The theory behind the technical questions is not whether you can reverse a linked list, but rather:
-Do you know basic computer science concepts
-How are your problem-solving skills
-Can you move beyond "obvious, yet flawed" answers
-Do you exhibit passion (passion to get to the right answer, enjoyment of problem solving, etc)
-Can you present and justify solutions
-Integrity (If you've seen the problem before, tell the interviewer, don't 'fake solve' it!)
-Are you thorough (probing to understand problem, handling error cases, boundary cases, etc)
-Can you communicate/collaborate with the interviewer
Anyway, that's the theory. In reality, many interviewers use whiteboard questions as a crutch to an easy interview loop and don't really understand why they're asking what they're asking.
My biggest piece of advice is to remember the technical interview isn't just (or even mostly) about the technical aspect. Communicate constantly, verbalize your thoughts, ask questions, show passion. I've hired plenty of people who have done not-so-well at the technical portion, and I've given a 'no hire' to plenty who have aced the technical portion.
Thanks for your input. I get most of the reasons you listed and feel that I do communicate well (I've been in charge of small teams/mentored etc.) and don't get flustered when asked these questions. But a lot of the time they require some kind of "leap" from the problem to the solution. Usually it's some obscure data structure I should have used or an adapted sorting algorithm which in my 10 years of developing software I've never had to use before - and I've worked in some diverse industries.
I've got another day long interview in a couple of days and to get there I had to do 2 phone screens and a 3-day long skills test at home. I get it, you have to get the right people but in a country where you can just sack someone at the drop of a hat it seems so over the top. Even more so in comparison to the UK where firing someone is extremely difficult.
You may "quit at the drop of a hat" as well so it works both ways. In the US, it's called "at will employment" so if you get stuck somewhere you don't like, you may leave. But if you want to use the company as a reference for future jobs, be nice to them and provide a few weeks notice, etc.
Same here, I've tried it twice and both times gave in about day 3. It's not that I couldn't physically stay awake, just that my resolve and willpower trended towards zero.
Print out 90% of physics articles from the century.
Get big trash can.
Put printout in trash can.
Of course i'm exaggerating, but if the story is true, this is going to be big.
Speed of light is the main block for things like time travel and a hard limit on communication speed.
It doesn't matter that it is only 0.0025%, what matters is that it can be done(if it is confirmed). As a(very poor) analogy, the first CPUs were probably about 0.0025% the speed of the modern ones, yet look where we are today, in no small part thanks to them. The point is, if true, this may well open a whole new realm in physics, and who knows what we will find there.
This is it in a nut shell. While the ramifications are hard to predict at this moment, they are huge. E=mc^2 prob won't effect practical physics that we deal with on a daily basis. but as far theoretical physics the impact is enormous. time space fabric warping, wormholes (existence, creation and artificial stabilization), how fast the universe is speeding apart, our calculations for where things are in our solar system and beyond and a whole host of other things physics relies on the formula to calculate.
what i am most excited for is the possibility to travel faster than the speed of light. conventional theory dictated that the more mass you have the more fuel you would need to break the lightspeed barrier, however the closer you approach the speed of light the more fuel you would need therefore increasing your mass infinitely putting you in a perpetual null loop.
but if that equation changes and we know that there are particles that travel faster than light speed limit we may have to re-examine this theorem. Especially with new power sources being discovered on the atomic and quantum levels. The splitting of those bonds if harnessed yield promising potential. Not to mention the existence of antimatter which releases catastrophic amounts of energy when in contact with matter. We can't seem to find any right now so were limited with how much we can make which is a miniscule amount. Limits the production seem to be on a physics level as opposed to a technological one. But who knows if the speed of light is up for discussion almost anything can be in a table.
Excellent question. Doesn't seem like "must faster", but if the speed of light isn't the limit, what is the limit?
All this reminds me of the beginning of Mostly Harmless: "One of the problems has to do with the speed of light and the difficulties involved in trying to exceed it. You can't. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. The Hingefreel people of Arkintoofle Minor did try to build spaceships that were powered by bad news but they didn't work particularly well and were so extremely unwelcome whenever they arrived anywhere that there wasn't really any point in being there."
I doubt the experiment will be repeated, but it sure would be awesome if it broke Einstein.
It should be impossible to accelerate a neutrino to 100% of the speed of light. It would take an infinite amount of energy. So getting it to go even faster is really impressive :)
Using ion propulsion and gravitationally assisted slingshot trajectories, you'd get to Proxima Centauri about 173 days 12 hours sooner, which sounds pretty cool if you ignore that that's 173 days of a 19,000 year trip.
By nuclear pulse propulsion (EDIT: invented, but still theoretical, thanks adrianN) taking 85 years, you'd get there about 18 hours sooner.
I'm not smart enough to explain it properly, but basically if information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, it makes time travel possible. Read "Black Holes and Time Warps" By Kip S. Thorne for a 624 page explanation of why.
More likely, it's experimental error.
.0025% is meaningless compared to the scale of the earth, but over hundreds of light years it's huge.
If we can send information even a little to the past, we can then send it a little more to the past, and by induction we can send information anywhere in time.
So we have infinite power computers. Singularity starts here.
If you can send data a little into the past, compute something, then send the result back to the beginning, you can do an infinite amount of computation in a finite amount of time, just by reusing the same time over and over again. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Closed_timeli...
It has been argued that we can avoid the notion of tachyons traveling into the past using the Feinberg reinterpretation principle which states that a negative-energy tachyon sent back in time in an attempt to challenge forward temporal causality can always be reinterpreted as a positive-energy tachyon traveling forward in time. This is because observers cannot distinguish between the emission and absorption of tachyons. For a tachyon, there is no distinction between the processes of emission and absorption, because there always exists a sub-light speed reference frame shift that alters the temporal direction of the tachyon's world-line, which is not true for bradyons or luxons. The attempt to detect a tachyon from the future (and challenge forward causality) can actually create the same tachyon and sends it forward in time (which is itself a causal event).
Your mind isn't properly blown until you read the next paragraph which ends with the thought: "Although remote, the possibility of backward causality is not a real challenge to the principle of causality, but rather a novel way of understanding an additional aspect of it."
I live just south of Lake Union (2200 Westlake building). There are several condos around that have some rentals available. They'll be a much higher quality building than an apartment of similar price.
If you want more of a social thing, then an apartment may be better. There's a building that's pretty popular called Rollin Street Flats that has a good scene.
Stuff's expensive around here, especially with Amazon moving in. Unfortunately you're not going to find a great place for under $2k.
Belltown is also pretty close and has good night life. Easy bicycling distance. There's a relatively decent complex called 2900 on First that should be in your price range.
Craigslist is a good place to look if you decide to go the condo rental route.
Thanks for your helpful advice, mate. If am not really into night life so living right in Seattle wouldn't be my priority. It sounds like Belltown is a decent neighborhood based on your description.
Belltown actually is kinda sketchy at night these days. South Lake Union has a much safer, 'yuppie' feel to it. For something a bit quieter you might consider east of the lake. There are also some nice neighborhoods (not sure of prices) closer to the university that would still be a nice short commute.
My biggest piece of advice is to remember the technical interview isn't just (or even mostly) about the technical aspect. Communicate constantly, verbalize your thoughts, ask questions, show passion. I've hired plenty of people who have done not-so-well at the technical portion, and I've given a 'no hire' to plenty who have aced the technical portion.