As a parent of a kid that has special needs (at a minor level), there really is a separate set of skills needed to teach to these kids, as well as needing a better student teacher ratio. It made a huge difference for my kid.
Correct but the point is that the salaries of the developers are not treated as an expense to net out, they are treated as an asset that depreciates over some period of time.
(Even though some "developer" work might be day to day maintenance, rather than building a new feature.)
- How do they take a business problem and model it into code
- How do they debug their own code
- Is their code easy to read
- Do they name their variables/fields/methods/classes in easy to understand and consistent ways or are the names confusing or inaccurate
- How do they take constructive criticism
- How collaborative are they
- Do they think about the problem first or do they just start hacking away
- When asked to add a feature to existing code, do they start hacking or do they write out a test describing the new functionality first
- When confronted with vague requirements, how well do they ask questions to get the information they need
- How much experience do they have with algorithms, database design, systems design, building things so they scale well
If it were possible to work all that out in the interview then there wouldn't be any bad hires.
As a wishlist I like it, I just don't see how you're going to assess all that in an interview. You'll notice that the technique of the day ("teach me something") doesn't address any of the dot points and that holds for ... pretty much any technique. Interviews are a weak process for assessing anything.
True but there has been a movement towards replicating these high profile findings in the soft sciences. Hopefully that will gain more traction as a lot of the "newsworthy" studies are forced to get retracted after failing to replicate.
My hot take: this is actually really good (and would be fantastic if all the big tech followed suit).
Why? Imagine a world where big tech was cool with remote workers. They would be able to out-pay and acquire all the best talent, everywhere.
With this self-imposed restriction, this leaves a big pool of high end talent able to be recruited by smaller start-ups who ordinarily wouldn't be able to compete on comp, benefits, and stability.
> Why? Imagine a world where big tech was cool with remote workers. They would be able to out-pay and acquire all the best talent, everywhere.
Assuming this is true (which I think is very much in doubt), then it indicates there is a much bigger systemic problem that needs to be dealt with: namely, big tech functioning as essentially the landlords of the Internet and skimming profit off of everything that happens there.
No one sector of the economy should have this much influence. Certainly no group this small of companies this large should have this much power over anything.
Any time you find yourself saying, "Well, yes; this change should make life better for tens (or hundreds) of millions of people, but if we make it, this group of people over here will be able to take advantage of it to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense," I strongly recommend taking a look at that group of people over there and considering whether they should have that ability, and if not, how you might be able to change that. (And if so, why, exactly, you think anyone should have that ability.)
> indicates there is a much bigger systemic problem that needs to be dealt with: namely, big tech functioning as essentially the landlords of the Internet and skimming profit off of everything that happens there.
Seems like you haven’t been paying attention as this is precisely what has happened. Or are you being ironic?
Neither: I'm pointing out that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with, rather than simply a fact of the world. We shouldn't be giving up on improving people's lives just because Big Tech would take advantage of it; we should be changing the system so Big Tech can't leverage those improvements to screw everyone else over.
If you're talking about small scale phenomena (less than 1km), then this wouldn't help other than to be able to signal when the conditions are such that these phenomena are more likely to happen.
It's been a while since I was a grad student but I think the raw station/radiosonde data is interpolated into a grid format before it's put into the standard models.
This was also in the article. It splits the sphere surface in to 1M grids (not actually grids in the cartesian sense of a plane, these are radial units). Then there's 37 altitude layers.
So there's radial-coordinate voxels that represent a low resolution of the physical state of the entire atmosphere.
One piece of context to note here is that models like ECMWF are used by forecasters as a tool to make predictions - they aren't taken as gospel, just another input.
The global models tend to consistently miss in places that have local weather "quirks" - which is why local forecasters tend to do better than, say, accuweather, where it just posts what the models say.
Local forecasters might have learned over time that, in early Autumn, the models tend to overpredict rain, and so when they give their forecasts, they'll tweak the predictions based on the model tendencies.
