If you must apply via online job applications, definitely change your resume to include as many of the keywords in the job description as you can, while still being truthful. If you don't, the first-level automated filtering will screen you out of the group moving on to the HR department. This is a huge amount of work, but even a little bit of an edge can help.
That said, DON'T go through online applications if you can avoid it. Many of the jobs I (and others around me) have gotten are through their personal network.
Develop your personal network now. Question: When is the best time to plant a tree if you want to enjoy it? Answer: 20 years ago. When is the second best time to plant a tree? Today.
1. Connect to everyone you know personally or have ever worked with on LinkedIn, and use the "Send a note" function to give them a reason to remember you, and say you'd like to add them to your network. Once you've got a decent number of connections (at least a few hundred?), post a "looking for work" type of message with your skills, experience, and interests. Be sincere and not "network-y". Do it with the intention that they might be able to help you now, but you may be able to help them in the future.
2. Reach out to friends and coworkers that you had a closer relationship with, and let them know that you're looking for work in a particular area or field, and do they know of anything available (or companies that fit your area). Friends and ex-coworkers are the best because they can get you right into the HR department or the hiring manager.
3. Do not discount the many people on LinkedIn who currently or recently worked at a company that you are considering applying to (but that you don't know). Sign up for the paid LinkedIn service for a month, and use the ability of paid users to email anyone, to reach out to people who might be in the department of the company that you are looking at. You'd be amazed what information or help you can get from total strangers, just by sending them a nice note explaining that you're looking at the company/department and would like to speak to them for a few minutes to get an idea of the company culture. This is scary for many people (a younger myself included), but I've done it and it works. Most people will give you a few minutes to talk to you. And you could get valuable information about the team/department/manager, that could help you present the side of you that works best in their culture (laid back, hard-charging, early-risers, dog-friendly, tabs not spaces, etc.).
The article linked in the OP is mostly a list of other links you can visit to learn about the types of AI that are coming to market, and some background. Those links are not authored by A16z themselves.
I generally would not read anything authored by A16Z partners, those just feel like bad inspirational speeches authored by Thomas Friedman.
A thousand times echoing your sentiment, everyone on this thread seems dismissive, but the webpage linked carries some links which I would want to come back to later.
If the source itself is a problem, we wouldn't want to listen to anyone for some reason or another.
Adam Neuman, with support from a16z, has an excellent track record returning capital to Americans while leaving Chinese & Saudi investors to hold the bag. That is why they invested.
Agreed! I spent a lot of time evaluating frameworks a year ago, and this article sums up much of my research. I had to mention it, in case it hadn't been covered here on HN.
In the U.S. where I am, officers have a "badge number", literally on their metallic badge affixed to their uniform. These are hard enough to read during a non-confrontational exchange, but become useless in a fast moving, chaotic situation, which we're seeing a lot during this time.
It would make sense to have these badge numbers in larger characters on the front and/or back of the uniform, whether they are in riot gear or just their day-to-day uniform.
The Seattle Police Department has both their badge numbers, as well as name tags. As you said, neither is particularly easy to read in the best of circumstances. Of course it’s made even more difficult by the officers covering the badge numbers (and in less frequent cases, their name tags) with tape. I’ve seen both in person during the last week. The official explanation for covering badge numbers is weak, and the mayor’s response to protestor requests that badges are left uncovered was even weaker. Of course this pales in comparison to the turning-off body cam before attacking policy.
This is further a problem because Seattle has at least one current badge design the puts the number in the middle of the badge. Many other agencies avoid this as they either have a traditional badge with large numbers at the bottom like many NYPD badges, or they understand that mourning bands are a thing and avoid placing the badge number where the band may cover up.
As a forward looking policy, agencies should generally prohibit obscuring the agency and officer identification for uniformed officers and design those things to enhance their readability and prevent common practices like mourning bands from obscuring them.
As for the body camera policy, Seattle has a history of using video surveillance during protests to identify protesters for later prosecution, in particular this happened during the WTO protests and Iraq War protests.
A common call from protesters has been that journalists and photographers documenting the protest avoid publishing clear photos that would allow the police and other parties the ability to identify protesters, so there are conflicting calls on that particular policy.
I think the long term solution to that is a legal disincentive for police departments to prosecute protesters and a trust in the police and judiciary that they can take such recordings and use them for accountability rather than prosecutions.
With high-def video (Which can now be taken by most cellphones), the names and numbers are clearly legible.
As another poster commented, police have reacted to it by putting electrical tape over those numbers. The problem of getting that tape removed is considered near-insurmountable by Seattle's mayor, and the SPD police chief - who both acknowledge it, but for multiple days in a row, are somehow unable to get it solved.
I've noticed that employees in many professions are covering (often "accidentally") the identifying information on their badges. Not crazy about that, but I'm sure they're not crazy about having crazies show up on their doorstep at midnight.
The advent of our panopticon arguably makes this less important. Maybe we should keep expanding that.
In NYC, some officers are even covering their badge numbers with black bands. It was supposedly started as a gesture of respect for officers who died to COVID, but who knows?
As a former developer, and as a manager of development teams, I feel that engineers tend to underestimate how long a task or a project will take them. This is due to several factors, including good developers having big egos about their capabilities, and with them focusing only on the straightforward solution, without giving credit to the inevitable (and expensive) edge cases.
My formula for getting a better estimate from engineers (call it "padding" if you wish), is to take their estimate, double it, and then round up to the next largest time unit.
