One more note - I'm guessing that 2.1 is 2:1, as in "second-class honours, upper division", right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_undergraduate_degree_cl...) But to an American reader, it looks like a GPA (grade point average), which are out of 4 - a 2.1 GPA would not be something you want to advertise. Might want to clarify that, if you're going to be looking for remote work.
I agree with this, I initially thought that was his "expected GPA at graduation" which is what many soon-to-be graduates put on their resume. I'd change this if you're trying to contract for anyone in the US.
Funny coincidence - I was just reading about DragonBox this morning in The Game Believes in You (a new book by Greg Toppo about educational games) and here it is on HN! The book is a good read (so far) if you're interested in this sort of stuff.
> A computer will never live as long as The Trial. … What if Amerika was only written for 32-bit Power PC?
This line kind of got me, and made me think about the transience of my own work. I build educational software, and I entered this field because I was inspired by the educational games I played as a kid. Most of those games, developed for a specific operating system, can still be run today on a VM or an emulator of an older Windows machine. But the apps I work on are web applications - we're constantly racing to update and maintain them in a sea of ever-changing devices and standards. The odds of somebody being able to run my work, even a just few years from now, and have it work without issue is unfortunately kind of small (the introduction of iOS 8 already wreaked havoc on some of our layouts). And that makes me kind of sad.
I've been thinking about this problem lately as well. I think one solution might be to build your games for a well specified abstract machine. Then, you can just build an implementation of that machine for the web, and run the games on that.
The inspiration for the idea was SCUMM, and how we're able to play SCUMM games now with SCUMMVM.
How about "Your software skills were great, but so-and-so's were better"? Of course, not knowing you and not working at Fog Creek, there's no way to know if that was the actual reason or not - but I would think it would be an acceptable reason.
Something I've realized since ending up on the hiring side of things is that there's a bit of a mismatch between how candidates and companies see the hiring process. As a candidate applying for jobs, I used to think I was applying to "the company" as an entity, and I was either good enough or I wasn't. The company, however, sees its candidates as applying for a specific position - like college admissions, there may be more qualified applicants than spots the budget allows for - especially at a place like Fog Creek.
(And, anecdotally, I am female and many years ago applied to Fog Creek for an internship. I didn't get it, but I enjoyed the interview process - it was one of the more interesting and challenging technical interviews I've done.)
I have heard that before, actually. It doesn't help if they won't tell you who they hired, and why they were better. The fact that they picked someone "better" is obvious if they picked someone at all, and it wasn't you.
Also, when I hear that particular line, I follow up with "I'm glad you were able to find someone you like. Will you keep me in mind the next time you're hiring?" If I get a response at all, it is something noncommittal, like "We keep all applications for a minimum of six months."
Perhaps companies should not focus so narrowly on the current position. I have applied multiple times to the same companies for different positions, provided my experience with them remains positive.
But if, for instance, a company like SAIC schedules an interview with me on a military base, sends an escort to the gate to bring me to the work site, and only then tells me that no one is available to interview me that day, because the supervisors are all halfway across the country, that company lands itself on my blacklist. Later experiences with employees of that company moved them to my permanent, public blacklist. Not only will I not apply for any of their positions, but if they appeared on my doorstep with an offer letter in hand, I'd order them off the property. And I would recommend that everyone else do the same, for both SAIC and for spinoff spawn Leidos. They are the sole reason why I ask "Who's the prime contractor?" whenever I interview with a contracting company.
When you create an energy potential by posting an opening, candidate-anticandidate pairs don't pop into existence to interview with you and then self-annihilate after you reject them. Actual, persistent people stick around, remember how you treated them, and talk to each other about their experiences. They stay in the industry, and may one day be customers or competitors.
As it happens, Fog Creek is not on my blacklist, either temporarily or permanently. But I do feel like their interview process would be a waste of my time if I had to endure it again from the beginning, and I don't expect them to ever pick me up again from where we left off. So I ignore their job postings now. It won't hurt them any, because they get plenty of candidates anyway.
But it doesn't surprise me at all that anyone who doesn't believe that they are good enough to top the 99 other people all applying for the same position wouldn't bother investing all that energy to compete, especially when that won't help them in their search if they fail. With no feedback, no referrals, and no helpful suggestions, it really is a lot of effort for a high probability of no reward whatsoever.
