Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 220

by circletimessquare (#49803299) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

you're changing the goalposts

we were talking about leaders of nations, and now you are talking about the unrelated honorific applied to sports stars

so if you're changing the subject, i'll take that as your intellectually dishonest way of conceding my point here

i'm glad i've been able to show you something about your world. it's ugly. it's unfortunate. but it's reality we have to deal with

Comment: Re:Just wait... (Score 1) 124

just ship the actual doctor.

Do you know how many doctors they have in America? How about in Liberia?

According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2008 the U.S. had 2.4 doctors per every 1000 people. In Liberia, they had 0.01 per 1000, but that was before ebola killed 40 of their 120 physicians. Volunteer doctors have helped a little, but not too many want to risk their own lives in such a hot zone. The need is almost beyond comprehension.

Oh, and of those 80 remaining doctors, how many do you think specialize in surgery, and have hours in their day to operate on you? How many specialize in the kind of surgery you may need at that moment?

You can't 'just ship the actual doctor' any more than you can send them a stack of gold bars. There aren't enough who have time or the inclination to go.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 220

by circletimessquare (#49800999) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

A leaders job is to lead the group to as good an outcome as possible (i.e. it is the task that the leader was chosen to do)

the guy who is focusing his effort on getting a good outcome for society has no time to maintain his leadership. so someone else leads

A leader who is only good at remaining the leader... he/she is a good Narcissist.

i agree. and? so what. yes, absolutely: leading societies is the work of truly gifted and screwed up people. demagogues. this is a problem about human nature, but that doesn't make the problem magically. the problem is baked into how we function as social groups, there is no avoiding it

you seem to live in this insulated ivory tower that doesn't know, understand, nor accept certain unfortunate but unavoidably true aspects of human behavior. your concept of an ideal leader will always, always, wind up being some guy who works for the actual leaders. the actual leaders are the guys who spend most of their tiem acquiring and maintaining their leadership. playing a game that you dislike, but who cares if you like it. the game is part of your reality. that you don't like it doesn't make it go away

you don't bother acknowledging that the game of jockeying for control and keeping it is the real subject called leadership, and the entire domain you call leadership is actually a separate sideshow that comes after and is subservient to the real topic at hand: the ugly ways leadership is acquired and maintained

welcome to reality. acknowledge it. then form your opinions

Comment: Re:Just wait... (Score 1) 124

Oh, and if it's a time-critical disaster scenario, the patient is still better off with a remote surgeon than with no doctor at all. If the surgeon physically cannot get to the field hospital in the next two hours, and your choices are limited to:

A) bleed to death from a punctured lung because there's nobody here to sew you up, or
B) take your chances with Comcast delivering enough bytes for a doctor two states away to sew you up,

most people will opt for B.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 3, Informative) 220

by circletimessquare (#49800933) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

that may be the status quo, but the status quo is a failed concept

Q. Other insights from the data you’ve gathered about Google employees?

A. One of the things we’ve seen from all our data crunching is that G.P.A.’s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless — no correlation at all except for brand-new college grads, where there’s a slight correlation. Google famously used to ask everyone for a transcript and G.P.A.’s and test scores, but we don’t anymore, unless you’re just a few years out of school. We found that they don’t predict anything.

What’s interesting is the proportion of people without any college education at Google has increased over time as well. So we have teams where you have 14 percent of the team made up of people who’ve never gone to college.

Q. Can you elaborate a bit more on the lack of correlation?

A. After two or three years, your ability to perform at Google is completely unrelated to how you performed when you were in school, because the skills you required in college are very different. You’re also fundamentally a different person. You learn and grow, you think about things differently.

Another reason is that I think academic environments are artificial environments. People who succeed there are sort of finely trained, they’re conditioned to succeed in that environment. One of my own frustrations when I was in college and grad school is that you knew the professor was looking for a specific answer. You could figure that out, but it’s much more interesting to solve problems where there isn’t an obvious answer. You want people who like figuring out stuff where there is no obvious answer.

this is about GPA, not SAT, but they take home is that scores on academic tests are shit, because the "academic environment is an artificial environment". it focuses on skills that don't really help in the job. colleges need to change what they value, because what they value does not adequately prepare people for life


Q. Other insights from the studies you’ve already done?

A. On the hiring side, we found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time. How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane? How many gas stations in Manhattan? A complete waste of time. They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.

Instead, what works well are structured behavioral interviews, where you have a consistent rubric for how you assess people, rather than having each interviewer just make stuff up.

Behavioral interviewing also works — where you’re not giving someone a hypothetical, but you’re starting with a question like, “Give me an example of a time when you solved an analytically difficult problem.” The interesting thing about the behavioral interview is that when you ask somebody to speak to their own experience, and you drill into that, you get two kinds of information. One is you get to see how they actually interacted in a real-world situation, and the valuable “meta” information you get about the candidate is a sense of what they consider to be difficult.

On the leadership side, we’ve found that leadership is a more ambiguous and amorphous set of characteristics than the work we did on the attributes of good management, which are more of a checklist and actionable.

