Just as a side note, I wonder if this could be a better alternative to job interviews. An opportunity to have fun and interact with possible candidates.
Please don’t. I get that every time a programmer solves a puzzle they then want to turn that into an interview question, but those usually have no correlation to work performance, and having to solve problems in a physical space sure isn’t fair to folks who have disabilities that make that difficult but could still work fine behind a desk.
At first I thought it was a good idea. Not to verify problem solving skills but to maybe get a more dynamic interview of the person working in teams. But yeah, you’re right. This would quickly turn into a dick measuring contest and soon there’s be “cracking the escape room” books dedicated to optimal escape room strategies.
Hey at least escape rooms would be better than coding white boards. Probably more of an actual test of a programmers abilities ;)
I've actually discussed this with a local escape room owner, for our 50ish people company it's wasn't worth the effort, but if you are hiring 20-30 people in a short time it could be worth the effort.
I know you are joking, but transmit information through dimensions using gravity is one interesting conjecture why gravitational force is so much weaker than the other forces. It leaks through dimensions. And maybe this type of communication will be necessary when we have to leave this dimension to hyperspace because of the entropy [1].
For what it’s worth, evidence has come out (explained well by this PBS Space Time episode [1]) that makes the “gravity propagates over more than three spatial dimensions” theory a bit less likely.
Interesting video, so it is possible that there is no leak after all, but I think this does not prove that there are no extra dimensions, as the video tries to portrait.
The 3+1 dimensional spacetime is not embedded in a higher dimensional space [1]. If there are additional dimensions, they have to be "rolled up" and tiny.
I wish I could read a paper like this one! My takeaway is that is no leak, but this doesn't prove that there are not higher dimensions in space, just that the gravitational waves can't get through it (if exists).
YC has always sound to me like something very odd and very wrong (invest on a few to get a lottery winner). It is also so much boilerplate mumbo-jumbo startup lingo. I like to talk about business, not unicorns, valuation, lean startup, etc. This approach is much better and sounds right. Every startup counts for a healthy ecosystem. Looking forward to the next steps.
I believe it's because YC is more looking for startups in the vein of traditional silicon valley VCs and the like: high-risk high reward ventures. With general VC math, they're operating on the power law where essentially the biggest winner is going to return more than the rest of the fund combined and the high failure rate necessitates the huge winners. I definitely agree with your point and the value prop of TinySeed - those types of companies are great but it misses out on such a huge swath of companies that are important for a healthy ecosystem; I hope we see more support for the companies currently left out of the current ecosystem moving forward.
This is a common misconception. A lot of role-model bootstrap startups got a small, but crucial, investment at the beginning to focus on their endeavor without to worry about bills all the time. A famous one is Basecamp (https://m.signalvnoise.com/the-deal-jeff-bezos-got-on-baseca...).
> Perfectionism makes me a poor Open Source contributor.
It's interesting that the OP ended up on this conclusion, although it would be much much better long-term to take the necessary time to deliver good pieces.
IMHO these courses only scratch the surface, good to learn a thing or two, without much applicability. I am right now searching for a degree path in Biochemistry or Molecular Biology online. I want to spend time on it, but be able to actually apply my knowledge. There are so few of them (maybe because of the lab classes, idk). I've found online degrees in ASU (https://asuonline.asu.edu/online-degree-programs/undergradua...) and UF (https://ufonline.ufl.edu/degrees/undergraduate/biology), but they are really expensive. Biology is the future, but unlike the article, I think it will make software obsolete altogether.
Of course - that is what I recommend to programmers and CS majors, working in those jobs, on the side, not as a career path.
But in any case, those are "real" courses, so "scratching the surface" not because they are dumbed down but because those are the freshman courses. Of course year 2+ students will get more advanced courses not usually found on edX (although they have quite advanced topics in physics, for example https://www.edx.org/course/mastering-quantum-mechanics-part-...).
As I said, an alternative to learning yet another only mildly different programming language (that runs on the exact same pieces of silicon as the other ones they already know, so it cannot be fundamentally different by definition).
Do you by any chance did come across an online course for biochemistry or something similiar? I've wanted now for quite some time to study biology and change my career in that direction, but no relevant degree seems to be designed for remote study.
Look at the "Principles of Biochemistry" course I linked to. Even when OP says "it's scratching the surface", that was in comparison to a complete several years study, that course by itself is extremely involved and pure biochem. It's "only" a single course, but let's wait what you say after unit 3 - because judging by the forum participation, about 99% of people who join that course won't even make it past the 2/3rd mark. So if you can stomach that one course it would be a good sign. I read that about chemistry in general, should be the same for biochem, that if you study in those fields the load is quite extreme.
