We butchered humanlike / 10

Sure you can move some parts of the conversation to a review session, though I think the answers will be heavily influenced by hindsight at that point. For example, hearing about dead end paths they considered can be very informative in a way that I think candidates assume is negative. Nobody expects you to get it right the first time and telling the interviewer about your binary tree solution (that actually doesn’t work) can be a good thing.

But the biggest problem I think with not being in the room as an interviewer is that you lose the opportunity to hint and direct the candidate away from unproductive solutions or use of time. There are people who won’t ask questions about things that are ambiguous or they’ll misinterpret the program and that shouldn’t be a deal breaker.

Usually it only takes a very subtle nudge to get things back on track, otherwise you wind up getting a solution that’s not at all what you’re looking for (and more importantly, doesn’t demonstrate the knowledge you’re looking for). Or maybe you wind up with barely a solution because the candidate spent most of their time spinning their wheels. A good portion of the questions I ask during an interview serve this purpose of keeping the focus of the candidate on the right things.

I’m not sure that offline or alone coding tests are any better. A good coding interview should be about a lot more than just seeing if they produce well structured and optimal code. It’s about seeing what kinds of questions they’ll ask, what kind of alternatives and trade offs they’ll consider, probing some of the decisions they make. All the stuff that goes into being a good SWE, which you can demonstrate even if you’re having trouble coming up with the optimal solution to this particular problem.

I think it definitely depends on the level of involvement and the intent. Sure not everybody who just asks for something to be made for them is doing much directing. But someone who does a lot of refinement and curation of AI generated output needs to demonstrate the same kind of creativity and vision as an actual director.

I guess I’d say telling an artist to do something doesn’t make you a director. But a director telling an AI to do the same kinds of things they’d tell an artist doesn’t suddenly make them not a director.

I’m fairly certain most people consider directing (film, music, art, etc) to be an artistic process.

Is that because the innovations are so powerful and impactful that they massively change the game state? I wonder what the designers could do to make the game more playable in a group.

It makes me think of one of my group’s favorite games, Cosmic Encounter which sees you leading an alien race with a game bending special ability. Each round is a quick duel with a random player so you can’t plan too much around that. The strategizing is mostly around when you decide to use the best cards in your hand, which you don’t typicallyhave to worry too much about being taken from you. Also you often have to decide which player to hinder from winning or to help (perhaps opportunistically, even if you don’t want them to get stronger it can pay to hitch your wagon to them for a boost).

We just like the surprising moments that can arise from the alien abilities and the cards. And the full-table engagement with most rounds.

Looks neat. I like the concept of the crazy innovation combos. But I don’t think I’d ever get it out if it’s only good at 2 players.

Also magenta. Actually, white and black too.

Our recipes rarely use weights except for maybe meats. We’ve got a scale in my kitchen but it hasn’t been touched in a while.

The ratios of ingredients matter more than the exact values so for the recipe you’re talking about, it’d be like 2 cups of milk, 1 cup flour, 1/4 cup of oil, 1/8 cup of sugar (or 2 tablespoons, which is a pretty common size so most people probably have a scoop for that).

But having industrial quantities is like most of the argument for using metric! You mean to tell me you’re not converting between kL and mL all the time and reaping the benefits of being able to just slide the decimal over? That’s a shame. I’m not sure that doing your everyday cooking in increments of 125g is all that useful then. The cup is sounding better and better.

We have the same measuring cups I’m sure you use for liquids. They have mL on one side, cups on the other and a scale for sub-sizes. We do have individually-sized scoops which are nice for over-scooping and just sliding your finger across the top to push off the excess and get the amount you need. It’s not strictly necessary though. They come in a set where each smaller scoop fits inside the larger ones in a tight stack that can sit in a drawer.

The infinite granularity is ultimately unnecessary. Recipes don’t call for 0.397 cups. I’m sure you don’t see any that ask for 438 grams. If you do the math on a lot of recipes listed in both metric and imperial, you’ll find that they’re not even using the exact same amounts. The convenience of using standard measures tends to outweigh the flavor difference with plus or minus a percent of ingredient.

You guys have to weigh your flour? We just grab a cup and scoop it and then dump it in the bowl. You’re busting out the scale? You’re not exactly selling me on metric here.

Well then you’ve lost the whole advantage of base 10. You’re buying 2L or 4L containers and dividing them up into 250ml increments, having to do divisions of 8 or 16 like some common imperial peasant, only you’re doing it with numbers that have no real relationship with your daily life. I mean, ultimately it’s all arbitrary anyway. But when someone says use 2 cups, that’s 2 scoops, which seems better to me than having to know that 500ml is 2 scoops.

A useful size to package and sell ingredients in, such that the person following a recipe can halve or double the recipe as needed and still use the entire package with no waste.

Would it help if I told you that it was defined as the volume contained in a cube whose length is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/166219513th of a second? I imagine it wouldn’t. Obviously the litre is superior, it’s a much less arbitrary cube defined by the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/2997924580 seconds.

The whole point of cups is that you can buy an ingredient by the gallon and it’s very likely that you can double or halve the recipe to your heart’s content and eventually use up the entire package with no waste.

The observable universe is constantly expanding as the passage of time allows light to reach us from more and more distant parts of the universe. So it’s less “we don’t know what’s outside” and more like (to a certain extent) “we have to wait and see.” And there’s nothing we’ve seen to indicate that these external regions that are being revealed are anything but more of the same kinds of things in our inner region of the observable universe.

The important thing in the balloon analogy isn’t what the balloon is expanding into, it’s just that every point on the balloon is drifting away from every other point.

One thing to consider, though, is that space may not even be a real physical thing. Maybe location is just a property of things, like mass or electrical charge. It could just be an inherent value that adjusts and influences other things according to the laws of physics. Maybe it’s less that “space is expanding” and just that “the location property of everything is constantly diverging.” There’s no need to worry about what anything is expanding into because our conception of space may just be a mental construct.

I would think you’d have to instantaneously accelerate because incremental acceleration doesn’t work the way we typically think it does at high speeds.

If you’re moving at 99.999% the speed of light relative to Earth, anything close to your speed is going to be moving quite slowly relative to you. When you accelerate some more, the change in speed relative to those close things is much larger than the change in speed you experience relative to Earth (it gets smaller and smaller as you approach light speed). But as far as I understand, there’s no such thing as moving at light speed relative to Earth but not relative to other sub-light speed things. You’d have to instantaneously move at light speed relative to everything (every sub-light speed thing).

Well, famously, they’re waves and particles. The double slit which way experiment will only set off the detector in one slit, as if it was a particle. Yet, without a detector it will interfere with itself as if it were a wave that passed through both slits.

You’re right. But the thing that’s interesting about the double slit experiment though is that it works on only a single photon. It’s as if all the traffic was created by a single car. So classically you might not think that the single car should care if the freight truck is heading down a different lane than the car but in QM it does, because the car is in a superposition of occupying several lanes.

I’m probably driving the analogy straight into the ground of course