I can relate. I've been rejected after 2-3 months of pretty good prep by all of FB, Google, MSFT, Amz and Apple after onsites with them. It's been pretty depressing and I feel totally burned out, but the only path forward seems to be to practice harder.
All the companies above told me to try again after a year, Google mentioned I wouldn't have to do the phone screens again, so hopefully I'm not that far away from getting the job.
My advice would be to try stay positive. If you're a programmer and have a stable job, you're in the top 10-20% income wise in this Country and probably in the top 5% of all humanity. As programmers, we have the tools to imagine and make into reality whatever we chose. To top it off, we generally enjoy doing this stuff and working conditions are usually tolerable.
My current path is to keep challenging myself progressively tougher algo problems on websites like HackerRank and not get locked into the mindset of gluing together libraries all day.
Surprisingly, much of it appears to be accurate. Tannins can cause irritation, though more notably of the bladder (interstitial cystitis) than the stomach, and brewing finer coffee at lower temperature does indeed result in a lower tannin content. Ingesting coffee beans does in fact cause some indigestion via increased production of stomach acid, as well, and in addition to all of this caffeine works by the following two neural mechanisms:
* it blocks the adenosine receptor type 1, whose primary function is to decrease blood pressure and heart rate in preparation for sleeping
* it blocks the glycine receptor, whose primary purpose is to slow muscle contraction (strychnine also blocks this receptor, albeit far more strongly...)
So the claims about the effects of coffee are, well, surprisingly accurate, though finding most of this information was hard and I wish I had peer-reviewed sources:
S3 can serve its contents through bittorrent as well, so you only really need to serve up 1 copy of the file(realistically, it will end up being a bit more than that if we are dealing with good internet citizens)
The problem with India is that even highly educated, otherwise rational people put their thinking mind aside and give in to superstition.
Consider Dr. Radhakrishnan, the head of ISRO (Indian space research org.) - Before every rocket that ISRO launches, he visits Tirupati, a holy site in India to pray for its success. Now, I realize this is far cry from people drinking sewage water, but if the head of the Indian space program is this superstitious, what can you say about the rest of the country?
Superstitions which do no harm anyone are not something to be looked down upon (as silly as they may be). Niels Bohr had a Horseshoe on his door. It's called the Pascal wager.
The issue is about loonies going after people for "insulting" their beliefs. Now I do completely agree with you that India has a great deal many loonies (like every other country); the trouble with India though is that the Police and the Judiciary (to a lesser extent, perhaps) are completely ineffective and are more or less beholden to fetid politcs.
Pascals wager is an extremely flawed argument. It boils down to the idea that whether there is a god or not, you may as well believe because if it turns out that if there is a god you win infinite reward, and if there's not then what's the loss?
However it presupposes that the Christian ideal of a god holds true, one that will reward you for belief and not reward you (or punish you for disbelief). There is a multidimensional spectrum of other options available. What if there is a god but (s)he created a mechanistic universe deliberately left behind no evidence, and so rewards those that use their critical thinking and form no belief? What if there's a benevolent god that rewards everyone regardless? What if you picked the wrong god and the real one hates wrong-believers more than atheists?
So it really only works in a situation where you have a binary choice, and that doesn't model the reality. In other words it's an exercise in apologetics written by someone who had already decided to believe, based on other criteria (or no criteria), trying to persuade others through a pseudo-rational argument.
I don't mean any of this as an attack on you, or as justification to look down on others' beliefs, but Pascal's Wager kinda grinds my gears :)
Even if there is/are god(s), she/he/they obviously don't want to be known/found as she/he/they have left no obvious clues from which we might deduce such a being or beings. So, we should all be atheists/agnostics because once we die, if it turns out that there is/are god(s), atheists/agnostics are the ones who will end up in heaven. Why? Because, they alone are following the will of a possible creator.
"Did I not give you a brain," such a deity would say to believers of various religions. "Did I not hide all indications of my existence, so that you try to make sense of the universe with the data available to you? Why, then, did you go and make up random fantastic beings to worship without a shred of evidence? You have ignored my will. How dare you presume that you are capable of knowing an almighty being that obviously doesn't want to be known? Look at these atheists, this small band of the faithful, who have stayed true to the faculties of reasoning I endowed them with and reached the logical conclusion that they could to the best of their ability. These alone have stayed true to their creator's purpose, and these alone shall party with us in Valhalla."
Yes, but religions of the orient, do not actually punish you for not believing in God. There were atheists, agnostics, ... in India, long before they were tolerated in the West.
My interpretation, and Niels Bohr's, is that it doesn't matter if you believe or not, all that matters is that it brings you happiness, and does not cause harm to others.
You don't actually have to believe in it.
Be that as it may, if you do interpolate it to less constricting religions, Pascal's wager does breaks down; but as you do say, it is an argument for an apologetic. I'm happier being an apologetic than to assume I'm rational.