For example, if they say a task will take 3 hours, I double it to 6 hours, then round up to a full day. If they estimate it at 2 days, I double it to 4 days, then round up to a full week.
This sounds like a joke, but I've found that in the real world, these types of estimates are closer to what ends up happening.
This is a cool optical illusion, but it's deceptive at best to actual drivers. I could see it causing rear-end collisions when drivers first encounter them.
And what about cars coming from the opposite direction? They'll see something that they won't recognize at all as a crosswalk, raised or not.
All that commercial did was let me know how important it is to them that I pronounce their silly name the way they want. So I never will! It's raKOOten and it'll be raKOOten forever. Every time I pass by 101 and 92, "oh look it's the raKOOten building!"
The first link, "Flo Control" (named after Flo the cat) was built in the late 1990's, and this link on MetaFilter (https://www.metafilter.com/15802/) is from 2002, but the host link appears to be dead.
The OP is kinda swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, but blindfolded, because the system would probably break if the door changed or someone moved something into the detection window. Problem with CNNs is training them to know what is NOT a valid condition, and that is VERY VERY HARD.
Thanks for finding that! I forgot about the wayback machine. I also forgot that is what websites looked like in the late 90's. /r/blunderyearsforwebsites
Test your system (and your room) with this audio quality quiz, comparing lossless audio with several compressed bit rate streams [1]. With my 50-year old ears, and an outboard DAC/amp and audiophile magnetic planar headphones, I could only score 50%.
That said, switching between Spotify and Tidal on the same track, I hear a pretty big difference. The lossless music has a depth that just isn't there on the compressed streams
I think some of it is whether you're used to listening to the type of music. All those samples are types of music I don't normally listen to and thus scored 0%. They're also mostly low-information songs that are vocal-heavy. Vocal-heavy music is very easy to compress compared to say something like electronic or EDM type music which will easily create distortion with lower bitrates.
I got 4 / 6 with some old Apple EarPods plugged into my laptop. I think it was probably just luck, because I picked the 128kbps MP3 for both of the ones that I got wrong.
It's fun to think that I might be able to distinguish between uncompressed audio and 320kbps MP3. I didn't think it was possible. I had a hearing test recently, and they did say that I have better than average hearing. But yeah it was probably just random.
Whoa I just put on a nicer pair of headphones (Plantronics BackBeat Pro), and I think I might be able to tell the difference between uncompressed audio and 320kbps MP3.
The third one was really tricky so I had to guess. But the first two were a really clear difference. Uncompressed kind of sounds "fuller" and sharper, and MP3 is a bit flatter. It's a tiny difference but I think I can hear it.
I got 2/6 right, the 4 wrong were 320kbps. Using the cheap-but-decent shp9500s and no dac, but quite good hearing. I'd chalk it up to having been listening to almost exclusively streamed 320kbps, it was interesting to note that the 4 I got wrong were because I discarded the more 'neutral' toned one which was actually lossless.
The 128kbps was of course very easy to pick out.
I'm of the opinion that 320 vs lossless is meaningless enough to not really bother, but I know for some tracks it was trivial for me to tell the different. Mostly it was the very complex/atmospheric tracks, Mind In A Box being a good example, where 320 lost a notable amount of quality. Probably others like Ne Obliviscaris as well.
The biggest problem with Spotify is that not all of their library is available at 320kbps.
I got 3/6 right using the iPhone XR built-in speakers (other three were 320k). I then tried it again with someone else clicking the buttons (in case they weren’t randomized order) using my DAC/amp and headphones and got 5/6.
The thing that gives it away for me is the extreme highs and lows, both are clipped when compressed usually. I should note, I wasn’t picking which “sounded better”, but rather which “sounded uncompressed”. Several of the tracks sounded better at 320k than they did uncompressed to me. Despite being rather close to 40, I am still able to easily hear sounds well over 20kHz.
That said, DON'T go through online applications if you can avoid it. Many of the jobs I (and others around me) have gotten are through their personal network.
Develop your personal network now. Question: When is the best time to plant a tree if you want to enjoy it? Answer: 20 years ago. When is the second best time to plant a tree? Today.
1. Connect to everyone you know personally or have ever worked with on LinkedIn, and use the "Send a note" function to give them a reason to remember you, and say you'd like to add them to your network. Once you've got a decent number of connections (at least a few hundred?), post a "looking for work" type of message with your skills, experience, and interests. Be sincere and not "network-y". Do it with the intention that they might be able to help you now, but you may be able to help them in the future.
2. Reach out to friends and coworkers that you had a closer relationship with, and let them know that you're looking for work in a particular area or field, and do they know of anything available (or companies that fit your area). Friends and ex-coworkers are the best because they can get you right into the HR department or the hiring manager.
3. Do not discount the many people on LinkedIn who currently or recently worked at a company that you are considering applying to (but that you don't know). Sign up for the paid LinkedIn service for a month, and use the ability of paid users to email anyone, to reach out to people who might be in the department of the company that you are looking at. You'd be amazed what information or help you can get from total strangers, just by sending them a nice note explaining that you're looking at the company/department and would like to speak to them for a few minutes to get an idea of the company culture. This is scary for many people (a younger myself included), but I've done it and it works. Most people will give you a few minutes to talk to you. And you could get valuable information about the team/department/manager, that could help you present the side of you that works best in their culture (laid back, hard-charging, early-risers, dog-friendly, tabs not spaces, etc.).
Good luck with the search!