


I think the comment is really about bootcamps in general.

Some people will succeed in development. Many won't. I received very little formal education, mostly self-taught, and I've been very successful. Put me in a bootcamp, I'd likely thrive there as well. I suspect your brother had a knack, and just needed a little direction.

Most criticism is focused at the false promise bootcamps provide. Many grads are barely qualified to be an intern, yet they were sold on promises of employability if they graduated. Even worse are the bootcamps that pad their employment numbers by hiring grads as teaching assistants.


This sounds very much on target. I've noticed quite a few bootcamps grads being hired as assistants, and waiting around for a regular job. Some sit around up to a year. This, and the fact that the industry is flush with bootcamp grads (I live in NY), are giving me second thought about the benefits of a bootcamp.

Instead of hiring bootcamp grads - which push grads to aim for salaries north of 70k - it would make sense for companies to recruit self tought programmers with an aptitude towards tech. By self tought I am not referring to child prodigies, but anyone who can complete the equivalent of freeCodeCamp.org's front end certificate. Such programmers would be happy to get a starting salary of 30k, and have the opportunity to get their feet wet.

It all boils down to networking. Universities are a form of networking by signalling to society who are the best and the brightest. IMHO, bootcamps can be viewed in the same light. If companies and potential hires weren't lazy and instead got involved in plain old networking, there would be less of a need for Bootcamps/Universities. Maybe due to the lack of community, companies must resort to other means in order to filter applicants.


I'm sure DBC has many good outcomes, but it's a fair comment.


I downvoted you because you're generalizing and have clearly not researched the topic.

As a hiring manager I reviewed many bootcamp programs and interviewed grads. DBC was one of the best and produced consistently good junior candidates.

There are a lot of crappy ones but DBC wasn't one of them.


Not sure why you were downvoted, it's a good point.

Many current bootcamps were duping students into promises of jobs, and making them pay large tuition fees up front. Very similar to what the scam universities are known to do - promise how the degree will help someone get a job, and then charge them large fees.

A friend of mine did DBC, and my sense was that many of their friends in the program struggled for a long time to get jobs.

Also, the founders I know stopped looking at some bootcamp grads, as they found them to be very low quality (this was noted to me back in 2014, may have changed).


21 of the 23 people in my App Academy cohort got jobs. 18 of them within like 3 months. The two that struggled had severe social issues holding them back. We had 5 dropouts who got full refunds.

2+ years on and all of us are still working in the industry.

It really does depend on the bootcamp. How valuable a bootcamp is depends on its style and the individual. Even though I had a positive (but probably unnecessary) experience, I'm not exempt from feeling like they're a bit scammy sometimes.

In my case, they give you a curriculum of the minimum that you need to get a job (really) and some serious pressure to get it done and get that job. Almost anyone who actually gets through it is going to be an asset to most companies that don't need an extremely diverse or exceptional skill set.

For roles I'm looking to hire, would I hire a fresh bootcamp grad? No. Would I hire one with two years experience? You bet your ass.


I don't know much about University of Phoenix, but I've hired a couple of bootcamp graduates, found through the bootcamp recruiting events. They were both pretty inexperienced, but motivated and smart people. As good as any junior programmers I've hired. In the right circumstances I'd hire them again.

It's diamonds-in-the-rough from a recruiting standpoint, but you get to vet a lot of people very quickly (it was exhausting) and if there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that their motivated (good bootcamps are not cheap, and they're hard work).

How things worked out for the rest of the graduates I don't know... Both people I hired had some experience before bootcamp


Diamonds in the rough is exactly how I'd describe it. I've sifted through many resumes from DevMountain graduates (and not surprisingly their instructors). What it looked like was one big homogeny of "here's how you create a github account, here's how you commit and push the Angular exercises we've been working on". Almost all were identical resumes. Regardless, the ones that we've hired seemed to do fine.


I disagree. I'm a graduate of App Academy and I can't recommend their program highly enough. Ironically, my impression of it has grown since finishing. They asked us to review them right before graduation and I gave them a pretty mediocre review. It wasn't until I entered the job search and realized how well they actually prepared us, and set us on track to succeed and learn that I gained full appreciation for it. You can complain about any number of things, from the teachers all being previous students, to a weird paper thin attempt at an inclusive environment, but I wouldn't call it scammy like University of Phoenix. I don't regret going there for a second. I would say that from a personal level I was challenged more at App Academy than I was in college when I got my degree in Engineering. That could be because I actually enjoyed web dev, but either way, I disagree with that comparison.


I'm not sure I agree. The "system" right now leaves a lot of room for both good and bad camps. It's unregulated, but isn't in and of itself like University of Phoenix.


This is probably one of the few that wasn't doing sketchy stuff like that so I'm not sure I would say it's "good". If anything this shows the "university of Phoenix" model is the only viable one.


Kinda misses the point of unikernels. The hypervisor already does all the necessary scheduling. You don't need another scheduler.


I think a unikernel+ProcOS is basically the same as a hypervisor+unikernel, except backwards. The main advantages would be less overhead (one unikernel, instead of N) and greater flexibility (because ProcOS can run on any OS without a VM).

The emphasis on cheap recursion (if it can be achieved) also has benefits like making administrative responsibilities easier to delegate, and preventing various isolation leaks (including scheduling fairness).


hypervisor+unikernels do sound a lot like microkernel+processes...


Unikernels are processes with a really funny system call ABI.


If you run them in qemu then this becomes very clear. Even better (or worse?) the strange system call ABI is translated into regular system calls by the qemu process.


Hypervisors are often microkernels, eg Xen is. Obviously KVM isn't as it's Linux...


They say best time to build a business is during a downturn because you are truly forced to deliver real value to people.


Being forced to do something is not something I generally consider to be a favorable circumstance.


Growing up in adversity trains a system to get stronger and leaner.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: