Talk:1545: Strengths and Weaknesses - Revision history

172.68.211.82 at 13:27, 7 May 2019

2019-05-07T13:27:29Z

108.162.219.100 at 05:38, 9 December 2016

2016-12-09T05:38:13Z

162.158.255.52 at 02:30, 28 September 2015

2015-09-28T02:30:45Z

Davidy22 at 05:46, 11 July 2015

2015-07-11T05:46:47Z

108.162.219.27 at 01:36, 11 July 2015

2015-07-11T01:36:57Z

Hkmaly at 14:01, 7 July 2015

2015-07-07T14:01:16Z

KieferSkunk: I added a (KABOOM) bit more to the (CRACKLE) explanation re (BOOM WHISTLE) exchange between Ponytail (BOOM) and Cueball (darned fireworks)

2015-07-04T05:58:03Z

I added a (KABOOM) bit more to the (CRACKLE) explanation re (BOOM WHISTLE) exchange between Ponytail (BOOM) and Cueball (darned fireworks)

108.162.219.111 at 21:11, 2 July 2015

2015-07-02T21:11:55Z

Asimong: questioning most recent common ancestor

2015-07-02T05:57:28Z

questioning most recent common ancestor

MGK: predicate logic geekery

2015-07-02T01:21:41Z

predicate logic geekery

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 7 May 2019
Line 35:		Line 35:
	We're fooling ourselves with job interviews, they are largely useless, and in fact may exclude the best candidates because they don't "interview well"; we would be better off doing a lottery after establishing basic credentials (literacy, basic communication ability...) Even Google has come to this conclusion, after all those puzzles and other crap:		We're fooling ourselves with job interviews, they are largely useless, and in fact may exclude the best candidates because they don't "interview well"; we would be better off doing a lottery after establishing basic credentials (literacy, basic communication ability...) Even Google has come to this conclusion, after all those puzzles and other crap:
	:"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world’s leading expert." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html ) {{unsigned ip\|108.162.219.27}}		:"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world’s leading expert." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html ) {{unsigned ip\|108.162.219.27}}
		+
		+	Numberphile has [https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=444 a video] that explains the Strength. If it's worth adding to the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.82\|172.68.211.82]] 13:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 For anyone who wants to take a stab at a more thorough (or better written) explanation of ancestry, the wiki pages for {{w|Identical_ancestors_point}} and {{w|Most_recent_common_ancestor}} helped me to start understanding the topic. I think its easy to jump to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that Cueball will be the ancestor of all living humans, however it isn't quite as intuitive as I believed. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@@ Line 7: / Line 9: @@
 Two cases that haven't been dealt with:
-.) Humanity gets wiped out before this happens, so there are no living humans for Cueball to be ancestor to tor not. (0/0 case)
+.) Humanity gets wiped out before this happens, so there are no living humans for Cueball to be ancestor to or not. (0/0 case)
 .) Through physical separation, humanity diverges into 2 or more species, and Cueball is only an ancestor to some of these different species. Would all of these species be considered humans? I'm not familiar with the semantics.

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :Not only he's responding from existential point of view. Also, his answers are equally true for ANY interviewed.
 :PS: I'm not sure why is sex described as "awkward". Sure, having sex during interview is very uncommon, but "awkward"? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 We're fooling ourselves with job interviews, they are largely useless, and in fact may exclude the best candidates because they don't "interview well"; we would be better off doing a lottery after establishing basic credentials (literacy, basic communication ability...) Even Google has come to this conclusion, after all those puzzles and other crap:
 :"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world’s leading expert." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html ) {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.27}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:46, 11 July 2015
Line 24:		Line 24:

	We're fooling ourselves with job interviews, they are largely useless, and in fact may exclude the best candidates because they don't "interview well"; we would be better off doing a lottery after establishing basic credentials (literacy, basic communication ability...) Even Google has come to this conclusion, after all those puzzles and other crap:		We're fooling ourselves with job interviews, they are largely useless, and in fact may exclude the best candidates because they don't "interview well"; we would be better off doing a lottery after establishing basic credentials (literacy, basic communication ability...) Even Google has come to this conclusion, after all those puzzles and other crap:
−	:"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world’s leading expert." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html )	+	:"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world’s leading expert." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html ) {{unsigned ip\|108.162.219.27}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 11 July 2015
Line 22:		Line 22:
	:Not only he's responding from existential point of view. Also, his answers are equally true for ANY interviewed.		:Not only he's responding from existential point of view. Also, his answers are equally true for ANY interviewed.
	:PS: I'm not sure why is sex described as "awkward". Sure, having sex during interview is very uncommon, but "awkward"? -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)		:PS: I'm not sure why is sex described as "awkward". Sure, having sex during interview is very uncommon, but "awkward"? -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	We're fooling ourselves with job interviews, they are largely useless, and in fact may exclude the best candidates because they don't "interview well"; we would be better off doing a lottery after establishing basic credentials (literacy, basic communication ability...) Even Google has come to this conclusion, after all those puzzles and other crap:
		+	:"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It’s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world’s leading expert." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html )

