While you may(or not) be right about rise in antisemitism, there also seems to be a lot more videos surfacing of stuff that doesn't reflect well on Israel. I consider myself pretty unbiased in this, I have absolutely no opinions about ethnicity etc and have often come to defense of Israel in some discussions but I can honestly say that my own view has soured a little bit. The killing(and denial) of that journalist, and that video of a funeral procession spring to mind.
Starting to remind me of Northern Irish loyalists(who happen to revere Israel), which imo is a pretty ugly movement.
Nothing about this is inherent to the people or country but (I think) like loyalism, comes from a degree of insecurity that can manifest as truculence
If I assert that many people like Justin Bieber and show you many tweets saying as much, do you infer that it was the tweets that made me form this opinion?
I think a large part of why certain regions get get credit for things is because they are better at marketing themselves. Assuming what you say is true about Indias achievements, I would think that they should at least be recognised by their neighbours. If your achievements are only acknowledged by yourself, then racism probably isn't the cause.
Purely anecdotal but I've never heard an Indian person talking up their country and pointing to its achievements like you are, whereas people from my small country will not miss an opportunity to tell you how great we are and we claim credit for everything.
As I said in a different comment, I don't think they're necessarily optimal. But a lot of companies do them, which is at least some sign that they have some value. Personally I think slightly different approaches are better, but there are some benefits to a standardized, easy-to-administer test that is better than your random personnel at your company can come up with on their own. (I've seen many far worse ways to value employees than Leetcode-style interviwes).
Also, I'm not sure how easy Leetcode is to practically game. I may be way off here (truly), but most people who can get good enough at solving Leetcode-style problems (and are willing to put in that time) are probably better than those who can't. This certainly misses some people, but as I said, finding a filter that only lets through above-average candidates, even if it misses some others, is what a lot of companies are looking for.
> But a lot of companies do them, which is at least some sign that they have some value.
"A lot do XYZ" is not a sign that anything has "some value".
> that is better than your random personnel at your company can come up with
I'm sorry, what are companies hiring for: To solve the problems they are trying to solve? Or to solve the puzzles in a standardized test? And who knows these problems and the skills involved in them better, a standardized test, or the people already working on them?
> "A lot do XYZ" is not a sign that anything has "some value".
It is a signal that maybe there's something you're missing. "I think everyone else is doing this thing wrong" is sometimes true, but often wrong, or at least incomplete (because goals might be different).
> I'm sorry, what are companies hiring for: To solve the problems they are trying to solve? Or to solve the puzzles in a standardized test? And who knows these problems and the skills involved in them better, a standardized test, or the people already working on them?
The problem is that being good at hiring and at evaluating people is itself a skill. A skill that some people have, and some people don't. It isn't necessarily correlated with how good a developer someone is.
The other problem is that if you come up with a different "test" every time, it will make it much harder to compare different interviewees. I still ask interview questions that have to do with a system I built 10 years ago. I of course could update the question to something I'm working on now, and I certainly change the emphasis on what exactly I'm asking. But sticking to a question that I know works well, and that I've used many times, makes it much easier for me to evaluate people.
But let's just be clear - what would you suggest as a hiring criteria? Do you think the team that is hiring (which in large corporations might also not be the team that gets the hire, but that's another story.) You think the team that is hiring should come up with specific questions based on their current work? How often? How often should they change them? Who should be doing it, every team member?
I'm trying to get a sense of where we actually disagree.
> "I think everyone else is doing this thing wrong" is sometimes true, but often wrong, or at least incomplete (because goals might be different).
That isn't the point. The point is, just because a lot of X do Y doesn't indicate that Y is the best solution, or even a good one.
> The problem is that being good at hiring and at evaluating people is itself a skill.
Yes, that's why we have HR departments, and why these can take input from the technical departments to do part of the evaluation.
> The other problem is that if you come up with a different "test" every time
Why would I do that? I am not advocating designing completely new interviews for every candidate, I am advocating not using the same interviewing process for every candidate in the entire industry.
> Yes, that's why we have HR departments, and why these can take input from the technical departments to do part of the evaluation.
HR departments can't do technical interviews. You need technical people for that. But being technical isn't sufficient, you also need to be good at interviewing.
> I am advocating not using the same interviewing process for every candidate in the entire industry.
Is it the same process for every candidate in the industry? I'm not in SV, so maybe it's different here, but I've seen many different processes at many different places, and they were definitely not all identical.
