So after the first simple question, we're already at less than half the original claimed figure of 55% (a bad sign for its credibility, if you're a Bayesian!).
But more importantly, I'm familiar with the linked document, and it's garbage. It was thrown together practically overnight to justify a political decision that had already been made, and in its incompetent haste, flagged proposals that had phrases like "diversity of sources" that had nothing to do with DEI and included them in the totals. Not a credible source.
I'm not the one that made the original claim. The 25% is the government's figure. Whether some of it was classified incorrectly is up for debate. I haven't personally double checked every claim, but it is not hard to believe that money is being siphoned via those grants into DEI programs, and it is the government's position to not fund these programs anymore.
Even the word "siphoned" is loaded with bias. Is research aimed at understanding why kids choose to participate in high-school science classes or not, and whether certain teaching approaches lead to better outcomes for boys vs girls, not legitimate NSF research? We can't make improvements to science education without that kind of data.
That's not siphoning anything away from science -- it is science.
Completely aside from the incompetent misidentification of which proposals have anything to do with race, gender, or sexuality (hint: it's a lot less than 25%), the staggeringly stupid premise that all of them are inherently politically-motivated is part of the problem here.
They literally categorized research as DEI ("Status") if it had the keywords "HISTORICALLY", "EXCLUSIVE", "INSTITUTIONAL", "STATUS", "BARRIER" and on and on...these are not serious people.
I hope Toptal has changed since I interviewed with them in 2015, because it was one of the worst tech interview experiences I had in a while. The interviewer was rude and clearly inexperienced in the tech stack he was asking questions about. I did a take home excersise and it was clear that he didn't even bother to read the code and just wanted to outsmart me.
At zero temp there is still non-determism due to sampling and the fact that floating point addition is not commutative so you will get varying results due to parallelism.
I'm not a fan of Sam Altman, but this is such a non-issue. The solution is simple: adapt and find new ways to be creative in the world of AI. Copyright is becoming a thing of the past and rightly so. We just have to collectively accept this and move on because laws won't stop it.
It's not the case in C#. It is discouraged, but mainly because there just used to be so much sloppily written async code that managed to bring down threadpool to its knees despite hillclimbing and blocked threads detection doing a lot of heavy lifting, so the community has grown scar tissue against this. It's rarely an issue if ever in the last 5 years or so.
When you don't have connections, lying is the best advice to get the good jobs. I just lie about anything I know I can learn on the job. No experience with Vue but know React? No problem, I'm a Vue expert. No experience with with C# but know Java? No problem, I know C# by heart.
Once I get pass HR and get to talk to an actual engineer I can reevaluate my lies and drive the interview into the areas I'm actually experienced with.
Also, interviewing is a game. Even if I'm not looking for a new job I just do it to practice and for fun. It feels pretty good to reject an offer and know your worth.
i didn't exactly lie when i claimed that the few hacks i did in php some years ago meant that i could work on a php project. i got hired, and found that most on my team were junior devs whose code i ended up improving multiple times, despite me never having worked with laravel before (which turned out to be very nice to work with).
my next side project will be something using react, so i can add that to my CV.
then i can say i have more than a decade of experience in web development, and i am familiar with react.
of course, if they specifically want someone who has 3 years of react experience, then i am out. best i can claim is that i have worked on similar projects before and try to convince them that that experience is transferable.
Two reasons why this probably happened. 1) you paid too little, and 2) you probably had people in-office too so the remote employees were second class workers.
The solution is simple: pay above market rates and create a truly remote culture.
Doesn't matter. Do u think frauds will not apply to 2 jobs because one pays well ? Hiring remote is a lot harder and requires a lot more trust on both sides. Employers are finding that if they have the supply locally, they can choose not to do full remote. Right now, it is an employer market so they can do this.
I'm a minority in tech too and I never respond to the race, ethnicity and gender questions. There are many red flags to find out which companies are likely to be racist. If the company's diversity statement is larger than the job description, I do not apply. So far this has worked pretty well for me. I applied to 25 jobs in the last month and I got 3 interviews so far. I think ethical companies that do not partake in racist statistics appreciate you not answering those questions.
