It's not an unusual way of thinking, but every time I see it, it seems bizarre to me. If the candidate was to propose any project once hired, I'm sure these folks would want them to think about costs and benefits.

This policy selects either for people unable to reflect on their life with the same wit they apply to work; or people who will front about their motivations. Both seem like poor outcomes.

All the complication is needed to handle the fact that the state can be a random vector of real numbers in a possibly varying dimensional space. It's not jerking off on jargon for its own sake.

Sure, there are simple cases - doesn't make the general case 'bullshit'.

Now, if you have eidetic memory and write out large chunks of the book from memory and publish them, that's what you could be sued for.

It's easy to have no defects in functionality you never got around to writing because you ran out of time.

Here's the neural net model your colleague sent you. They say it's meant to do ABC, but they found limitation XYZ. What is going on? What changes would you suggest and why?

Was actually a decent combined knowledge + code question.

As did dental care and cars. Correlation is not causation.

Maths content is the ne plus ultra of conceptual.

It's totally possible to slog through a chapter of a maths text and feel like we got it. But it turns out our 'understanding' was a facade. We can't apply the concepts in a new situation. Exposing ourselves to feedback via problem sets reveals this.

Doesn't other life-2 floating around in the primordial soup look like food to life-1? Or wouldn't it be co-opted mitochondria style?

Pour one out to the machine spirit and get your laptop a purity seal.

> Conversely, we found a low prevalence of Narcissistic (5.7%) and Histrionic (5.7%) traits, and no patient showed Borderline personality traits or disorder.

Which directly contradicts across the argument advanced in the blog. Now the source paper itself has low sample size too, but it's pointing in the other direction.

While on ASD the blog says:

> In fact, the chance of developing a personality disorder is more than three times higher1 for people with autism spectrum condition.

The cited ASD related paper says:

> Finally, although we investigated many psychiatric disorders, we did not examine all. For example, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and personality disorders were not taken into consideration.

So it's uh, unclear, how the bloggers squeezed blood from that stone. It rather looks like they wrote some stuff and then found a couple of related looking links to science it up a bit.