There may be something embedded in our tribal caveman brains that makes high-risk behaviors more attractive to men than to women. If so, Fog Creek might be able to attract more female applicants just by guaranteeing something of value at the end of the interview process, regardless of whether the candidate is selected for the next round.
On the contrary, the evolutionary argument here is that a few generations under these conditions would allow more biologically "stupider" humans to survive (since intelligence isn't being selected for) and pass on their genes, creating future generations of dumber humans.
Jared Diamond makes a similar argument in Guns, Germs, and Steel for why the people of New Guinea are smarter than their western counterparts.
There has been shrinkage in the average brain size over the last five thousand years. Intelligence is a very complicated thing and brain size might not be the only factor—that shrinkage might not even be relevant. But that does not mean that evolutionary change cannot take place on thousand year timelines.
Current theory is skull size was adapting based on temperature not intelligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#mediaviewer/File:Bra... Also, there are likely more people alive now with larger brain volumes vs five thousand years ago and the same apples to just about any trait you can name due to the rapid population boom.
The important thing to note is the human population covers the globe. There are plenty of sifts in populations like Lactose tolerance becoming widespread over the last 7,500 years, but even that is a long way from becoming effectively universal.
I think that was my point. You said that ten thousand years of civilization was too short for meaningful evolution. At least that was my understanding.
10,000 years is long enough for significant beneficial traits to spread widely. It's not enough time to Change neutral traits that used to be beneficial.
That's generally a vary slow change consider most animals don't need dietary vitamin C even if there diets provide plenty of the stuff.
However, you used the term "a few generations" as in below 1,000 years and that's rediculusly fast for a species that takes as long as we do to reproduce and have so few children.
I didn't use the term "a few generations", that was another commenter. :)
That said, you mentioned a beneficial trait becoming neutral, and that's making the assumption that greater intelligence is neutral. It could be that larger social organizations reward slightly less intelligent critters. That would do the trick rather quickly. I'm not making that claim, but am saying that discussions around evolution and traits that we have bias toward seeing as "good" are fraught.
There's also the further issue of intelligence being a very nebulous term that encompasses tons of cognitive traits, which makes any discussion of intelligence in evolutionary terms even more difficult.
It's also possible that some of what we call intelligence is epigenetic.
I don't think we have good data on people’s intelligence 10,000 years ago. But, civilization as we think of it only impacted a fairly small chunk of humanity for a relatively small time period. So, at best 'larger social organizations' was rather localized.
Just 500 years ago lots of people in North America where living nomadic hunter gather lifestyles. Even just 100 years ago you could find tribes in many parts of the world still living hunter gather lifestyles little changed over the last 15,000+ years and probably similar to how people lived 100,000+ thousand years ago.
As to epigenetic factors, the classic hunter gather lifestyle could be very healthy as long as population numbers stayed low. Farming actually lowered many heath indicators even as it allowed for massive increases in population sizes.
PS: Anyway, evolution is only 'fast' when there are significant benefits or harms. If a single mutation or environment change increases survival chances by say +/- 1% it takes exponentially longer to spread than a +/- 10% change.
I don't disagree with any of those points. My original post just stated that I couldn't imagine any fitness pressure that would be making humans smarter and, if anything, we were probably going in the other direction. My secondary point was that change can happen on short timelines.
I do want to mention that larger social organizations were quite widespread in the Americas, despite the existence of hunter-gatherer tribes. The new world certainly wasn't an uncivilized wasteland when Europeans arrived.
Epigenetic factors can be triggered buy group size (domestication) as well. So those hunter-gatherer tribes might share the same genetic traits but express them differently based on their environment.
any fitness pressure that would be making humans smarter
I don’t recall the study, it was either men in the US or Britton. But, income was positively correlated with number of children. Income and intelligence are also linked so that's evidence that right now intelligence is positively correlated with number of children. This may be strongly linked with prison time but again that links with intelligence.
The important thing to note is men often have children with more than one person and can have children vary late in life.
Deny. There's no reason dying of wood smoke or disease selects for the smart or the dumb. Removing those pressures has no obvious effect on the intelligence of the survivors.
The missing word kind of broke the joke for me ("so he [can/could] get a vasectomy") - I got so hung up on wondering whether part of the sentence was missing or whether something had been lost in translation that I missed the fact that it was just an attempt at humor.
