you raised a good point but (et al) didn't touch on the meaningful questions: where does the "core team" of developers of DuckDB now reside? are they now "captured/cashing-in/getting paid" at AWS, or will meaningful MIT-licensed development of DuckDB continue in a robust way outside of commercial enterprises with proprietary needs that are not aligned with where the project was going?
that study was specifically "asylum seekers" which is not migrants taken as a whole. isn't the migrant population substantially higher than the asylum population?
>then the energy required to run them isn't free either
i think his point was that if you are in a remote location with solar and or wind power, the power is free because you can't do anything else with it (without transmission lines)
his implementation does not save space which is fine because that was not his intent. to make a programming analogy, he turned spaghetti-code into structured code.
>about primates that have high carb-sugar diets but doesn't explain why their brains remain so small compared to humans. Maybe they will eventually evolve?
if they have abundant sources of carb-sugar, there would be no selection pressure to evolve in a particular direction.
Don't most evolutionary traits/changes come at times of restrictions? I don't think many traits are developed during times of abundance, it's when there is a shortage and they have to seek out something else; like protein. Or, sometimes it's just natural competition for the share of the abundance. If there where a big brain out competing you for your carbs, you might have to reconsider your dietary options and make substitutes/changes that would have evolutionary implications.
>I don’t think that would fly as a defense in court
but that's not the point, the point is to not wind up in court by presenting a phone that no long contains evidence but seems plausibly like your phone so doesn't arouse suspicion
If it was implemented in such a way, there would be no reason to suspect anyone of using it because it would be totally indistinguishable from not having used it. At that point they have no grounds for legal action. Unless they could monitor FS/disk activity, but that goes beyond typical airport security stuff.
I'm imagining a duress code that erases select files and any indication that there was ever a duress code set up in the first place.
As things stand right now, software is 1-A protected speech. I'm not sure how long that will be the case with growing authoritarianism, specifically wrt to tech, on both sides of the aisle. I am concerned it may be considered probable cause though -- like how you can legally have an ax in the bed of your pickup but it's a free pass for a cop to search your vehicle if they're so inclined -- but really, they can manufacture probable cause for anyone if they want so it's kind of moot. You may be attracting unnecessary attention though if
you've got "GrapheneOS" on your lock screen. But this goes back to my original point, they still have to catch you in the first place.
(1) Keep manufacturer's Android plus some plausible apps and data in a reserved part of the drive. (2) GrapheneOS runs from the other part of the drive. (3) Make sure PIN screen designed to not give away the OS. (4) When duress PIN is entered, erase GrapheneOS and restore manufacturer's Android. (5) Now you won't be charged for having GrapheneOS because they won't know you had it.
no, it's not anything like a coincidence or a quote of Buffet.
People always say "160" as the example number because the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler series IQ tests are among the most commonly used and they have a maximum score of 160.
That alone is not enough, you also need to know the std dev is 15 or 16. Therefore, 160 is 4 sd's above the mean which, regardless of the thing you are measuring, is very difficult to measure without massive numbers of sample points because the population density becomes very sparse.
there are other intelligence tests, some top out at 200, but you have to know the SD for that to be useful.
You're allowed to be angry when people do dumb things. Expecting your interviewees to install malware on their computer just to do an interview is dumb. Not only is it asking for trouble, it's also completely unnecessary. We have platforms specifically built for coding interviews, you just don't need to do that.
I guess, sure, companies are technically allowed to request you install malware on your computer. It's probably a CFAA violation, but nobody gives a rat's ass about the CFAA unless you're hacking the FBI, so who cares.
Also, make no mistake: a piece of software that is designed to record your screen, keypresses, etc is malware. It is spyware. You have absolutely zero guarantee it isn't install hooks into your system that will exist long after the application is gone.
Just do the interview in a browser sandbox like a normal person, and share your screen. Boom, problem solved, we figured this out 10 years ago. Really that paranoid about cheating? Then pay up and do an in-person interview, paper code test and all. I've had it done to me multiple times.
I agree, but that doesn’t mean you can’t call things dumb. You can. Asking interviewees to install random software on their computer is dumb, and you should stop if you’re doing that. You’re certainly allowed to disagree, that’s just my opinion.
Personally I judge hiring practices based on cost efficiency and quality of candidates, but I suppose "making people mad" could be an alternative criteria.
