Today, the hardest part is to get to said first interview, because we are all flooded with fake resumes. Incomprensible amounts. So what you have to do is not send blind resumes, but get a warm intro from someone with a connection to the company that vouch that interviewing you will not be a total waste of time. Networks have never been more important.
Now, if on interview you pass rate is low, it's hard to say what you are doing wrong.
> Now, if on interview you pass rate is low, it's hard to say what you are doing wrong.
Yep. But this question has answers. You just don’t know what they are. Ask some friends to help you practice by getting them to give you mock- interviews and get feedback about what you need to do better. If you’re unemployed, you have time. Be resourceful and you should be able to figure out where the problems are.
(That said, solving your problems may be much harder - especially if you’re going for senior roles. I have met plenty of people who have 10 years experience who are nowhere near qualified to work as a senior engineer.)
It depends on when and where: All real estate investment is a bet on a specific location, and properties don't maintain themselves: In general, the land appreciates, while the house on top of it loses value.
If you bought a house 15 years ago large parts of north St Louis, chances are you lost money, even without accounting for said home maintenance. They one I live in didn't go up 50% in 15 years. A lot of commercial investments? Ravaged.
So while it's true that it's possible to leverage yourself more in real estate, and that said leverage is even tax advantaged, assuming that the line will go up faster than anything else in a risk-adjusted way is a very risky position to take.
It's not a matter of age itself, but variance and experience. You can find the issue already at 5 years: Some people have grown and have used those years wisely, while others still are going to get experience raises, while they don't bring the improved performance.
A non-trivial part of the issue with consulting companies is the long wait for many to turn an H-1B into a green card. If you are going to need many years of continuous employment without ever getting hit by a layoff (which risks a gap in employment), the immigrant might be better of with the consulting company, as they might end up the bench, or just count as employed but not getting any hours.
If the road from H-1B to permanent residency was shorter and more reliable, the advantages of the consulting companies would shrink.
The same as if we didn't end up having to rely on lotteries. Hiring a candidate and hoping for an H-1B is quite annoying if you don't have them on staff in another country, or they are working for you in the US from an F-1. Those consulting companies that have large offices in India can happily submit large amounts of applications of people they already have in India, and be OK with 2/3rds of them not winning said lottery. A smaller company just can't play that numbers' game
While knowing every possible word is very helpful in scrabble, the most useful, important words for the game will be very different than the words that are useful for speaking the language well. There's many words out there that are going to be almost unusable, as they are low value. So you aren't really going to need all the words, but you want to memorize basically every word that uses the high scoring tiles, and understand how wide the 'gaps' you are leading when you leave high value letters on the board, especially near high scoring, whole word tiles.
So you arent' overestimating how long it takes to memorize words, but how useful having a good, normal vocabulary in the language actually is for being good at scrabble. Go look at guides for English scrabble, and see the words you are trying to memorize.
Be that as it may, Nigel Richards (the scrabble star in this story) apparently knows virtually every word regardless, and fairly minimal study (supposedly).
It will be probabilistic, because of the randomness of the draw. More words = greater chance of high scoring words for this board and draw. It likely wouldn’t take many words at all to beat a workd class player 1% of the time, and a pretty substantial vocabulary to win 99% of the time.
Actually, 99% may not even be achievable because sometimes your opponent will just luck out with letters and board lineup.
Sorry, but you do not *want to "basically memorize every word that uses the high scoring tiles." Rather, you want to study the low-scoring tile-filled words because those are more likely to be found on one's rack.
A key to high-scoring games is scoring "bingos" or using all 7 letters in a rack in a single turn as it gives a 50 point bonus. This is why we're taught to memorize the word lists that have such letters as TISANE in them as that string combines with most every other letter to make a bingo. The letters in TISANE are 1 point each.
You also don't want to leave vowels (all of which are worth 1 point each) adjacent to the bonus squares. A parallel play with an I under/to the right of a triple-letter-square can easily score 62 if one puts a Q on the triple and another I to make QI both ways.
OnlyFans chat operator has been a job for quite a while. It is well documented, with news exposes and everything. So if OnlyFans wants to protect themselves from a lawsuit on impersonation, the horses left the barn years ago.
A class action lawsuit alleges OnlyFans has deceived subscribers who, unbeknownst to them, communicate with paid chatters, and not actual creators themselves.