I'm infact an agnostic, if you're inclined to believe me; but all this bashing of scientists for being religious is annoying. There are, things like, the world being created 6k years back, or that there lived a Super-monkey (Ramayana ?), which is plain silly. Superstitions like the one Sanal Edamaruku, also fall into this latter category. Anything that can be disproved by Science and reason, is not to be believed in.
Yes, the Middle ground is vague and ill-defined, but it's the only sane place to be.
Pascal's wager works as long as you think there is a reasonable chance of the Christian god existing. This would have been true in Pascal's time when everyone around you believed, and much of the knowledge we take for granted didn't exist. E.g. the theory of evolution, or any understanding of physics, etc.
The stronger version of the argument also is true provided you only care about maximizing expected utility. That is any finitely small probability that god exists times the infinite negative or positive utility of believing/not believing, and you the expected utility of believing is infinite.
The counter is "maybe there is a god but he punishes believers and rewards atheists." As long as the probabilities are exactly equal, they perfectly cancel each other out. However if they aren't exactly equal, if the probability of the Christian god is even slightly higher, then it will vastly overwhelm the expected utility calculation.
The consequence of this is you can go up to someone who believes in maximizing expected utility and say "I am a god. If you don't do what I say I will torture you for an infinite amount of time. If you think there as an even tiny probability that what I'm saying is correct, you must obey me." It doesn't just apply to the Christian god or even religion.
Thus expected utility maximization may not actually be the best way to make decisions.
Start with a prior based on your subjective view of the world and perform Bayesian updates based on evidence (e.g., the bible, koran, or currently unexplained miracles), same as you make other decision.
I just find this cheap dismissal of Pascal's wager to be mathematically nonsensical. It's almost surely not correct that the probabilities of all gods (real and honeypot) exactly cancel and therefore atheism is the correct choice.
Even if at some time those positive and negative utilities did cancel, even a small amount of evidence would shift the balance of probabilities pushing you back into Pascal's wager territory.
Since no data has ever been collected that would indicate existance of any god the only thing you can assume (thhough you shouldn't) is that they are all equally probable and since their number raises in time I'd advise you to pick the one that offers infinite reward for believing in him. I you don't know about such god just make one up. Of course that does not guarantee you infinite expected utility of your choice because someone could make up infinite number of gods. I'm pretty sure at least one person already did. Thus driving probablility of your god existing to exact zero and making expected utility of your choice indeterminate. Still you're better off than believeing in a god that offers finite rewards.
Of course you may just correctly reason that in absence of data you can't assume anything about gods and save yourself all the thinking about gods as devoid of any predictive utility.
> Superstitions which do no harm anyone are not something to be looked down upon
You're presupposing a lack of harm there. Once you've left a hole in your rationality that gives a free pass to a class of things that don't stand up to critical thinking, you leave yourself open for more such holes. That's quite actively harmful. In particular, it makes teaching about rationality, critical thinking, and cognitive biases much more difficult, because it stops people from believing those principles are universally applicable.
While it's certainly possible for people to compartmentalize enough to limit that harm, it's much easier for most people to say "Oh, logic and critical thinking don't apply to everything, just scientific things". Which is only a stone's throw away from "Oh, logic and critical thinking don't apply to this magic miracle elixir."; insert your favorite snake oil or pseudoscience here that people regularly get suckered by. It's not that there's a sucker born every minute; there's a sucker trained every minute.
The difference between that and enshrining such problems into law is only one of degree.
And your further comment "as silly as they may be" suggests that you are in fact looking down upon such behavior.
> Superstitions which do no harm anyone are not something to be looked down upon
It depends on the superstition. In some cases, the non-harmful variant provides cover for harmful variants. Many peaceful sects of Christianity and Islam, for example, fail to criticize the actions of their violent co-religionists. It's hard to do when the extremists can just turn around and say "You believe the same things we do, you just aren't committed enough to our faith."
Taking a step back and saying "There's no evidence for any of what you're saying, so you certainly have no justification for shooting doctors / stoning adulterers / etc." makes the point more clear.
> It depends on the superstition. In some cases, the non-harmful variant provides cover for harmful variants. Many peaceful sects of Christianity and Islam, for example, fail to criticize the actions of their violent co-religionists.
True, but bear in mind that an awful lot of religious leaders do loudly and actively criticize their most unpleasant co-religionists, but are ignored by the media because "Local Pastor Calmly Advises Tolerance" doesn't sell papers. I'm not saying everyone does, but there's a lot more of it than people realize.
If i recall correctly , astronauts at Baikonur, follow a lot of traditions before their launch, planting a tree, watching a specific movie, visiting Gagarin's place , every time and more or less there are other "habits" like those for the astronauts in USA, and even the famous peanuts for unmanned vehicles. So maybe it's a mix of tradition and superstition.
