However, experience with it led to my sense that Python just doesn't scale (especially back then, without type annotations) past a certain size of program.
The Code Search team had been re-inventing its UI and changing a lot (changing its focus from external to internal), and had the inspiration to leverage what they'd done to create Critique. They sold Mountain View on it, and made history. Exciting times.
No, Critique existed before the quick edit feature was added to Code Search.
While I think the quick edits were worthwhile, it became too much too support both it and Cider (and edits in Critique), so it was removed to streamline things. As Cider became better, I think it was an okay trade-off.
Most of the engineers making most of the tools being praised in this thread are in Germany, so I don't think that generalization quite holds.
Even if the best SWEs are better in the Bay area, there's also a lot more competition for them, so Google in Germany might be able to get top 1% there (and in neighboring countries) but Google in the Bay Area is probably having a tough time getting even top 10%.
That's a good point, and why I'm happy to see remote offices pop up in many locations. The problem is the top .1% which can live anywhere, is often a poor representation of the depth of talent density.
In all seriousness, no, it shows that there were at least two cases of political science in the last 400 years, not that all science is.
I think there have been more, and it plays a role, but I don't buy that you can just dismiss the criticism of political science with the claim that it always is.
There are matters of degrees, and it's almost universally acknowledged to be bad, because it usually means results and emphasis have been distorted because of the politics.
I just chose one example from the early years of science, and one modern case. Anyone can fill in countless cases of science being highly politicized in the intervening centuries.
> There are matters of degrees, and it's almost universally acknowledged to be bad, because it usually means results and emphasis have been distorted because of the politics.
No, science is generally objective, but its results have political implications. To take the pandemic as an example. Virology and epidemiology came to a clear, objective, true conclusion: social distancing and vaccination would drastically reduce the death toll of the pandemic. However, because there are people who reject social distancing (e.g., people who run businesses) and vaccination (anti-vaxxers and opportunistic politicians who see that as an issue they can push), virology and epidemiology have become politically controversial. It's also politically convenient in the United States to distract from the government's own failure to effectively respond to the pandemic by pushing conspiracy theories about the virus coming from a lab in a scary foreign country (and if you don't accept that this is a conspiracy theory, I'm sorry, but you've fallen victim to the widespread propaganda on this issue in American media over the last few years, which is 100% at odds with the conclusions that the scientific community has reached). The problem isn't with virology or epidemiology themselves. The problem is with how the society and political system respond to science.
But that wouldn't capture how it tends to be meant -- an instruction to take things on faith without any questioning, even if it contradicts other known facts or your direct experience.
The thing is, it's not just loyalty, it's also a 'better than only mid-level believers in the cause'. There's definitely a purity / piety aspect. I do like "piety" as it captures the religious aspect.
I think that's a good addition. My main point is that it's not just one signal, and that 'virtue' carries too much emotional and moral freight. Maybe call them Signals of Virtues.
The point is more that "the science" is too broad and vague and uncertain. The science for cancer might be that the currently best known treatment acknowledged in country X is to follow a particular treatment process. That changes across time and countries. And often the studies have assumptions baked in. So there isn't a blind belief in "the science"
The footage is out there, you can review it yourself, no racial epithets were yelled. The mens basketball team was there, with a good number of black people; not a single heard anything. The entire crowd would need to be complicit, along with the refs and the coach.
It seems very clearly, at best, the person misheard, although more likely made up.
Was this reported on The Root? I searched their site but didn't find what you describe.
They did report on the BYU investigation and seemed to disagree. [1] But they don't mention having reviewed the footage. Nor do they provide any other evidence.
Has your trusted friend ever said "no, that's not a good reason"?
Because, if not at least few times by the 100+ people, they are probably not providing the service you think they, but instead just agreeing with what they think you want to hear.
However, experience with it led to my sense that Python just doesn't scale (especially back then, without type annotations) past a certain size of program.
The Code Search team had been re-inventing its UI and changing a lot (changing its focus from external to internal), and had the inspiration to leverage what they'd done to create Critique. They sold Mountain View on it, and made history. Exciting times.