Saying transgenderism is the treatment to dysphoria is itself an extremely controversial statement and not one you can present as as a pillar of any argument. There is a contingent that _don't want_ anything other than transgenderism to be the solution to dysphoria, because it would put a lot of question marks over the accepted dogma.
This was previously on the WPATH Wikipedia page but has since been removed:
In 2021, WPATH's President-Elect, Marci Bowers called the association intolerant of dissenting opinions. She said, "There are definitely people who are trying to keep out anyone who doesn't absolutely buy the party line that everything should be affirming, and that there's no room for dissent."
It's not controversial, and the vast majority of transgender individuals belong to no orgs nor follow them. They're just people that are looking for solutions. There is always going to be political organizations using people and muddying the narrative for clout.
There's a debate between her and Boris Johnson on youtube arguing the Romans vs the Greeks and he makes her look like an amateur both in delivery and content of her arguments
I think the more normal thing to do would be not to buy a TV and just don't make a meal out of explaining why. 'I would never use it, ' is pretty sufficient
I think you're living in a bubble in this regard. It seems odd to me to worry about this, and in fact odd that visitors would both notice the absence of a TV and comment on it.
Data point: We don't have a TV in my student house, and no one has commented on that, even though we have had on average maybe 5 visitors per week for over a year. Offhand I'd estimate that about 50 unique people have seen our living room. I'm in Sweden.
Speculation: The common factor is you. You influence your visitors with regards to what topics to talk about and how to treat these topics.
Does your site or any other allow a user to click notes on a fretboard and have the app deduce the chord from the positions? I know a lot of chords the names of which I have forgotten, and don't have the theory chops to work it out myself
I can't quite figure out if your response is meant to be sarcastic or not - i.e., if you're "amazed" at the completeness here or maybe mocking the specialized/exotic chords it came up with in this case.
I apologize if this is obvious or well known to you, but for anyone not already familiar with it recognize that much like (and not wholly independent of) musical scales, chords are essentially defined by a predictable "formula".
E.g., every major chord is described by interval pattern 0-4-7: starting at any note, take the root, major-third (4 semi-tones above the root) and perfect-fifth (7 semi-tones above the root) and you have the major chord. For the root note C that yields C-E-G.
Rotate that pattern so that the root note is pitched above the major-third and perfect-fifth (e.g. something like 4-7-12) and you have an "inversion" of the major chord. For the root note C that's E-G-C (known as "C/E") or G-C-E (known as C/G).
Based on these interval patterns it's not hard to generate an exhaustive list of chord "families" (with members like "Major" or "Dom13Aug5" or whatever) - there are at most 4096 (=2**12) of these interval patterns in a single octave, and many of those are relatively uninteresting due to symmetry, degenerate cases or just plain dissonance. (To be fair many common chords span more than one octave.)
A given collection of notes (fret/string combos on a 6-string guitar for example) is usually going to map to some variation of one of those interval patterns, possibly with a stray interval added, dropped or repeated. (E.g., the typical X32010 fingering of C Major on guitar corresponds to C-E-G-C-E rather that "simply" C-E-G.)
So it might seem like mapping an arbitrary fingering to the corresponding chord name requires a lot of information, but it's just matching notes (or pitch classes) to a moderately small number of named interval patterns.
And it might seem like "F5addb5addb11addb13/A" is a ridiculously over-specified chord name, but that's a function of applying a set of conventional "modifiers" to a simpler/better-known/more-common chord. (In this case, `F5addb5addb11addb13` = `F5 + add(b5) + add(b11) + add(b13)`, i.e., F5 (F + C) with a diminished-5th (C), diminished-11th (B) and diminished-13th (C#) added.) You could argue that the pattern matching is trying too hard in this case, but if you're dedicated to assigning a "conventional" chord name to an arbitrary collection of notes, there's algorithmic way to do that.
Again, apologies if this is obvious to you (user Y_Y), I just thought I'd try to de-mystify it a bit for anyone to whom this seems like alchemy.
Music theory has a bunch of semi-arbitrary naming conventions that make it sound really complicated to the uninitiated, but in the abstract the chord names are basically just bit-masks that specify interval offsets from a given root note.
Haha yes, I was being intentionally silly. Thanks for the very nice explanation though, I find that it can be really difficult to explain these things to non-musicians and I like the way you've done it.
(By the way, I also deliberately chose something that should be excruciatingly difficult to actually play on a normal guitar.)
