I think he's the same guy that was yelling the n word and saying how Jews are the enemy; I almost get the feeling he's reconsidering his position after getting beat down by the real world; much easier to hate and act like a tough guy from behind a keyboard

"The 'no penis' thing....yeah, that's kinda nuts"
giggle

"I also see that the right has moved so far right that what one might consider 'centrist' today would be extremist right 25 years ago"

Which reminds me that in the entire conversation I've been pretty much writing off the Reps and the right. I'd really like to see them do all the same things just flipping left for right and all.

I would argue that the right hasn't gone so much further from the 'center' than the left has. Of course, the 'center' is always subjective, but my barometer is basically the only mantra from the libertarians I can agree on, your rights end were mine begin. Maximizing that mantra as much as the practicalities of real world allow is what I would consider an ideally centrist goal line.

First piece of advice. "Clever" code is usually bad code. If I saw that line of code in a code review, I would have to have words with the programmer.

More seriously, it depends where you are. There area lot of jobs right now. If by no professional experience you mean no internship experience, that can make things harder but isn't a huge obstacle at all (the experience itself doesn't often count for much, it's really more of a "why didn't you get an internship?" sort of thing). A good way to start in that case is to look for contract-to-hire positions, possibly through a recruiting/placement agency (look for ones that specialize in engineers). They generally know what they are doing, and will work hard to find a good place for you and they are genuinely on your side. We like to use these where I work because you can hire someone on a three month or whatever contract, and if it doesn't work out, it's a relatively painless separation for everyone (ie, you weren't "fired" you just finished the term of your contract). It's easier to get your foot in the door through a CTH, and then you just have to diligently and prove yourself.

As for preparing for real work (the actual coding part), that's harder. Since you really don't know what you'll be doing, it's not easy to prepare for it. You really have to learn software engineering on the job, and companies hiring entry level talent know that. That said, if you have a particular field in mind, looking for *good* open source projects along the lines of what you want to do and studying the source is good idea. Exposure to real-world, non-academic code is very useful. Getting involved and maybe becoming a contributor is a great idea (and looks good on a resume and gives you something to talk about in an interview). Working on personal hobby projects is a good thing too (though not as good as working on larger projects with other people), which again, gives you something to talk about in an interview. Keep your hand in. Have something to talk about at your interviews.

There are some good books. "The Pragmatic Programmer" by Hunt/Thomas is an excellent general-purpose programming practices book (more about mindset and approach and good patterns than technical details), and I can't recommend it enough. There are some others, but they escape me at the moment. Google is probably your friend here. If you can find a second hand set of Knuth for a reasonable price, buy it up. It's not even remotely worth actually reading, but it looks good on a shelf.

Good luck and don't sweat it. You have a degree that makes you very employable. You'll find something that you like without a doubt. If you're lucky it will be your first job, if not, no big deal--move on to the next thing.

I don't really hold with the programming problem interview test thing. It's like interviewing for a writer and having them take a spelling test. At best, it will weed out people who really shouldn't have made it that far in the interview process to begin with. I think you get more by just having a friendly conversation about programming topics. Since you'd only have a test like this for an entry level position anyways, it should really just be taken as granted that they don't have much if any real-world programming skill and what's actually important is how quickly and effectively they will develop those skills when in a position to do so (along with all the usual personality "fit" stuff).

It does not have to be about fitting into gamut, pink is a combination of blue and red light, which monitors are good at.

The problem with real world materials is that perception is not as simple as that. The combination of reflected, refracted, and even radiated (transformed wavelength) and polarized light, the micro-structure of the surface and possibly other properties can influence perception.

Like your favourite washing powder makes your whites whiter, this stuff makes pinks look pinker somehow. Its about fooling your eyes in specific conditions. You can simulate the difference between a known pink - a standard colour sample - and this awesome new pink by putting them side by side and calibrating the camera and monitor to show the new pink as pink and the reference pink as less pink, like at the end of the video, but that cant beat walking into an art gallery and seeing it with your own eyes. I mean probably, I havent seen this particular pink, but I have seen modern paintings which look nothing like their RGB or CMYK reproductions.

