301–310 of 748 posts
If one considers Kant's categorical imperative, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law," then also considers how they'd feel if they were go to visit a doctor who had cheated or is cheating, one certainly must draw the conclusion that cheating is indeed immoral and undesirable.
Many people reject Kant's ethical philosophy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said that (not me)
Might not be you, but I've seen tons of people on this board bemoan take-home interview tests.
Two weeks worth of contractor rates for a finished feature as an interview? Sign me up!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say the pro-cheating attitude is pretty widespread among young adults tracking into white collar careers, and computer science is no different. It usually starts in school - and these interview quizzes track this behavior pretty closely. Even without the cheating, you can pass an interview "honestly" by putting in the time to cram for it. That does not justify cheating in any way, though. The fact that people…
> they also need to fix their process to actually test skills. If we're being honest, LC style interviews aren't even about testing skills, it's trying to proxy for testing raw intelligence (or at least the ability to remember and regurgitate lots of facts). If companies could just IQ test people and hire by IQ, there'd be a lot less weirdness in interviews, but that's illegal (and probably rightly so).
Love it or hate it, it's actually a selected for skill perhaps immorally applied.
Additionally companies create their promotable skill set (both explicitly and implicitly), if their system is selecting for something, its not incumbent on you to break yourself against that system, play the game the way it's set up and allow the Executive class to reap the pros/cons of their setup.
Edit: One more thought is that when you look at an evolutionary style thought system, there's no "playing fair" in nature. Yes relationships and such have value, but being hired vs not being hired is a sort of reproductive event where whatever gets you hired means you get the experience/resume item and your competitors do not.
* do at a sufficient substitution equivalence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This turns us into low trust societies like China or India. Which a lot of the blind demographic are from
The US is a low trust society?
Spend time in Honduras or Brazil to see what low trust looks like.
I grew up staunchly against cheating. Becoming an adult was hard. My whole university class cheated on a tough assignment - someone found the solution online and shared it around. I didn't look at it, took the challenge and gave it a lot of effort. I got a pretty bad mark and the rest of the class got top marks. I also see the same mindset in work. People don't prepare for presentations and then spitball when present…
I am curious to know what conclusion you draw from the anecdote about the test?
Is it that you aren't good enough because you tried your best and failed?
Or is it that the test is a fallible instrument, designed by a human being who works within the constraints of an institution and has no choice but to treat education as if it is a magic juice that it's his job to squirt into the students heads and then administer tests to determine if the juice stuck there or leaked out, thereby identifying the defective and leaky craniums?
Or is it that you seemed out of touch with what every else intuitively understood? ie. That they're being evaluated and that a negative evaluation can have profound consequences for the rest of their life, regardless of if the testing procedure is fair or not?
I'm probably going to get roasted for saying this, but this is completely unsurprising to me. When I was in college, folks from India and other low trust societies would mercilessly cheat on their projects and exams, blatantly helping one another on individual works, and the college knew about it and didn't care. When I had brought this up at one point, I was told by a professor that it was a cultural difference that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could rhyme with PG's "Python Paradox" essay from 20 years ago: http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html > It's a lot of work to learn a new programming language. And people don't learn Python because it will get them a job; they learn it because they genuinely like to program and aren't satisfied with the languages they already know. > Which makes them exactly the kind of programmers companies should want to hire. Hence…
So like Erlang nowadays? Or Rust?
I would've put Clojure on the list around 2010.
Elixir feels like a right answer today. Maybe Zig, too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This kind of stuff doesn't hurt my feelings, but I do have a question. If I'm being a "bootlicker", how does that justify hostility? Wouldn't that be good for you and others who feel the same as you? Like, shouldn't you actually encourage "bootlickers" if you have this kind of devil may cry, realpolitik view of morality? Otherwise I'm just competition right? There are no wrong answers here, I really just want to unde…
Reading some of the comments in this thread I'm surprised. It seems that a substantial number of people think one of the following: a.) cheating on interviews is ok, because interviews don't reflect the actual job b.) this is acceptable because the promotion process is distinct from the interview process or c.) that the cheaters clearly are skilled after all because of all their success, as evidenced by being promote…