That reminds me of the difficult constraint they must have had in making art and architecture for the game The Witness: nothing could ever accidentally seem to be, from any viewing place, one of the world's simplest shapes. Only by design.
It's weird how, in the the second-to-last paragraph, the author takes the opportunity to attack a few unrelated composers he just thinks are overrated. Almost as if they were guilty by an association that exists entirely in his mind.
If we want to open the floodgates on being too pedantic, I think there are uncountably more irrational numbers close to any rational number than there are rational numbers close to an irrational number. But in both cases, it's definitely a bunch.
> If we want to open the floodgates on being too pedantic
It's math. There's no such thing as "too pedantic", as long as you're being interesting and not mean about it.
> I think there are uncountably more irrational numbers close to any rational number than there are rational numbers close to an irrational number.
I think that's right.
Irrationals near a rational are almost certainly uncountable, as otherwise I think we can force all the irrationals to be countable by bucketing them. I think that concern is countered if any bucket has to be uncountable, but if it's not all that makes some rationals special in a way they probably aren't.
Rationals near an irrational is definitely countable, as all the rationals is countable.
The article goes on further to explain that, "Shipwrecks create richer habitats that in turn boost fishing conditions, but only as long as the wreck is preserved."
Well, since lack of bank regulation almost destroyed the economy a little while ago, having a job that comes with incentives to reduce regulations is qualitatively different than those other options: more morally complicated, more dangerous.
The interviewer may have expected that fact to be self-evident to his readers, and that Barney Frank's unwillingness to engage with it, and to try to deflect in order to "win the argument," would speak for itself.
Maybe that was their plan, yeah. Barney’s argument seemed to be “if you’re tough on banks as a legislator it’s good to go work at a bank after leaving Congress; if you’re soft on banks as a legislator it’s bad to go work at a bank after leaving Congress”. If you approach it with sufficient distrust of politicians/bankers and insufficient understanding of the regulation I can see that argument being unconvincing.
(Unimportant nitpick: one option being more morally complicated and more dangerous than the others is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference.)
What political sermon? Do you just mean the diversity of the cast and crew, or did you find something in the story itself that sent a more coherent political message than, "If your boss tells you to blow up the world, say no."
Well, he just introduces rudimentary technology to ancient humans and then stands back for thousands of years to watch it evolve.
He feels guilty that the chain of technological progress eventually leads to Hiroshima, but I don't think everybody would agree that it's his responsibility.
Also how did you prevent people finding both postings? When searching for jobs if identical they will appear in the same list. Also the smart ones applying will apply on the one without because of all the various biases that the poster has and they will play some reverse psychology.
yes, this is a major flaw in their analysis. there's no way to draw a reliable conclusion because the experiment is uncontrolled in this way, among other factors (like the subjective evaluation of candidate quality which was also uncontrolled for).
Regarding performance of responses I am referring to count of unique respondents meeting minimum requirements.
Regarding 'better candidates', this is based upon the count of candidates which made it through team interviews and coding challenges.
Our process requires multiple manager/leader approvals at each step of the process which is intended to reduce bias.
It is possible the soft attributes of personality and communication are reflected better in one group than the other. I do not have evidence but is a possible source of unintended bias.
Not to say they've found a good strategy(!), but when the market fails to price in externalities like pollution from cars, acting against the market would be the right thing to do, wouldn't it?
reply