I'm doing this year in K2 (after a long hiatus from K). Is there a K4/5 binary? ATW gave me a K2 binary, but I miss some of the K4 and later functionality):
You can put a window that covers the bottom half of the content the defaults to all assaults being allowed also has a way to customize which assaults you would like. It shouldn't be possible to uncheck necessary assaults for the website might not work.
And “by not work” we mean “will work exactly as it should, but little Timmy in marketing will get a frowny face and won’t go out for drinks on Friday, so you have to tick it”.
Can't this be solved to some sort of DP way of solving the sub problem?
Do the payout between 0 and 1 as the percentage of the amount.
With a range of 1 to 1 to pay off is obviously one
With a range of 1 to 2 the payout is .5
At three values it becomes more interesting. There are two strategies for the candidate either a binary search for the endpoints.
At four values you still have one level of binary search possible but after that it devolves down to the two value problem.
At five values. If the interviewer thinks the candidate would choose binary search and it becomes too too value problems on each side after removing the middle element.
There's definite problems with this but I wonder if he's already possible pay off matrix
It's possible it could help but it wouldn't be lead to a typical clean DP problem, because you need the full mixed strategy vectors at each level. That requires
N real numbers that sum to 1, for each player.
Assuming you've found such a strategy for N, when you go to N+1 you still need to find the (N+1) element vector representing the probability that you select each number as your first guess, and you likewise need to know your opponent's probability vector for adversarially choosing a number. Once you guess at those vectors you can use your recursively built up DP sub-solutions to get the value of the game, but you are still stick with solving the optimization problem of finding those mixed strategy vectors for N+1, and will probably need something like CFRM or a similar technique to find them.
I hate that. It turns the problem into one of those lateral thinking puzzles we were told some basic information and then the answer winds up being something totally wildly different. It wasn't being very random in the end not being very productive
Are we describing interviews here, or the process of software engineering in practice? It could be either imo.
Those clarifying questions and some of the thinking through consequences are the only really topical part of SE interviews, the rest is just math you won't use on the job 99.99% of the time anyway.
I took cs61a at Berkeley as my very first computer science class I couldn't program I never tried to so scheme was my first language.
My ta told me that everybody should take the class twice when you first come in and when you're graduating.
When you first take it especially if you know other languages like C at the time you don't get the full depth of the problems you're given a great introduction and you think you understand everything but you don't realize the depth of complexity. Message passing the metacircular evaluator, continuations as the basis of all flow control, etc
You think they are neat tricks that you understand the curriculum because you can do the homework you don't understand how those neat tricks are really the basis of everything else you'll do.
When you're graduating you've had time to go through all your classes you realize just how foundation was principles are and you get so much more out of the book.
Well I didn't take the class a second time I need help grade and TA for a couple semesters.
I work as a quant developer and in trading now and even though my field has nothing to do with that I still think it's the basis of me as a developer.
I thought the Branch Target Predictor on x64 was global, not local, and it has to kick in before decode so even direct branches can be mispredicted. Branch prediction is 2 parts - the conditional predictor and the target predictor. The conditional predictor is actually per 64 byte instruction block (so if you have a few branches consecutively they share branch predictor entries and can step on each other. the target predictor uses a global history and needs to happen very early to keep the front end fed.
Predicting the branch predictor is extremely difficult because it is complex afaik, it is best to test.
All of the interaction between a million caches, predictor, instruction parallelism, different cpus, different code etc. feels like it is impossible to reason about it
The first is you're using the Nationwide averages as opposed to the regional numbers for New York where a lot of these increases are much greater than on the nation.
The second thing is the way it includes housing is by using a thing called the owners imputed rent. And what that does is it tries to back out the rental from a housing unit. The problem is in New York City rent has been rising way faster than that.
30 is the cpi's consistently underestimated a number of its own provisions because of the way it does hedonics and substitution. It basically says that while meat might have risen 50% people switch to fish now and it uses in lower value for inflation.
The CPI over the last 30 years have been so massively game it's almost useless anymore
>The first is you're using the Nationwide averages as opposed to the regional numbers for New York where a lot of these increases are much greater than on the nation.
Another commenter has pointed out new york house prices actually rose slower compared to the rest of the country.
>The second thing is the way it includes housing is by using a thing called the owners imputed rent. And what that does is it tries to back out the rental from a housing unit. The problem is in New York City rent has been rising way faster than that.
Most Americans own their home. OER might not be perfect, but pretending that they pay market rent doesn't make much sense either. Even for people who don't own their home, new york has rent control, which provides similar inflation protections compared to owning a home.
>30 is the cpi's consistently underestimated a number of its own provisions because of the way it does hedonics and substitution. It basically says that while meat might have risen 50% people switch to fish now and it uses in lower value for inflation.
The part about hedonic adjustment is misleading. While it's true that such adjustments are used. It's only used for small minority of categories (basically clothes and technology), and doesn't include stuff like food (like in your example).
Meanwhile the part about substitution is straight up false:
Read that link. The BLS says "yes we try to adjust for the substitution, but really we are trying to calculate a basic level of satisfaction:
> In January 1999, the BLS began using a geometric mean formula in the CPI that reflects the fact that consumers shift their purchases toward products that have fallen in relative price. [It continues by saying it allows substitution withing categories and not between categories.]
This is exactly what I was saying. It has become a cost of living index, not a measure of inflation anymore. The hedonic adjustments can be laughably hand-wavy (it is a very difficult problem on how you measure inflation when using CPUs -- the real answer is you shouldn't and CPI's basked is a bad bad way to do it). That FAQ is always pretty funny and defensive (a lot of "give us a break -- it doesn't really affect anything much").
> Even for people who don't own their home, new york has rent control, which provides similar inflation protections compared to owning a home.
This is one of the huge issues. (1) Not sure if you live near NYC, but ask any new yorker about how much rent control has helped -- the answer is usually pretty low. don't have a heart attack looking at this rental rise in the last 5 years https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/spotlight-new-york-citys...
However that isn't the important part - rent control shouldn't effect measures of inflation -- this is precisely why CPI is bad. You can't legislate away inflation, you mere push the money around and prices rise asymmetrically but you still have the fundamental issue that CPI no longer even tries to measure -- too many dollas chasing too few goods. So you stop some of using those dollars on housing -- they just bid of something else instead.
CPI is a terrible horrible very bad measure of inflation. Its been that way since the 70s at least when the concept was turned on its head.