Going to Tirupathi is a pilgrimage. Its misrepresenting religion. Faith by itself isn't irrational. You're putting 'Going to Tirupathi' and 'Not cutting your hair on Tuesdays' in the same bucket. This will only hinder progress in dispelling actual superstitions.
Categorizing all religion as superstition seems to be some sort of atheist superiority complex. (I'm an atheist too, btw.)
Being religious is not superstition. The serenity prayer nicely puts things in perspective - there are many things beyond human control that can cause failure - if going to Tirupathi gets him in the zone all the power to him.
Religion is by definition superstition. It just depends on how okay you are with superstitious beliefs. Sometimes you can get benefit from them courage or art or motivation to live a better life, sometimes they muddle your critical thinking skills and do a sloppy job solving problems because you believe some higher power will take care of the details.
"Being outside the realm of human control and understanding" is not what superstition means.
Dharma is also a superstition. People put too much negative weight on the term superstition. Dharma is a way of life driven by one of some set of superstition beliefs.
If you doubt this, ask a series of "why?" questions about Dharma and drill down into it until you stop hitting rational thought and start hitting belief about the nature of the universe and belief about the importance of righteous action.
> Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality
But then the influenced people become the causality of their actions. These root "superstitious" influences would then exist in concept and have a real effect. Note that conceptual existence is enough to influence intelligent beings who can recognize these concepts.
There's also effects that aren't explained by science, yet. That is a playground for all sorts of possibilities.
The serenity prayer has a rational and a religious aspect.
The rational one is discerning between the things that are in our power and those that aren't, and concern ourselves only with the former. This idea can be found in Stoicism  and other ancient philosophies, 2000 years earlier than the serenity prayer. Not just the ideas, mind you, but practical techniques of how to achieve this as a mere mortal.
The religious one is resignation: Instead of being confident that it is possible to do the things mentioned in the prayer using your ability to learn and think, the praying person begs a divine being for those things.
So you are seriously saying that going to pray for a successful rocket launch is an empowering strategy?
The only difference between religion and superstition is societal acceptance.
I'm all for a "live and let live" approach for any religious belief or superstition that doesn't hurt people. I don't think this behavior by Dr. Radhakrishnan is worth any criticism (and plenty of other countries have ingrained rituals). But I don't like these distinctions we try to draw to legitimize religion over stuff that religion doesn't like but which outwardly appears to be the same.
There is nothing wrong in following traditions or coming up with new traditions which are totally irrational. I am an hardcore atheist but I visit temples, perform puja and chant mantras. There is nothing to be apologetic about it.
A lot of negative propaganda against Hindu traditions is driven by left liberals who view Hinduism and Paganic beliefs as evil.
Do not be so much faithful and confident on only science/technology/human intelligence/effort ...etc.
Science is like a light which shows/highlights/brings out the already existing stuff. This does not mean that science created them, though latter discoveries depend on previous ones. They are there in nature before fundamentally and science pointed out to humanity.
Technology/engineering works on science's output to create products/services for humanity. Going by this logic, science and technology and human effort/intelligence are just harnessing/working on fundamental entities existed before.
So there exists an entity/constellation of entities which we call God which constantly churns out the activity which we all consume under various names,modify with intelligence/effort to suit our needs.
So there is nothing wrong in visiting temple/God who is basis for everything.
Why rational people should not believe in God and should not have beliefs? May be he has enough proof for the capabilities. Just because you do not have proof and just because that proof is not hyped/advertised, it does not mean that it does not exist.In Hindu Dharma, God is personal in the sense that each one connects to him in their own way unlike/in addition to monolithic set patterns visible to all.
Even Bhagavad Gita is based on rational discussion (Q&A), though it is spiritual too.
One personal comment: Based on the above comment, you appear young. I suggest you periodically to look inwards and read books in your language.
EDIT/APPEND: Unfortunately, there are various people/groups who mislead people on the subject of God. Some of them are/can be delusions. So you need to be careful but honest efforts on your own to connect to him/her (Hinduism is plural) can/may be possible.
I am not sure you understand what "condescending" means, which is probably why you have been downvoted. If I, an American that speaks English natively, told another American that also spoke English natively, that they seem young and should read more, that would still be condescending. This is true particularly if the statement was prompted by a disagreement over something like religion. Condescension doesn't only appear across language or culture boundaries.
To be fair I'm not comfortable taking my eyes off the road as a passenger with a human driver. I think people underestimate the fear of not having control. This will be a major issue to overcome and for some it will be like the fear of flying on a commercial aircraft. The fact they know it's safe doesn't really help much.
Looks like Living Language isn't just about figuring out the user's current locale. It's about learning local slang and dialects based on what Swype users are typing, in order to give users a dictionary that's much more specific than something generic like "en-US".
For something like that you'd legitimately want to know where someone is down to the city or even neighborhood. Though checking their location 4000 times/day still sounds egregious to me. And possibly misguided - the way I speak English isn't going to change just because I've gone to Petoskey for the weekend.