Yup. I do have js enabled, but take a look at what it does at the website. Looks like it's just smoothing it with a bit non-heavy animation. Well done. Who made this website, can I hire this person to teach young lads how to do proper html/css and not rely on some Reactshite?
I'm reading this post and replies and how people are terrified of interviews... and they are right in that all that's going on is wrong. But I don't understand what's there to be afraid of. I have 20+ years of experience and I can do a lot of things, yet as of right now I have maybe 500 bucks left, but I finally decided I'm not taking any more jobs. I'm not exactly sure how I'm about to survive the next month, but, I suppose, being worried, or let alone afraid of it, isn't going to help it. I must say, I had a lot of money a few years ago, but I was also running a company that I didn't want anything to do with. Hiring and employing people seemed very much like just the other side of the coin. And having money doesn't change much about you - it only changes the behavior of people around you, that's for sure.
To all the folks who are frustrated with the interviews - quit doing them. You already know they don't want you. They want the mindless code monkeys and submission. But what you had always probably felt is that you are an artist. It's time to be one. No one gets it easy. And the actual choice you might have is famine vs oppression. Which one do you choose?
I don't understand immigration restrictions at all. If the US is afraid foreigners are coming to "take our jobs" and is concerned about its citizens well being, then why isn't it concerned with the fact that cheap foreign labor could save money to millions of americans while it currently doesn't, since immigration is restricted? Or if it is concerned that foreigners are going to use the social safety net without providing any value, how about not providing it to foreigners?
There's absolutely no grounds for restricting immigration. The US was built on immigrants and now somehow it is no longer a viable policy?
Now I always wonder: if such simple creatures as ants can build such complex structures and are unbelievably successful as species, without any central body enforcing their behavior, why do we humans, need all those numerous laws and regulations that no human alone can fully comprehend? And why everyone believes we need central authority in order to achieve something? Ridiculous.
Their behavior is enforced directly by evolutionary constraints. If an ant colony's behavior fails to be adaptive, that colony dies out.
Humans have developed intelligence and culture, which allows us to consciously adapt our behavior over timespans shorter than a generation. Thus we also have developed more adaptable rules that are embedded in culture rather than genes.
That said, both ants and humans arise from the same evolutionary process. Human government is different from, but not any less natural than, ant behaviors.
And why everyone believes we need central authority in order to achieve something?
An ant colony is a life-support system for a queen. You're lionising a feudal system, where the life of the commoner is meaningless and dangerous, while the nobility is pampered and insulated. All the commoners are achieving is continued life for the nobility, and they do so frequently at the cost of their own lives. They are entirely disposable.
Similarly, the 'complex structures' that ants build are mind-numbingly simplistic, when compared to the ones humans create.
We have a built environment that influences each moment-to-moment action: For example, architecture is full of little tricks that influence crowd routing without actively telling people "YOU THERE, go this way." UX is a whole field about this kind of stuff.
So what we have is better than the ants in certain ways, because we have an ever-increasing capacity to reprogram behaviors and reason about them without relying on genetic changes; it's going to surface itself as an ugly, inefficient, inequitable, system because we use human judgment to fill in so many gaps, but that's why we also have such a strong incentive to keep automating everything.
While I see your point, I think it's invalid to equate humans and ants in this context. I am not an entomologist, but I don't think ants have nearly the sophistication in terms of cognitive function and social interaction that humans do.
Without making a value judgment, I just don't think we're capable of being that kind of drone. We're too conscious of our situation and that of others around us -- with "around us" expanding massively following the advent of print, radio/TV, and now the internet.
I suspect that ants are not that kind of drone either. It seems plausible that, from the perspective of an ant, life is in some sense as rich and complex as it is for us.
Sure, we can model their collective behaviour using simple rules and randomness. Yet this says little about individuals' motivations. Similarly, one can model parts of an economy. Yet a software agent does not have the inner sense of a person.
A visiting alien with no comprehension of humans' subjective perspective might well (wrongly) consider our cities as we tend to see ants' colonies; just an artifact of some basic economic rules.
To be more precise, that's not the purpose, that's the means. The purpose is to extract the maximum value out of the livestock. Now, to do that, governments must find the right balance of propaganda, social programs and freedom. It differs for different countries. Western countries are no exception: it's just that people are taught that government serves them, while the opposite is actually true. Government is power and anyone who believes it is there to serve his interest and protect him is a fool.
Not sure if I agree with this. Governments are a necessary outgrowth of agriculture: producing more food than you personally can consume means the population can grow in proportion, which necessitates a mechanism for distribution. The fact that governments can exert power beyond their purpose of food distribution is incidental rather than central to their role.
I think the only way we could to tell if this is too much or too little is if we had a free market for protection services. Since we don't, we can only speculate. Maybe, it's actually not enough. I can't object anyone receiving a high salary, but if this salary is paid out of my own pocket with no consent of mine and with the police force regularly abusing their powers, then yes, I believe this is not just too much - this is outrageous.
I still find it hard to believe there is no cheap autonomous way of tracking an airplane. If flightradar24.com works, it means airplanes can transmit their location. If they can transmit their location it means there must be a way to create an autonomous protected module in each airplane that works no matter what.
Exploded transponders don't work. Radio waves don't really pierce water at all.
You're (as alot of other people) are grossly underestimating the problem of tracking things across oceans.
Not to mention the other simple fact: what's the point? Is there a difference if plane is found 1 day or 14 days after crash? Reliable tracking would be a huge investment into a system that at the end, wouldn't make much difference in survivability or cause of accidents.
Flightradar24 works on the premise of volunteers providing ground stations to decode ADS-B transmissions from the aircraft.
Two variables here:
1) ADS-B Transmissions are line of sight, so once you are far enough off shore there are no ground stations to receive the data
2) Ground stations are provided by volunteers, so there isn't a critical mass of volunteers that provides 100% coverage over even ground locations
This looks very interesting. It works quite well, on Linux as well. This technology could actually be used for legal purposes too, lowering the price of content - if content providers really wanted to.
