Both the article and https://www.titanvest.com/performance/ cite performance relative to S&P 500. If you expand out disclosures it says "Figures cited for 2017 and since 2004 represent backtested performance of a hypothetical account using Titan’s investment process, not an actual amount." It's trivial to overfit a backtest to get whatever results you want. For a startup whose objective is to "enable you to become a better investor" they might want to start by explaining why you shouldn't take their performance page seriously.
yep and it makes this statement rather suspicious:“Of the ~3500+ hedge funds out there, we track ~5% of them. We believe these are the good guys: long-term oriented and rigorous in their research.”
Its the 5% that performed well in their backtest, but that doesnt mean they will perform the best going forward.
What Titan did in 2016 was chose the top 5% of funds that did well up until that point. Then when they saw it performed bad in 2017, they most likely went back and chose a different 5% that did better. And recalculated all the returns.
The problem is you cant keep doing this once you actually start investing with real money.
I think you and the article disagree about what "deep, meaningful human connection" means. I don't want to quibble about definitions so I'll just share my experience with circling (one form of authentic relating).
In circling you just talk about how you're feeling in the moment. So a newcomer might share that they're anxious. Someone might ask them how that feels physically in their body (butterflies in the stomach etc). Someone else might share their reaction (I'm feeling protective of the new person).
So what do I get out of it? When people share their feelings I generally feel a lot of empathy for them. It's also interesting when people have different reactions to what's going on in the circle. They share those reactions much more openly than people normally would.
I leave feeling like I understand the other people at some deep level. But I don't know where they work, what their hobbies are, if they're in a relationship, etc. I trust that in circling I can be vulnerable with them and they won't hurt me. But I haven't built up trust with them in other areas (loaning money, etc.).
Compare that to meeting a stranger (we both read the same blog) for a beer. I know his hobbies, his career aspirations, what he thinks about politics, etc. The feeling of connection is very different compared to someone I met circling.
I've worked with old programmers who are great and old programmers who suck. Most of the points in the article are obviously wrong.
"Anyone who is still a programmer in their 40s has to have developed some good communication skills."
"Old programmers are dabblers."
"Old programmers have judgement."
"We can pick up any new language because we’ve used so many over the years."
I've met old programmers who are counter examples to all these points.
A steelmanned version of the article would argue why older coders are more likely to have these skills than young coders. It also needs to talk about the average difference in ability relative to the variance in each group. If old coders are on average 0.1 standard deviations better than young coders you should focus on hiring the good old or young coders. If old coders are on average 1.5 standard deviations better than young coders you should just focus on hiring the good old coders and exceptional young coders.
Won the $100 :). It took me about 15 minutes start to finish. You have to do 3 practices then wait a bit before you can do the real thing.
You are given about 10 lines of code and need to change one line to make it correct. The problems are things like binary search, topological sort, shortest paths, etc.
One note to make is that these tutorials are specifically designed for programming contests not for the real world. A lot of the stuff applies to both, but things like constant factor optimization and heuristics are generally not part of programming classes and a huge part of the real world.
I don't understand why a company would choose to enforce a non compete in this situation. The main reason for having interns is to hire them once they graduate. I doubt Bob would consider working at that company again. So the company loses a potential employee and gains nothing.
If it is an introductory class just be happy that people are there. I know plenty of programmers (including myself) who only got interested in CS because of video games. I then figured out I liked CS and didn't really like making games.
I'm 13th on the TopCoder list (1st in US). I'm not sure that the list matters as much as you think. I can solve algorithms problems (those similar to what you see on TC) very quickly, but they just don't come up that frequently at my job. That skill does make job interviews a joke.
The main difference is that I have spent a lot of time working on writing code quickly and correctly. Every time I competed in TC I would read the code of the best people and try to figure out why their code was so much simpler than mine. Now I think I can write clean code faster than most.
The downside is that I have spent a ton of time working on 50-200 line projects. Throw me into a 500k line code base and I'm no longer world class.
Getting to where I am is mostly a product of spending a ton of time in college practicing for programming contests. In college I saw a very strong correlation between time spent programming outside of class and programming skill.