For how much these creators get paid per fan per month, does one really expect anything else? It’s not hard to imagine that many of them would be paid less than minimum wage if they actually responded to all their messages. But that much isn’t really that much different from the rest of the creator / gig economy.
It's more than just money: A payment processor is not all that different from a crypto exchange in their relationship with the bank: It's a very special company that can bring real risk to the banks underneath, so they have to do a lot of regulatory work internally to keep working together. The Stripes and Adyens of the world spend efforts in regulatory because they have to keep the bank happy, but they find those efforts just cost money, not harm the actual goals of the business.
Many of the crypto services believe that no, there's no way they'll do what the bank tells them and still remain useful to their clients. They'd have to compete with the truly off-the-regulatory-world competitors, and probably lose a lot of business there. So they get unbanked, in the same way that I'd get un-bared if I decided to keep showing up at said bar with the same clothes as Donald Duck.
No it's not. I worked at places with mandatory TDD and pair programming for years. 100% coverage or nothing, so it's not as if I have not seen what the advantages can be. But doing that kind of work also makes it trivially easy to see the tradoffs.
There are areas at the edges where the mocking/stubbing required to really follow TDD cause make changes harder but never find bugs. There are entire families of bugs that are far better handled via strong types than by building tests. In the right languages, there's functionality where some kinds of tests are just testing the library, but hard red-green-refactor mandates tests with negative value. We all have been in situations where a small code change requires 6 hours of changing tests for reasons that weren't tied to the real reason the test was there, but ancillary reasons. There are tradeoffs.
When someone asks me whether we should use TDD on a project, the right answer depends on what it is, which language it's written, and whether we are mandating it across the entire codebase, or there are specific things where we will ignore the worst cases. Are we writing payment software in Ruby? a data pipeline in Haskell? Making a bunch of API calls in Clojure? It's not all the same.
>There are areas at the edges where the mocking/stubbing required to really follow TDD cause make changes harder but never find bugs
That's not TDD that's either a badly designed unit test or (more likely) you should have written an integration/e2e test instead.
>There are entire families of bugs that are far better handled via strong types than by building tests.
Tests and types are not solving the same problem and they work better in conjunction than alone. Types reduce the execution space, reducing what can go wrong and tests validate the execution space that does exist.
Yes, types reduce the need for tests by shrinking the execution space but this will be for scenarios which should never happen.
There are entire families of code and bugs that unit tests are unsuitable for but that's a whole different topic.
> but hard red-green-refactor mandates tests with negative value.
I have never seen an example of this. I've seen plenty of tests with negative value but they were simply bad tests - usually a unit test when an integration test was more appropriate.
I thought it was nostalgia, but I see teenagers that love pixel art games, even though the art style is twice as old as they are. The style aged way better than, say, the PS1 era, where most games just don't hold up, and most of the ones that do happened to still use pixel art.
When it comes to old pixel art games though (as opposed to the new ones), it's a matter of accuracy. There's plenty of articles and videos showing how different it is to try to use a naive emulator on a modern, upscaled OLED vs how the very same game looks in a surviving old Trinitron with a SCART cable. If you are looking at, say, old Atari 2600 games, there's no reason to try to pretend to be a Trinitron. But for SNES? Sonic in the Genesis? Reproducing the screen with square, perfect pixels often looks worse.
Still, flash games are getting emulated, and so do Quake-era FPSes. Sometimes we rediscover older gameplay, or more readable art. Other times it's only nostalgia. But pixel art in itself? It's just effective. Modern games just throw away some of the limitations that didn't make the games better: Go look at Sea of Stars. We couldn't have made that game work in a SNES: Too much memory, too wide a palette, more animation we could ever fit in that hardware. And yet, it's a descendent of the old RPGs stylystically, and it looks absolutely fantastic by any standard.
> Not if you look at safety, max performance, reliability or efficiency. Drive a 1940s car and compare. Hell, try a sports car from the early 80s.
By the late 1920s >80% of US households had at least one automobile, and even if they had stopped improving, the productivity change of going from (steam/oil-powered) train and animal power (the primary options pre-1910) had made a transportation step change in the US by the 1930s:
Now, if on interview you pass rate is low, it's hard to say what you are doing wrong.