Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:MapReduce is great (Score 2) 73

Indeed. I went though their "interview-process" a while back at the request of a friend that was there and desperately wanted me for his team. Interestingly, I failed to get hired, and I think it is because I knew a lot more about the questions they asked than the people that created (and asked) these questions. For example, on (non-cryptographic) hash-functions my answer was to not do them yourself, because they would always be pretty bad, and to instead use the ones by Bob Jenkins, or if things are slow because there is a disk-access in there to use a crypto hash. While that is what you do in reality if you have more than small tables, that was apparently very much not what they wanted to hear. They apparently wanted me to start to mess around with the usual things you find in algorithm books. Turns out, I did way back, but when I put 100 Million IP addresses into such a table, it performed abysmally bad. My take-away is that Google prefers to hire highly intelligent, but semi-smart people with semi-knowledge about things and little experience and that experienced and smart people fail their interviews unless they prepare for giving dumber answers than they can give. I will never do that.

On the plus side, my current job is way more interesting than anything Google would have offered me.

Comment It has not (Score 2) 73

What has happened instead is that quite a few "tech experts" did not understand what it actually was and had completely unrealistic expectations. Map-reduce is nice when you a) have computing power coming out of your ears and b) have very specific computing tasks. That means that in almost all cases, this technology is a bad choice and that was rather obvious to any actual expert right from the start.

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 412

Occam's Razor is not a valid proof technique and involves a subjective judgment call. It is a way to move forward under uncertain conditions that has a pretty good track record though. One if it main strengths is that usually simpler constructs survive better and hence are more prevalent. In science and technology, it matches well with the golden rule of constructing anything, namely KISS.

There are some areas where it seems to fail catastrophically though. For example, in Physics, both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are not consistent with it, or it is unclear what it would advocate. (To make matters worse, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are also not consistent with each other, i.e. they cannot both be true unless Physics is even more fundamentally wrong.) Now, Occam's Razor would probably suggest here that somebody is messing with us and that makes the simulation scenario or the presence of a god that does it a likely scenario. On the other hand, there is really no good other evidence for those models.

In reality, Occam's Razor probably works best when amended to say "Prefer the most simple explanation, unless you have good indications it is way off, and move to more complex explanations when validation of the most simple one fails. Also make very sure you understand complexity and do that validation carefully."

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 412

It is one valid world model, because it could be true from what we can observe. But so is solipsism, for example, and some other bizarre constructs. You cannot derive the probabilities for any of the these models being the true one from theoretical arguments, and that is what Hossenfelder probably objects to, and rightfully so.

For a large collection of invalid "proofs" of a certain world model, look, for example, at the large collection of "proofs" that God exists.

Comment Re:Stealth Layoff (Score 5, Insightful) 300

This is however really the most demented way to do it, because only those that are good at what they do (and hence have other prospects) will leave. The ones staying will include all that have no prospects. Do this several times and you may as well close down the department and re-start from scratch.

Why again are the people that make such decisions so much money? Oh right, because they know how to give the appearance of knowing how to do their job.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning