my company exists for 10+ years and it's been fairly consistently the case that candidates that did not demonstrate good understanding of algorithms would later struggle in the position. and I'm not asking anyone trivia; that would test the candidate's capacity for memorizing such, which isn't really a very useful skill -- I'm asking simple problem solving questions. after all, if someone isn't capable of coming up with a relatively simple algorithm on the spot, are they really a programmer?

the analogy I would like to use is working out: you go to the gym because you want to be healthier and stronger, not necessarily because your job is literally unloading trucks or because you are a powerlifter. there simply isn't a better way of gauging your ability at programming than problem solving -- not because you would be doing this as your actual job.

for our studios in two different countries divided by the Atlantic ocean; job descriptions are practically the same, and pay is slightly above market rates. interviewed roughly 150 people so far since last May, which resulted in 6 hires. vast majority of applicants have 1-2 years of full-time work experience.

so the weird observation is that on the east side candidates are on average better at computer science fundamentals but their command of the engine we're using is often lacking. okay, so they are smart and we can train them a bit on the engine part. guess what, we're very happy with their performance now.

to the west of the pond, however, the candidates are often excellent at the engine knowledge but simple algorithms questions frequently throw a "deer in headlights stare" exception. "I'm going to use Google of course!" (while looking somewhat insulted) occurs at least 20% of the time. "I'm a VR developer, why are you asking this?"... wtf is a VR developer? is that kind of like a piano player who only knows how to use the first three white keys in the second octave? yet someone has hired these people before and paid them money for working with them and not the other way round (ok that was a bit harsh but you get the idea). after all this time, we still have vacancies in that office...

not to sound too arrogant, but maybe, just maybe, the issue is that for many people, actual ability of their skillset to add value to a business is close to zero, and demand for those skillsets is finally now where it should be, instead of crazy as before.

or maybe it's just our sample bias. go figure

>cloud servers
>60m in the air
I see what you did there

I'm not saying that teenage girls-oriented music has not been popular before; I'm saying it didn't use to be the case that pretty much the only demographic that actively wants to listen to music is teenage girls. anecdotally, this appears to me a material change in demand rather than supply -- in other words, it's not that "they don't make them anymore like they used to", it's that other demographics just don't care about music as much as they used to.

I don't know about a "killing"; they most certainly make "some" revenue, but how does it compare to their competitors at say Disney?

and again, Netflix is a new kid on that block and they can set their company operations according to their strategy. it takes a significant advantage to offset changes in the way big labels / music publishers operate, and it just doesn't look like the necessary market is there yet. maybe in 10-20 years? who knows. until then, vae victis.

it is very likely that "you" (as in "making music you like") are not a big enough market to warrant going after for the music industry. (I am in the same boat.) I kind of trust their business sense; I don't think they consciously made a decision to make LESS money by catering to the audience that they chose.

there is an interesting conversation to be had with regards to how music SUPPLY affects popular tastes and in turn shapes demand, yet somehow I don't feel they are missing out much by not going after, so to say, subprime segments of their market.

no one mentioned the other big difference between the pre-streaming era and today: the music people pay for changed, and the demographics of people who pay for music is today very different as well.

not sure exactly why, but anecdotally today's music business appears focused on teenager girls, which certainly was not the case in the 80s and in the 90s. maybe it is the YouTube that replaced some need for other population groups that music used to fill? doesn't matter exactly why; what matters is that with different audience came different purchasing behavior and consumption patterns. perhaps changes in the industry reflect these more than technology advances.

may I ask you to expand what does "these courses turn into some sort of apology for the field" exactly mean? I think I understand the basic idea but a couple real examples would help.

actually, "mir" means both "peace" and "world". (the two words used to be spelled differently before the orthography rules changed shortly after the bolshevik revolution, but they have always been homonyms.) in this case it's much more likely the intended meaning is "world". not that it matters, but still.

game industry is a market. there is no particular need to warn anyone about dangers of overdoing monetization; that line between "doing" and "overdoing" is defined by the players and not by product managers or C-levels. what we see today may seem like overdoing monetization by some, but if the market can bear it, who's to say that is bad? if people ARE paying for it.

Russia's economy basically works like this: the oligarchs make money in Russia and move it out of the country and export to the West. in many regards, Russia is a colony of the West. somehow I doubt it very much the West is going to go far to dismantle this system and have the Russian money stay in Russia instead.

and would you say, with regards to the whole society, did the situation get better or worse, compared to, say, two hundred years ago?

there is a good reason we get antivaxxers and flat-earthers: public trust in science has been undermined by politicians, economists, and greedy corporations. after telling people for some many years SCIENCE PROVES THAT YOU MUST BUY THIS PRODUCT and then doing a 180 on that and telling people that NEWEST RESEARCH SHOWS YOU MUST AVOID THIS PRODUCT FOR ALL COST -- or feeding people bullshit like trickle down "theory", sooner or later erodes trust in anything that has the word "science" in it. I'm not entirely sure what's the best way out there, but something will eventually emerge.

call me a naïve romantic, but I do believe that the whole history of humankind proves that the humankind's ability to adapt, learn, and evolve is way stronger than ill will of any powers that be.

FWIW it may well be "natural", but that doesn't imply "good" or "healthy". one can argue it is also "natural" to take by force from others what you want, or to commit rape -- after all, desire of procreation is "natural", and there is nothing unnatural about lust. by the same logic, assault and rape should be qualified as good as healthy as well?

well, it used to be the case for many thousands of years, yet somehow, after all those years, we kind of figured out morality and passed relevant laws. implicit racial bias may not necessarily have the same short term effects on individuals as assault and rape, but if subjected to for a long time (and for many people, that bias affects them throughout their lifetime), damage is easily comparable.

as humankind, we have long stopped considering assault and rape the norm; it is time to get rid of the other vestiges of "might makes right". and, brain aging doesn't have that much to do with it -- neuroplasticity is very real.