Oral exams have an entire other bunch of issues.
Just looking at the professor side, beside time, I imagine it would be very difficult for to grade with same meter an arrogant student, a dismissive one, a smelly one, an eloquent one, or even the first and the last one in the same session.
... a male student, a female student, an attractive student ...
And yes, this is actually a well-known problem in Italy - with (typically male) professors being routinely accused (and occasionally convicted) of favouring attractive (and typically female) students.
I don't agree with this. They have different failure modes, but I believe that in aggregate an oral exam affords the candidate the fairer shot, given the minimal assumption that the professor is in good faith.
If I say something imprecisely or if I make a non-fundamental mistake, an oral setting gives me the chance to correct myself and prove to the examinator that I have a strong grasp of the material regardless.
Written exams, especially multiple choice and closed-answer quizzes reward people who regurgitate the notes, oral exams and written long-form open questions reward actual knowledge.
Of course the "better" methods require a greater time investment, and I can't really blame professors who choose not to employ them. But it's quite clearly a tradeoff.
> If I say something imprecisely or if I make a non-fundamental mistake, an oral setting gives me the chance to correct myself and prove to the examinator that I have a strong grasp of the material regardless
This is just even further proving the point, which is that in an oral context this means that the animosity of the examiner is much more significant than in a written one, which by definition implies that the oral one cannot be fairer than the written one.
You yourself are saying that you "have the chance to correct yourself". This is either because you will self-correct yourself on recognizing a specific (perhaps subconscious) face or gesture from the examiner, or because the examiner will directly tell you that you are wrong. Both cases present ample opportunity for unfair discrimination. In the first case, perhaps a person is less skilled at reading people, or perhaps the examiner just has a better poker face. In the second case, you are now at the whim of the examiner to decide based on your body language whether "you are making a non-fundamental mistake and deserve a second chance" or just "have no idea of the material and don't deserve a second chance". And, compared to the written exam, there is absolutely no record of the context that drew the examiner to such conclusion -- which is also kind of important, since evidently the written exam is also subject to some discrimination.
Nobody expects you to be 100% on point, it's just impossible; it's not like the spoken variant of a written exam. The kind of "correction" I mean is more along the lines of what would happen during a normal conversation. Imagine I was asked to write a recursive algorithm and I forgot the base case. It's not a fundamental mistake, but the professor might interject to make sure I actually know about termination, inductive sets, etc., which is actually great if you understand the material deeply, because it gives you a chance to prove that you actually just forgot.
Obviously this is assuming good faith by the examiner, but if you aren't willing to assume that, there aren't very many examination formats that are going to work very well.
Is not a question about good faith or not. He may be showing completely unintentional bias. But the point is that the oral one gives you a shitton more opportunities to play that bias. If you even try to say that the oral exam is just "a normal informal conversation" rather than something following a very strict protocol you might as well just give up any appearance of fairness. How much role bias would play on such a conversation is just outside the scale.
It's not the examiner deciding "you deserve a second chance or not". In a normal oral exam everyone gets a "I don't think that's correct" or "please explain that to me" kind of response on a wrong answer. They don't silently scribble a note to distract a point from your score or something like that.
How you deal with that is really where your score comes from. Because if you know what you're talking about you'll correct it and while doing so show that you know a lot of related things. While if you have no idea you can't guess yourself out of that type of question.
I don’t know. For example, in music examination, the outcomes change drastically if you blind the examiner from seeing the student or knowing their name. Unless you see something different in the world of music, I’d say the examination is happening at the same level of “good faith”ness.
How would you blind oral examination so that the examiner is unable to distinguish the student’s gender/race/identity?
> For example, in music examination, the outcomes change drastically if you blind the examiner from seeing the student or knowing their name.
FWIW, the study that "proved" that appears to have been a pretty bad study. So, in reality, no: people are not terribly prejudiced, and things don't change significantly when you blind the examination.
The only thing they have in common is "assessing". An exam for a course seeks to assess mastery of the subject matter of the course. An interview for a job seeks to assess skills / aptitude for a particular job.
This.
Moreover, an exam for a course is, to some extent, an assessment on how the course was delivered. And an interview for a job has a much larger scope.
Totally agree.
I might a bit partial to that, because I tend to underperform multiple choice tests for overthinking, but I've really the impression that open ended questions test knoledge much better and make it more difficult to cheat.
Beside that, having almost nothing to do with cheating, another good thing in the French system is the continuous grading: labs were graded, projects were graded, small intermediate tests were graded, so you really do not study for just the exam (actually often you do not study at all for the exam).
(beware: my experience is limited to a single grande école I attended).
I went to INSA in the early aughts and we didn't really have continuous grading, labs (TPs) were graded but the biggest part of the grades (les partiels - exam week) happened twice a year (or 4 times a year during the first two years of prépa intégré).
I do know that since then they've moved to a continuous grading system. I'm not sure if that's the same with other grande écoles but I do know that my friends in other grand écoles had a similar system of 2-4 partiels a year.
Thank you for asking!
Your question is the demonstration that "A Reverse DNS API" is a very subpar tagline.
As you correctly state, for "reverse DNS" usually we mean the PTR, which, not being a requirement for a working internet, is quite neglected. Few are sets, and those in large part are actually just an indication of which ISP or datacenter they belong.
What we try to do with Korbinsky is to provide information about hostnames actually pointing to a given IP address or just hosted there.
Just to give an example:
$ dig +short PTR 159.241.75.51.in-addr.arpa
Building go on the target architecture defaults on a dependency on libpthreads for DNS resolutions.
Passing either CGO_ENABLED=0 or -tags netgo fix this.
It's unclear to me how and when spawning a thread per resolution is preferrable to the netgo behavoir.
Version: 2.0.7 OpenSSL 1.1.1n 15 Mar 2022
Connected to 50.112.136.166
Testing SSL server news.ycombinator.com on port 443 using SNI name news.ycombinator.com
SSLv2 disabled SSLv3 disabled TLSv1.0 enabled TLSv1.1 enabled TLSv1.2 enabled TLSv1.3 disabled