We found that, for leaders, it’s important that people know you are consistent and fair in how you think about making decisions and that there’s an element of predictability. If a leader is consistent, people on their teams experience tremendous freedom, because then they know that within certain parameters, they can do whatever they want. If your manager is all over the place, you’re never going to know what you can do, and you’re going to experience it as very restrictive.

what has google concluded about best hiring practices?

the emphasis should be on behavioral analysis. to glean someone's social intelligence

case closed

Comment: Re:Just wait... (Score 2) 124

You solve this by running the remote surgery in a hospital that still has local doctors and nurses. One general doctor can be in house and prepped for surgery, on call for one or more operating theatres. The patients will still need local nurses to prep the patients, physically administer the anesthesia (in the case of a remote anesthetist), and handle all kinds of tasks. The remote surgeon makes the cuts, does the work, then closes up behind himself as he leaves. The whole time the local nurse(s) is(are) monitoring vitals, and watching for problems. If anything comes up that can't be remotely managed, the nurse signals for the on-call doctor to come in and handle the situation. All the local doctor really needs are the skills required to close up and remove the machine from the patient - they don't have to complete the delicate surgery if it's beyond their capabilities.

Comment: Re:It's about time.... (Score 2) 124

Next is holograms lawyers in courtrooms!!!

Don't fret. Congress is staffed almost entirely by lawyers, and there is zero chance they'll let their bread-and-butter be outsourced or replaced by machines. They already won't even pass laws to simplify laws, in order to keep their jobs as clever interpreters of the cracks between the laws.

They'll damn everyone else to a subcontracted devil running an outsourced version of hell, but they've proven they're going to protect their jobs forever.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 220

by circletimessquare (#49800817) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

you've just condemned the society the person is in, not the person's intelligence or character. indeed, there are people of great intelligence stuck in shitty jobs the world over. only because their society is so shit there is no path for them to improve themselves, through no fault of their own. people of truly exceptional social intelligence then probably quit anyway and start a revolution

Comment: Re:150ms?? (Score 4, Interesting) 124

I read the article, thinking this was an incorrect claim in the summary. Nope, the article insists in several places that it was "undetectable" by the surgeons. Now, anyone who's played any online FPS knows that 50ms ping times are not only detectable, but are approaching unplayable because some punk kid that's only 10ms away from the server is always taking the head shots before you can even see him.

So I figured there has to be something else. The best hypothesis I could come up with is the current robotic surgery tools introduce their own lag such that the surgeons were unable to distinguish normal device response times from network latency. That, and the goals of a surgeon are completely different from an FPS shooter. A surgeon isn't trying to race anything or anyone - they don't have to shoot first. In a live operating theatre, they are methodical and cautious. It's not like there are sudden surprises that leap out at them that they have to instantly react to. Even a burst blood vessel takes a few moments to assess and plan a recovery from. So maybe if they're used to very slow approach, the latency doesn't impact them as much.

Comment: Re:Five stars for.. (Score 1) 242

by plover (#49800661) Attached to: In a 5-star rating scheme, the new Mad Max film ...

The use of CGI was quite limited. It provided some big background sets (the Citadel), it was used to hide safety wires, and to remove Charlize Theron's arm.

George Miller simply likes building desert-warrior cars out of old rusty hulks and smashing them up. And his love for the craft comes through the screen like a physical thing.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 220

by circletimessquare (#49799657) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

where a leader takes society has no meaning

whether or not a leader obtains and retains leadership does

you are talking about subject matter that has nothing to do with the topic of being a good leader or not

what is the value of a guy with good ideas for society who has no power?

get the power. then we can talk. if you can't do that, you are not a good leader nor a bad leader. you're simply not a leader. you simply don't matter on the topic

stop injecting an unrelated judgment on an unrelated parameter into the subject at hand


Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 220

by circletimessquare (#49799325) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

There's plenty of socially intelligent people with shitty jobs. There's plenty of people with crap social skills who are very successful at their jobs.

if you're socially intelligent, you know you don't need to stay in a shitty job. therefore, your example is incoherent

likewise, show me someone who is not socially intelligent and successful, and i'll show you someone operating in the same domain who is socially intelligent and yet even more successful, due to being more socially intelligent

for example, programming is in demand so programmers can be very successful, even the ones with shitty social skills. but within that domain, those programmers who are also socially intelligent are yet even more successful

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 220

by circletimessquare (#49799189) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

Of course bad decisions that degrade the performance of the group are failures of the leader.

absolutely wrong. failure of leadership is failing to achieve or failing to hold on to the position of leadership

if the entire society goes to shit, but you retain leadership, you're a successful leader

Just like a chemist who accomplishes nothing but retaining his job is not a successful chemist.

no. a chemist who makes a discovery is a successful chemist. whether or not his lab is clean has no bearing on his status as such. to say he has dirty beakers does not mean he has failed at chemistry. just like you saying a leader failed to do {X} or {Y}, which has no bearing on him actually obtaining or retaining leadership, somehow magically has any meaning. it doesn't. you're just projecting your agenda onto an outside domain, and expecting that to matter for some reason, when your agenda really has no meaning as to whether or not a leader succeeds or fails

again, you are applying judgments on parameters that have nothing to do with the actual success or failure of the job

BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then carefully print the chaff.