Hiker, software engineer (primarily C++, Java, and Python), Minecraft modder, hunter (of the Hunt Showdown variety), biker, adoptive Akronite, and general doer of assorted things.

  • 0 Posts
  • 298 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 10th, 2023

help-circle

  • like the umbrella wedge/spring to make it open automatically.

    That to me is a very specific algorithm. It’s a simple mechanism but putting it together might be a bit tricky.

    That’s very similar to SHA, it’s a fairly simple set of mechanisms but the actual composure of those ideas into something that works as well as SHA does takes very specific research experience. It’s not at all an abstract idea, it’s a very concrete and specific set of operations that you invented first.

    Imagine if the patent was “an umbrella can open itself with the push of button” no further details. That’s close to the level of detail some software patents are argued at and effectively what the “put a game in your loading screen” patent was awarded on.

    You can’t patent the idea that “an umbrella should be able to open [somehow]” so I likewise think it’s ridiculous that someone was able to parent “your game [somehow] runs another simpler game before it runs.”

    Patents should be to protect very specific research so that the private sector can do said research and profit from it. Patents should not block out broad concepts. The patent in the video game situation was and should’ve been ruled as bogus. It’s not the type of thing anyone needed to research or think about, you just literally go “what if I added a game to my loading screen” and you’re in violation.


  • I think software patents should really only apply to extremely tricky algorithmic “discoveries” (which I would consider inventions, as someone that’s written a SHA256 implementation from reference material, nobody is “just coming up with that”).

    “Ingenuity patents” like that loading screen game are everything that’s wrong with software patents. It’s not all that crazy of an idea to add a game while waiting to play the main game. There’s no radical research required there, just an idea.

    I don’t think vague ideas like “a game in a loading screen” are sufficiently creative to warrant a patent.




  • People typically aren’t stuck on minimum wage because the powers that be won’t let them have a decent wage. Most adults are not on minimum wage ( in the US, less than 2% as of 2022; in the UK, low pay accounts for less than 4% as of 2024 ).

    There’s something to be said for the rich taking advantage of folks, but … bothering worrying about abstract rich guy metrics like making the GDP go up is not going to help anyone get out of their situation.

    Sure, focus on other aspects of politics like making education affordable, strengthening unions, etc things that will help you achieve your goals or help you once you’ve achieved your goals. However, there’s a lot one can directly do to address their situation that’s a lot less abstract than “vote for a representative, to write a bill, to potentially help you, to possibly get passed by your legislature, and possibly get passed by your executive branch (or your equivalent process).”

    … and even then that latter concept has little to do with “why someone on minimum wage should pay attention to the GDP.”


  • So… Regardless of county, I would say minimum wage workers should not worry about the economy. Instead put that energy into finding a career path of some sort.

    That’s not me bashing minimum wage workers, it’s just … the best thing a minimum wage worker can do to improve their circumstance.

    Worrying about the GDP or stocks or anything else isn’t particularly helpful, especially if you’re living paycheck to paycheck (which at least in the US where I live, most minimum wage workers are).

    Even for middle and upper middle class, worrying about GDP growth and how the stock market is doing day to day (unless you’re on the verge of retirement and trying to time cashing out stocks) is not a particularly helpful exercise.

    Maybe it has some abstract effect on what social services you get or whether your employer survives another year… but you can probably find better indicators of that (e.g. in the days where computers were reducing paper usage, it should’ve been increasingly obvious that working at the paper mill probably wasn’t going to be a great long term plan).



  • The problem is you’re effectively leaving “can I program and work through the kinds of tasks this job entails” and entering “how do you work through a complex theoretical research topic” land.

    White board questions should be relative softballs related to the work you’re actually doing to see how you think… Now that’s often forgon for “welcome to a game of algorithm and data structure trivia!” but this is just a much more extreme version of that.

    Also if you don’t actually know the answer, how can you judge the direction? Even if you do know the answer for a problem that complicated, can you say the interviewee isn’t solving the problem in a novel and possibly better way?

    I presume he was looking for specific terms like DAWG (directed acyclic word graph) and things like that as well… Which I know because he would teach me the names of things as I slowly rediscovered them in conversation. Personally, I don’t put much stock in grading someone on their knowledge of obscure data structures and algorithms either.


  • I think the interview I least enjoyed was with an unnamed big tech company.

    It was the first interview of the day and the guy came in with “so me and my buddy have been trying to solve this algorithm problem for years. I’d like you to try and solve it for me.”

    Like… Dude, that’s not a reasonable interview question! You should not use algorithm questions that you don’t know of any answer to in an interview. You’re effectively asking someone to give you a solution to something way too complicated of a problem without even a few hours to think about the problem or sit down with it on their own.




  • Re: harder to change, your electoral logic is already self-defeatjng. What do you think you are changing when your electoral logic is, “fall in line vite blue no matter who” including fucking genocide. Who would ever take you seriously? You think they’re going to do anything to “win your vote”? Genocide apologist, they know they already have it. You announced you were giving it to them free of charge, that you will tolerate anything they do and still vote for them, and are actually pressuring others to do the same on their behalf.

    The correct time to express such thoughts is during a primary. We didn’t have one because we had an incumbent; it happens.

    The better place to have this fight is through congress anyways. They’re the ones that actually approve the aid.

    Better yet, go talk to the Israel people and get them to vote for someone that stops using our weapons in such an offensive manor. Israel knows that their position is critical to the US interest and their current leaders are happy to exploit that.

    Literally, abstaining makes you part of the “party of not voting” and nobody does anything for them, because they don’t vote.


  • We are literally in a battle for our ability to vote.

    Abstaining from said battle is effectively saying “I don’t care” and letting Trump do what he will. If he chooses to send nukes to Palestine to end the conflict immediately, that’s on everyone that abstained. If he ends aid to Ukraine and those people die, that’s on everyone that abstained.

    If he ends voting, you “won some moral battle” but you’ve all but permanently lost the war against genocide as the most powerful military and weapons on the planet are now in the hands of an authoritarian, raciest, fascist, regime that previously imposed a “Muslim ban” and I’m sure would happily do so again.

    There is no hypocrisy here, and it’s disingenuous to imply there is.

    If you want to protest genocide, then GO DO IT, don’t throw away a vote because that’s not a protest, it’s a pathetic excuse.