I guess "the best" is doing a lot of work there, for example the most sung anthem for Denmark "Der er et yndigt land" - there is a lovely land does not explicitly say that Denmark is the best ever, there may indeed be other lovely lands, and in comparison with say America the Beautiful it is downright humble, but on the other hand it is my experience that anthems talk up their country, and if they are talking up their struggle for independence or freedom, like say Il Canto degli Italiani, it will be talking up the martial valor of the people so freed and probably talking about how they aren't going to be put down again, another aspect that America the Beautiful goes into.
The difference between America the Beautiful and other anthems is how much it does, for how long, and making sure it gets everything it can possibly cram in there. It's like a bunch of people standing on a stand at a sporting match shouting "America, America, America" unremittingly, whereas most people might be satisfied to shout "Go {my country}" and be done with it.
this really pisses me off because about 5-6 months ago I was doing an interview for a job that of course I did not get because old, and I talked about an instagram / branding startup thing I was the CTO of and main programmer in 2014 and how I made this build system to make sure that css classes and JavaScript objects were properly namespaced and how we made sure there was no potential collisions and the way we made sure exactly what scripts needed to be loaded on the page based on which of our widgets were on the 3rd party client site etc. etc. and at the end of it the guy interviewing me said dismissively there are tools that do that and everybody does that nowadays which I sort of had to agree they probably did because who knows, I'm not really doing that thing any more, and now it turns out they don't even.
I wonder what would happen if you cut your salary requirements in half. Would they still reject you on your age or what? And if so, would they reject you if you slashed it in half again? And keep slashing until they hired you. Just as an experiment
I'm not somewhere you earn SV wages, so half my wage would be less than a junior gets paid in my country, and half that again would be less than I get for unemployment. Given market conditions I have dropped 10-15% off asking price but I don't think it is worth that much more for me to drop, given that if I can't get at that I probably can't get.
also, yeah, what the neighboring comment said - you do seem to think I should consider working for free...
No but it's a good question. Is it "out of two candidates with similar experience and salary requirements, companies will usually hire the younger one", or is it "companies don't want expensive experienced people because cheaper, less-experienced people are good enough"?
No problem, I have the same question. I'd like to know if it's "old people can't be good at the job" or "we can't afford experienced people". In my experience, it's more the latter.
Old people can be good. But young people are more likely to be hungry/ambitious and take ownership, which (at least has the appearance of) produces more/better outcomes.
one thing that I discovered after spending some time moaning and whining about how people had it out for me is that HN will evidently not allow things to go to the front page to get anywhere that go through a url redirect - so this (humorous satirical example of "great products")
DF does not seem to have any problem like that, but it just shows there might be issues that one is unaware about preventing uptake of your posts and instead of going about whining just ask Dang and maybe get an answer.
on edit: sorry, misremembered, not all redirects - link shorteners are the issue.
Your location seems to be in Cox, Virginia, not sure how widespread beyond that your experience is?
Of course lots of people have already noted that being represented in medical studies is not related to doctor's visits, but I would like to talk about the doctor's visits observation.
At any rate one thing that might cause you to think that Women are receiving lots of medical attention, based on your anecdotal evidence from visits to doctors' offices, there is one type of medical attention that of course is almost all women and that is the medical attention that revolves around pregnancy. That might skew your perception.
Furthermore if AI models and doctors have a tendency to miss disease among women it would seem to me to be reasonable to assume that women would be in the doctor's offices more often.
Example of why this is:
You go to your doctor, there is a man there, doctor says you have this rare disease you need to go to this specialist - you will not see that man in the doctor's office again dealing with his rare disease.
You go to your doctor, there is a woman there that has the same rare disease, the doctor says I think it will clear up, just relax you have some anxiety. That woman will probably be showing up to that doctor's office to deal with that disease multiple times, and you might end up seeing her.
on edit: there was another example of why women might be in doctor's offices more often then men that I forgot, women tend, even nowadays, to be the primary caregiver and errand runner for the family, sometimes if you have issues with children or your husband etc. has had an appointment, needs to drop a sample off, etc. it may be that the woman goes to the doctor's office and takes care of these errands around the medical needs of the rest of the family, and thus you might go to a doctor and see a couple women sitting around and wonder damn, why all these women always being sick, when the meeting isn't even about them.
>I followed all of this up until here. JavaScript lets you modify the length of an array by assigning to indexes that are negative?
This is my no doubt dumb understanding of what you can do, based on some funky stuff I did one time to mess with people's heads
do the following
const arr = [];
arr[-1] = "hi";
console.log(arr)
this gives you
"-1": "hi"
length: 0
which I figured is because really an array is just a special type of object. (my interpretation, probably wrong)
now we can see that the JavaScript Array length is 0, but since the value is findable in there I would expect there is some length representation in the lower level language that JavaScript is implemented in, in the browser, and I would then think that there could even be exploits available by somehow taking advantage of the difference between this lower level representation of length and the JS array length. (again all this is silly stuff I thought and have never investigated, and is probably laughably wrong in some ways)
I remember seeing some additions to array a few years back that made it so you could protect against the possibility of negative indexes storing data in arrays - but that memory may be faulty as I have not had any reason to worry about it.
You raise a good point that JavaScript arrays are "just" objects that let you assign to arbitrary properties through the same syntax as array indexing. I could totally imagine some sort of optimization where a compiler utilizes this to be able to map arrays directly to their underlying memory layout (presumably with a length prefix), and that would end up potentially providing access to it in the case of a mistaken assumption about omitting a bounds check.
yeah you know what you said made me think about these funny experiments that I haven't done in a long time and I remember now yeah, you can do
const arr = [];
arr[false] = "hi";
which console.log(arr); - in FF at least - gives
Array []
false: "hi"
length: 0
which means
console.log(arr[Boolean(arr.length)]); returns
hi
which is funny, I just feel there must be an exploit somewhere among this area of things, but maybe not because it would be well covered.
on edit: for example since the index could be achieved - for some reason - from numeric operation that output NaN, you would then have NaN: "hi", or since the arr[-1] gives you "-1": "hi" but arr[0 -1] returns that "hi" there are obviously type conversions going on in the indexing...which just always struck me as a place you don't expect the type conversions to be going on the way you do with a == b;
Maybe I am just easily freaked out by things as I get older.
