Seconded. Just to be clear asdf manages interpreters, not project dependencies. It actually uses pyenv under the hood to manage Python versions. I use it to manage Elixir and Python versions and it works rather well. I also find its CLI interface well designed and consistent.
It's not even competitive athletes. It's folks doing the local race.
Years ago, when I was an avid cyclist, I was turned off my first local race, a meaningless city race. Three guys, and two girls were doping in the parking lot. To this day I have yet to be at a single race where people aren't doping prior.
I think the university politics part is different because there is at least some "power" or "influence" that you get to field no matter how small. I look at individual sports like running / cycling in an amateur setting as a pure outlet for self improvement. If the only person who is looking at my time is me, then whom am I really cheating by improving it using steroids?
"I look at individual sports like running / cycling in an amateur setting as a pure outlet for self improvement."
Well, naturally if you look at it like that, then why cheat except possibly because you are curious about how far you can take your body with assistance?
But we are not the ones cheating, and the people who cheat do not look at amateur sports they way we do. To them, there is a top dog in everything, And it's meaningful to them to be the top dog.
No matter how small the pond, there's always somebody who cares very deeply about being the biggest fish.
Used to compete in very high level amateur races in another sport. Winning for the sake of winning alone is addictive, though not always in a bad way. Some just become more obsessed than others.
I should add, not everyone dopes though. My sport was relatively clean due to the amateur nature and the limited efficacy. Those of us who leaned toward technical competency were usually able to take on the roid-dudes without too much difficulty.
Sure, but it's really complex. They existed but were somewhat rare because there just wasn't that much incentive because there wasn't any money. The ones who went that direction tended to either be in a different part of the sport that favored technical competency less (sorry US mens 8+...) or were just extremely frustrated with their performance because they didn't understand the multifaceted nature of the competition.
Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is also very niche, very little money in competing, yet there are hundreds of professionals who build their schools (with paying students) based on their competition record. There is no way to compete at the top (and even sub top) without juicing, because the top guys are extremely technical and very strong (and they can train 6 days a week, 2 times a day, plus s&c, which no normal human can sustain for months or years).
there is plenty of payoff, and I'm not just talking about the social aspect of it. contrived example: they could do a youtube channel and winning those races gets them the cred from viewers to bring them thousands a month.
Since everything is monitizible, we'll probably see cheating in many places we dont traditionally see it. It reminds me of the movie limitless, everyone successful was doing the drug
>Almost all competitive athletes at a high level use some type of steroids
Wow. Surprised someone's willing to "go there" so to speak.
Yeah, a lot of these athletes are doping. And, well, let's just say that I think Mary is putting forth a narrative that renders herself in the best light possible. Everyone knows what NOP is about vis-a-vis drug use. Mary knew too, which tells you a lot about her.
But I also think this can be a cautionary tale for young athletes. (Though I'm not naive. I realize that very few will pay it any heed in the run up to Olympic trials.)
Everybody knows now that the NOP was about managed doping.
That wasn't known back then when she started the program in 2012. Per the NYT article on the NOP, Salazar didn't actually begin the illegally doping NOP athletes until late 2010 or 2011 (though he had begun experimenting on himself and his son by then). [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/sports/nike-oregon-projec...]
It's my understanding that with the creation of resuscitation methods and life-support systems that clinical death was already redefined to include cessation of brain activity. If they were not put on life support for example they would meet the definition of death through cessation of respiratory system and heartbeat. Pretty sure this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on.
If you're not averse to working for startups there are a lot of opportunities out there. I actually got rejected by gitlab and then got an offer from a startup for more money than I would have gotten at gitlab. There's quite a few remote first places out there too like Duck Duck Go, Mattermost, Zapier, Auth0, Automattic, Stripe just added a remote division but not remote first, Invision, just off the top of my head. I get changing jobs is full of uncertainty but don't sell yourself short either, the market has changed quite a bit probably since you were last actively looking.
There are A LOT of remote jobs. As someone who just went through a job hunt for remote positions, there was pretty much a constant supply of opportunities. However, most of them are startups. There is definitely a lack of established remote first companies with 200+ employees.
> Security is always reactionary, you can't defend against an attack you've never seen before
Yes you can, that's part of the appeal of applying machine learning to security. They don't rely on things like signatures or existing heuristics to identify things as malicious.
Machine learning does rely on heuristics, it just builds the heuristics on its own. If it runs into an attack that doesn't use any of the attack vectors it's learned to guard against, it will fail.
Think of it like your body. It learns to identify viruses. Does that mean you're immune from novel viruses or new strains of the flu?
I think it was implied that I meant heuristics that humans have added themselves. The point of it all is to allow models to make generalizations about things it hasn't seen before. This can be done with a combination of supervised and unsupervised techniques.
I don't think this is a meaningful distinction. Who cares whether the new heuristic is being added by a machine or a human?
You still need to keep feeding the neural network data to learn from, and it will still choke when it sees novel data that doesn't align with the heuristics it developed.
That's the entire reason adversarial AI works. The reason the Trippy T-shirt makes you invisible to some current AI systems is because it exploits the heuristics they've built using data that these systems are unfamiliar with and haven't learned to process yet. If it was possible to build an AI system that could defend against novel attacks, the Trippy T-Shirt wouldn't be able to fool them.
If you train your security on parallel lines, and I come in with circles, I've just defeated your security. Machine learning only learns how to categorize things into predetermined categories. If I come in with a novel category it's never seen before, the best it can do is guess, and most likely, it will be worse at guessing than random chance.
Except nobody would train just on parallel lines. They use a wide array of different types of data so the model can make generalizations about things it hasn't seen before.
> Machine learning only learns how to categorize things into predetermined categories.
This is just one type of machine learning called classification, there are others like regression and clustering which can be combined to create more robust models. Look at the technology behind Cylance's product which identifies files as malicious or not pre-execution. They are not just using classification.
Yes, but how? I agree and have spent a lot of (essentially useless) time on thinking about that, but this is complex unless you are a despot.
If we have no privacy left, you monitor all that you do on any foreign or local card/transfer etc (you ban crypto and put insanely high fines/prison on using it) and if that seems not to match what you reported as income/capgains/etc, you get an audit. What is the point of being rich and evading taxes if you cannot spend it? And if you move it to foundations etc, at least you cannot get to it, nor can you family if they live in this (fictional?) country as they would have to explain the same things.
In a society (probably a democracy?) where people value privacy and non-draconian laws, I cannot figure out how to make this work. Besides having educated and patriot people who actually would choose to pay taxes for the greater good. But these people do not start on their own (Bill Gates example of not minding to pay more tax) and they usually believe they can do better things with their money (for humanity). And that is usually not the case or way too biased; their right if taxing is paid fairly, but if evading, a problem.
I haven't had a reference check in a long time. The last company that asked for them didn't even check them. Any hiring people out there feel that reference checks provide any meaningful insight?
I call references consistently. Its good to get a sense of what some of the negative and positive perceptions of the person interviewing. I don't necessarily consider a negative point from a reference a deal breaker, a negative for one manager, is not the same for another. I do feel its better to go into the relationship with your eyes open.
Seems only shitty if they are recruiting you to place your friend. Otherwise it could be read as, "hey these two developers seem to like each other and have worked together and we need more people". It could feel like a safer bet to hire people you know will get along.
Sure, but this discourages people who would otherwise be willing to provide references; if someone is willing to freely give you their time to talk to you about one of your candidates, it seems courteous not to potentially waste more of it by giving them an unsolicited offer.
