Sure, it could be done. We could all volunteer to maintain roads and bridges too. Grab those shovels comrades!

If only we had some way to collectively pay for professionals to perform services for the common wealth. Not everyone would want to pay of course, so we'd need to have some sort of rules and penalties for those who try to avoid paying their fair share. I've got it: we can send them to Mar-A-Lago!

Unless their parents own the company, anyone in hiring has been on both sides. And within the past 10 years (at least), job seekers have had to pack their resumes with keywords in order to get through HR. Yes, people should ideally take the time to tailor their resume to the position to which they're applying, but it's a lot less effort (and usually pays off) to just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks so you can get at least a phone interview.

Also, in the time it takes to customize a resume, the position might be closed, and nobody wants to spend hours mentally reviewing their past experience to highlight parallels with the position they're applying to, especially when there's no guarantee they'll even get to submit that resume, let alone that anyone important will look at it. There's risk involved. If there's a job I really want, I'll tailor my resume. If it's a job that would be lucky to have me.... not so much.

Also, (and I can't believe I'm arguing in favor of Java devs here) if a Java dev is applying, it's likely because they're willing to do the work, not because they don't understand the difference. Many devs avoid JS because they *do* understand it, not because they don't. "I'm willing to pay you a half-million dollars to stab yourself in the eye, but it says here you've never stabbed yourself in the eye before. What makes you think you can do this job?! Idiot!"

Also worth noting that Java and JS are not mutually exclusive, and many Java projects include JS these days, so unless JS is absent from their resume, being a Java dev is probably a point in favor. Plus you mentioned C#, which is basically "Microsoft Java."

Finally, it's ironic because any dev who's been working longer than, say, 5 years has experience in technologies, frameworks, or even just parts of an API a language that are obsolete today. Everyone has had to transition to new technologies and methods, even if they stay in the same role at the same company using the same tools. Being able to pivot isn't the exception; it's the rule.

Point being, a keyword mismatch is an HR-level problem. IMO, nobody doing hiring should toss a good resume just because the experience doesn't match the requirements.

In theory, I agree that a polished resume is a good sign, and I try to present myself well on paper... but as a counterpoint, my good friend of over 30 years never put his resume in anything but plaintext format, uses keyword salad at the end, and he's also one of the best devs I know, and has always had more work than he has time for. I would be interested to learn how well a polished resume correlates with workplace success though, because I might be wasting my time.

The original announcement isn't clear, but based on the relatively low number of affected devices (there must be hundreds of thousands of these routers in use), it seems that only "savvy" users who enabled forms-based logins on the WAN port may have been affected.

Installing a private key and enabling SSH on a non-default port (as the attackers did) is likely much more secure, if the device absolutely must be accessible, or enabling the VPN -- again with public/private key pairs.

The irony is that half of the insipid comments are being made by people with 5 digit UIDs.

Nobody has to trust CVEs -- that's the point. They are verifiable and typically there are proofs of concept which are easily testable. People ignore them at their own peril. (Hint, nobody in security ignores CVEs -- on the contrary, they mine them for exploits).

Per fortnight.

I think it's a moot point, in that it doesn't matter what we call it, but that said, you're still citing a suicidal individual who isn't thinking clearly. So... perhaps not the most reliable narrator.

Self/auto-leveling headlights are far from a panacea. There is the limited range of motion issue, but more importantly, roads are not flat. If you're cresting a hill at the same time as another driver in the opposite direction, your lights are going to shine in the oncoming driver's eyes, period.

More advanced (so-called "matrix" LED) headlights, in conjunction with cameras, can instead detect oncoming vehicles and create local dimming in that direction. There's room for improvement in the execution, but the theory is sound, and improvements can be delivered in OTA updates rather than replacing the hardware. Which is good, because the hardware is not cheap.

This formula makes a lot of assumptions based on our own evolution, but does so selectively. For example, the fact that we exist means the odds of intelligent life evolving are 100%, but this formula ignores that reality while including preconditions for intelligent life drawn from our own history, such as the idea that it requires billions of years to arise. In reality, we don't know whether our timeline is typical any more than we know the statistical significance of our own existence. We only have a sample size of one, and that's not really enough to draw any meaningful conclusions beyond the fact that life is possible.

I'm reminded of the recent discovery that the conditions on Uranus were atypical when Voyager made its flyby (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/science/uranus-voyager-2-flyby.html), yet we had been assuming for decades that they were normal. That's the problem with small sample sizes.

I will caveat this by adding that having observed zero signs of intelligent life elsewhere in the observable universe lends support to the idea that the odds of intelligent life arising in any given star system are vanishingly small. Even on our own planet, all available evidence suggests that it has only happened once. However, if there is indeed randomness to the existence of life, then we would also expect clustering, so there may be galaxies and even planets with multiple forms of intelligent life, even if our own galaxy turns out to be relatively barren.

Studies like this are of limited utility, as there is often a disconnect between what people say and what they actually do.

Moreover, party allegiances are likely to override any negative inferences, and cause people to rationalize their choice despite their stated preferences or values.

Tell that to the starving North Koreans.

Not to worry, soon his estate will license his voice for AI, and literally everything will be narrated by James Earl Jones.

"Wow, you're so confident and funny. Were you always like this?"

"Nah, I've just played a lot of D&D."

To be fair, some professors grade accurately but use measures that are incredibly poor. "Well, you should have had a background in early 1500s Dutch law to even be in this class as far as I'm concerned, so I don't know why you're complaining. I made it clear at the beginning of this Linear Algebra class that I wasn't going to teach to the test and that independent study was expected."

Some professors get off on that sort of thing though. It validates their feelings of superiority I suppose.

A comparison of grades over time is meaningless without context. What was the acceptance rate in 1950 compared to today? What are the selection criteria? Connections still go a long way, but I imagine they went much further in 1950 than they do today. The population of the US has more than doubled since the 1950s and more people are going to college instead of going into trades, but Harvard class sizes are about the same. It would frankly be surprising if GPAs *didn't* improve.

I'm not saying grade inflation isn't real -- I honestly don't know--- I'm just saying this article doesn't show any compelling evidence.

As far as grades being a metric for sorting a given class, if everyone can master the material and get 95% or better accuracy, then curving that to make the "worst" students fail is utter BS in my view. If you need a comparison for a given class, then add some digits to the end of the GPA. Class rankings are still a thing too.