Good post, I was just looking into how Bitcoin works a week ago and this video helped solidify what I learned online. I can see the appeal of cryptocurrencies to criminals, hackers, or your garden variety government conspiracy theorist but I don't really see why an average person would have any interest in this, particularly given the volatility of the exchange rates between cryptocurrencies and the real world or the potential for hacking/losses due to errors in the system (see the disastrous Mt. Gox case here in Japan).

i see loads of people shit on VFX and CG like it's ONLY bad (and with almost no understanding of the process). often the stuff they complain about are massively difficult shots that could never work in the real world or because it was what the client wants and/or because their reference was other VFX, not real things. there is very little actually bad VFX in properly budgeted movies insofar as artist ability and technical knowledge. this is why i think james cameron or ang lee deserve zero credit for the VFX of avatar or life of pi. all they did was secure the money to get them made and then shit all over them with bad ideas.

Yes, by using both pacers and wind blockers, the Nike attempt wouldn't have counted as a world record. At one point it was considered that a sub-4 minute mile was scientifically impossible. The science here would be more reassuring if they talked about that fancy equation, and how it matches various real world runners very well. For example, runner A has a VO2 max of 60, and an efficiency of 95% of theoretical peak. It should be impossible for him to get below the equation's theoretical best time of 2:07, but the best in the world with those stats should get close. Science is all about building a model you think is representative of real life, then test it. I don't see any testing of the model here to prove its validity.

I think that's the best part of the entire clip. It's not set up with a right/wrong character or position. It's taking the grayness of race relations and actual real honest people and putting in your face. People are more than their race, and the trite simple 'rules' often used to decide if someone is good/evil and racist or not rarely apply in the real world.

That seems a bit much for comic books but i have no clue "how real" comic books get as i don't read them.

I don't see that as someone being raped. I think it's more someone who wants to feel dominated. There is quite a market for very powerful people paying good money to be dominated. I've had a friend or two (strong females) who have talked about wanting/enjoying being dominated by lovers. In the real world people don't enjoy being raped but many powerful people get off on being dominated/controlled so i tend to see it from that perspective as it seems more realistic. Although I can see how it could be seen as rape. Hard to know for sure without more background info.

However still seems odd for a comic book.

Curious if Miller has said anything regarding this? I did a quick google and didn't find anything on the implication that Superman raped Wonder Woman.
"In Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again, which also takes place in the future, Clark and Diana had a superpowered daughter called Lara, after Superman’s Kryptonian mother, whom they protected from the government. In typical Miller style, the relationship was memorably… intense:" http://comicsalliance.com/the-many-loves-of-wonder-woman-steve-trevor-nemesis-batman-superman-romance/

Anyway just my two cents

For being so different he seems to be doing okay. If only in the real world all kids would be as accepting. *promote

Made it 1:01:
In the real world however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed in the name of law enforcement than has been committed in spite of it.

When the guy leads with provably false statements I have to stop. Whether an opinion coming later may or may not be shared with my own doesn't matter to me, I've already decided the speaker isn't someone I want in my camp and is not someone I want to be listening to.

90% of VFX are amazing (especially considering the material given). imo the big reason stuff will look "fake" often comes down to a few different things: on set not listening to VFX sups, wanting everything to be hyper crisp and in focus (i'm looking you marvel), and using other VFX as reference instead of the real world.

I agree with all of that, and there definitely are reasonable limits to completely "free" speech -- like the fire in a crowded theater staple example.

"Harm" seems like a good place to start when defining those limits. It works in the "fire in a theater" base case really well; by making that out of bounds you avoid trample / stampede injuries.

But what about "trauma or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual", as you suggest? I'd agree that cases like that can exist. But to me, the question then becomes "how easily can you avoid those words?"

Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something you see/hear on TV? Very easily solved -- change the channel. Publish "trigger warnings" recommending like-minded individuals also avoid that channel/program/whatever if you like; people who do not agree can also easily avoid those.


Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something your professor said in a University? A bit harder to avoid. Someone in that situation can drop the class and try to take it with a different professor (which may not be possible), avoid taking the class entirely (although it may be a requirement for graduation), or contemplate moving to a different university (which is likely an uneconomical overreaction).

There are arguably better options available for such a person. I'd encourage them to reflect on the phrase "choose your battles wisely", and decide if this particular "harm" (giving all benefit of the doubt that it does actually exist) is worth escalating.


Offended / "harmed" by something your boss says at work? "Choose your battles" still applies, but perhaps also consider asking people who have had a job and who have had to work for a living for advice. When (trigger warning) 99.9% of them say something like "welcome to the real world", maybe -- just maybe -- it is time to look within and re-evaluate your own offense / "harm" threshold.