Months as in 2 months is pretty normal. FAANG processes often take 6+ weeks.
And after that, this is a fully general critique. Hiring well means that there's a bar hires have to meet somewhere. You can argue that their bar is too high, but there's an identical story with a lower bar. It's disappointing to see someone interview and just barely not make the cut because we're human and can empathize. That doesn't make it the wrong decision.
> and this makes the whole analysis problematic, as we still don't know if this is actually a good difficulty indicator for how a human perceives the difficulty
Each player can limit the other's income to $0 - the offerer can offer $0 and the receiver can reject any deal.
So then what's optimal? $50 seems obviously fair, but does that mean we ought to reject offers of $49 100% of the time? Not quite, to limit the opponent's expected income for an offer of $49 to $50 instead of the $51 they left for themselves, we can use a mixed strategy that only accepts the offer with probability 50/51. Extending that gives the opponent a benefit curve that is linear as they leave themselves more money up to $50 and then flat at $50 afterwards.
That's good, but we can make it better - if we accept offers for $X<$50 with probability 50/(100-X) - epsilon*(50-X), then their expected benefit curve is smooth and has a peak at $50, which is the most we can expect to make except against a generous opponent.
After all that, playing this game as stated against an unknown opponent there's a lot of uncertainty. Maybe all your opponents are entirely irrational and move at random. Maybe all your opponents have colluded and decided that $66 for the offerer and $34 for the receiver is fair and that's the only deal they'll make. But if you think that random actors in the universe are reasonably intelligent and can discover the equilibrium above with the thought worth putting into this Ultimatum game, the receiver strategy above properly aligns incentives.
Rationality is an attractor for high intelligence architectures. You may be able to get good results another way (and even good results that surpass a human) but at the limit rationality is the way to have high intelligence.
Why should a Democrat with wildly different ideology support McCarthy for speaker, especially in light of his bad faith such as raising a spurious impeachment inquiry against Biden? Why should they believe that voting for a speaker opposed to what they believe is best for the country is best for the country?
This is a failure of government and unity within the Republican party. If there is some moderate that could form a coalition between the parties, great. Wonderful. Let them be speaker. But no Republican has tried (or at least, no one has gotten even a single vote across party lines).
This clown show does not enhance the image of the Republican party, instead lessening it. It only heightens the image of the ultra-conservative because their base is not rational and doesn't recognize that any result will be touted as a win.
This is a strawman. It's trivially easy to do what you're describing.
ls | xargs rm
And in fact, a better implementation is
rm *
The Unix philosophy doesn't say "Every program interfaces intuitively and correctly with every other program". It says that programs should be able to work together. There are arguments that coreutils such as ls aren't following the Unix philosophy, but they lie much more in that ls has dozens of arguments than they do in your contrived example not working.
The fact that the first example has a bug (it doesn't handle file names with spaces correctly) sort of proves the point of the commenter you responded to.
I personally don't use nushell (or another alternative, oil) because bash for scripting and zsh for interactive shell is good enough for me, and compatibility with other people is valuable. However, whenever you start to write slightly complex scripts in bash, you have to think carefully about spaces in file names and other similar problems. Of course, you can argue you should just write those scripts in Python, but shell is a lot quicker to write and would be more elegant if it had fewer footguns and less esoteric syntax.
1-10 is pretty accurate for a single CPU with random memory access. Sure, the GPU can physically perform many more in parallel, but then you get into the exact size of the gpu and how fast you can copy to/from memory to it which isn't the point of the question.
And after that, this is a fully general critique. Hiring well means that there's a bar hires have to meet somewhere. You can argue that their bar is too high, but there's an identical story with a lower bar. It's disappointing to see someone interview and just barely not make the cut because we're human and can empathize. That doesn't make it the wrong decision.