Statistics is highly useful for CS, and calc is a prerequisite for (real) statistics.

Not if coding is all you can do. That's his point. He's not saying you don't need a degree, he's saying you do need it because it teaches more than just how to code. If all you want is to code, you don't need a degree. But if you want to be a computer scientist or a software engineer, you probably do need a degree... and Google hires computer scientists and software engineers, not coders.

Heh. That reminds me of a conversation I had with my academic advisor in the CS department back in college (~35 years ago). I had been working as a programmer for a couple of years while going to school to get my degree, and had been writing code of various sorts for a decade. I was also young and very cocky. While laying out my path to graduation we were looking at scheduling the required software engineering series. I asked if there was a way I could skip it because "I've been writing code for a while, so I'm pretty sure already learned everything on my own". The professor gave me an indulgent smile and said "I think you should take it anyway".

Looking back, I'm embarrassed for and amused by my younger self. So clueless. So arrogant! I assumed I had discovered, on my own, in a few years of solo projects, the software engineering lessons accumulated by the industry over decades of large-scale projects. I took the classes and immediately realized how much I didn't know, and that the classes were only going to scratch the surface. In hindsight, I'm not sure "scratch the surface" is even accurate, but they did at least make clear to me that I had a lot to learn, and show me something of what the shape of that knowledge might be.

As for whether you can get hired by Google without a degree... you actually can. Google cares about capability, not credentials. That said, there aren't many non-degreed SWEs at Google, because auto-didacts smart enough and dedicated enough to give themselves a good grounding in all of the things a decent degree program provides are pretty rare.

It is hard in practice to get hired without a degree because the recruiters generally discard resumes that don't include a degree (or clearly-equivalent experience), but if you happen to know a Google SWE and can convince them to give you a mock interview (most are happy to unless it's clear to them that you're going to fail badly), and you pass, they can jump you past the screening process, straight to the onsite interview.

Even better: when launch is initiated, disarm weapons, disable remote command, and land gently at intended target, so as to provide materiel to the Ukranians.

Right, clandestine sabotage would have been far better: explode N seconds after launch, or explode N seconds after its neighbor launches, or just brick itself.

That would be the difference between a group looking for fame, and a group looking for results.

I'm inclined to think the hackers are using the word "destroyed" in the contemporary, overblown 1337 sense, and that no actual damage was caused. But I hope the retrieved records prove useful in future counter-ops.

It's one thing to delete a bunch of technical information that, if the organization is half-competent has an off-site backup. It's another thing entirely to get into the actual machines and put them in a state outside the normal envelope of operation to cause physical damage, such as with Stuxnet.

This event sounds more like the former, and less like the latter. Unless, of course, triggering the fire alarms engaged sprinkler systems and flooded the place. That might have caused some physical damage.

The biggest win here might actually just be exfiltration of that technical data to assist hacking the drones themselves in the future.

:) Of course you're right, which means extrapolation is gonna be a /real/ shit-show.

Careful. The unpacking of all those parentheses may cause us to run out of memory on the acronym stack.

It's far faster than exponential (assuming that's 1% of a constant-size market, then 2% of the same market, etc.). The first doubling time was 8 years; an exponential growth process would keep the same doubling time, but it took another 2.9 years to double again.
So your "not even close" is correct, in that exponential growth is far slower than whatever this is.

Observations of Trump's character and behavior, plus the fact that he's set up extremely hard to trace ways for anyone to funnel arbitrary amounts of money to him.

If he'd like not to be accused of selling favors for cash, he should do what previous presidents have done, put all of his assets in a blind trust, first selling anything non-fungible (e.g. hotels and golf courses), so that no one can give him money except by dropping off a briefcase full of cash which will undoubtedly get noticed and reported.

If you set out to make it easy for people to untraceably bribe you, you have to expect everyone will assume that it's because you want to be untraceably bribed... and when you make governing decisions that generate windfall profits for some people you have to expect that people will assume it's because you've been paid off.

This is why it's important to avoid even the appearance of corruption.

It occurs to me that there's one important difference: Investment. If they won't give me a straight answer but I've invested several minutes of my time in talking to them I might give in to their crap process. If I haven't invested that time, though, just gotten a report from the AI caller that they won't answer unless I come in, I won't feel like I've wasted my time if I just give them a miss.

On the other side, businesses might find that giving the AI the runaround is ineffective, because of the lack of investment by the potential customer. Then they'll have a choice: Either just hang up on the calls and ditch those customers, or else start being clearer about their pricing and services. Ideally, they'll be clearer by just putting the info on their web site, so no one has to make or receive a call.

About as anti-social as I am. I hate talking on the phone. Given the choice between calling some business to ask about their pricing or just not using their service, I'll do the latter every time. What I really prefer is that they put their pricing on their web site. Then neither of us have to be bothered. If they don't want to do that and would like my business, though, they should appreciate the AI calls, because with that feature I just might buy from them. Without it, I almost certainly will not.

Google has customer support lines for paid services. Forcing them to provide customer support for free services would just force them to begin charging for those services.

They should respond by putting the information on the web, so people don't have to ask.

It is true in the US, looked at nationwide. There is variation, of course, and there are some areas where housing is shockingly expensive, primarily due to local building policy and state property tax policy. But on the whole each generation is doing better than the previous in income, home ownership and net wealth, though the younger generations believe the opposite and get quite confused when presented with the data. Somehow they seem to have forgotten that every generation starts out with very little and accumulates wealth over time. Instead, they want to start where their parents are.

Another data point that I think is very interesting, this from a research paper from the Federal Reserve Board: Every generation also has more student debt than the one before it, which isn't surprising, but each generation's increase in income more than offsets this debt load. This data is across a broad spectrum of people, and some obviously do much better than others, but as cohorts it appears that borrowing heavily to invest in education has proven to be a good choice.

The biggest and most important isn't so much a guardrail as a fundamental change in what money is: The shift from metal-backed currency to debt-backed currency, AKA fiat currency. Because fiat currency is backed only by contractual obligations to repay it, the money supply can expand rapidly when times are good and contract gracefully when times are bad, preventing the credit crunches that used to cause frequent crashes and the deflationary cycles that made it take long years to recover. That plus the Fed's ability to influence money supply by tightening or loosening credit have meant that we suffer only relatively mild recessions. The other guardrails you mention are important, but the change how we define money and regulate its supply is far more crucial.