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:01, 7 July 2015
Line 19:		Line 19:

	I added a bit to this explanation. I think the explanation as it was dealt too heavily with the existential portion of the exchange and missed one really important part of the joke: Ponytail's questions are meant to be related to Cueball's PROFESSIONAL strengths and weaknesses (and his ambitions), but his responses are either accidentally or deliberately "missing the point" - he's responding from an existential point of view instead of a professional one. I hope that the portion of the explanation I added will help clarify this point. [[User:KieferSkunk\|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk\|talk]]) 05:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)		I added a bit to this explanation. I think the explanation as it was dealt too heavily with the existential portion of the exchange and missed one really important part of the joke: Ponytail's questions are meant to be related to Cueball's PROFESSIONAL strengths and weaknesses (and his ambitions), but his responses are either accidentally or deliberately "missing the point" - he's responding from an existential point of view instead of a professional one. I hope that the portion of the explanation I added will help clarify this point. [[User:KieferSkunk\|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk\|talk]]) 05:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Not only he's responding from existential point of view. Also, his answers are equally true for ANY interviewed.
		+	:PS: I'm not sure why is sex described as "awkward". Sure, having sex during interview is very uncommon, but "awkward"? -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 4 July 2015
Line 17:		Line 17:

	In this comic it is very likely that Cueball is confused regarding the software concept of recursion and "children" or child nodes. This plays off of the idea that if he reproduces he will eventually become a common ancestor to all existing humans at some point in the future (infinte recursion), or he won't reproduce and therefore will have no children (ancestor to none). This is further played with in the subtext which mentions implementing quick sort (a recursive sorting algorithm). Also of note, there are many other comics where cueball is confused by software concepts. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.111\|108.162.219.111]] 21:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)		In this comic it is very likely that Cueball is confused regarding the software concept of recursion and "children" or child nodes. This plays off of the idea that if he reproduces he will eventually become a common ancestor to all existing humans at some point in the future (infinte recursion), or he won't reproduce and therefore will have no children (ancestor to none). This is further played with in the subtext which mentions implementing quick sort (a recursive sorting algorithm). Also of note, there are many other comics where cueball is confused by software concepts. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.111\|108.162.219.111]] 21:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	I added a bit to this explanation. I think the explanation as it was dealt too heavily with the existential portion of the exchange and missed one really important part of the joke: Ponytail's questions are meant to be related to Cueball's PROFESSIONAL strengths and weaknesses (and his ambitions), but his responses are either accidentally or deliberately "missing the point" - he's responding from an existential point of view instead of a professional one. I hope that the portion of the explanation I added will help clarify this point. [[User:KieferSkunk\|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk\|talk]]) 05:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 2 July 2015
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Also! Assuming Cueball hasn't had kids yet, he is already an ancestor to no living humans. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.100\|108.162.215.100]] 23:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)		Also! Assuming Cueball hasn't had kids yet, he is already an ancestor to no living humans. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.100\|108.162.215.100]] 23:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	In this comic it is very likely that Cueball is confused regarding the software concept of recursion and "children" or child nodes. This plays off of the idea that if he reproduces he will eventually become a common ancestor to all existing humans at some point in the future (infinte recursion), or he won't reproduce and therefore will have no children (ancestor to none). This is further played with in the subtext which mentions implementing quick sort (a recursive sorting algorithm). Also of note, there are many other comics where cueball is confused by software concepts. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.111\|108.162.219.111]] 21:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:57, 2 July 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	For anyone who wants to take a stab at a more thorough (or better written) explanation of ancestry, the wiki pages for {{w\|Identical_ancestors_point}} and {{w\|Most_recent_common_ancestor}} helped me to start understanding the topic. I think its easy to jump to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that Cueball will be the ancestor of all living humans, however it isn't quite as intuitive as I believed. --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)		For anyone who wants to take a stab at a more thorough (or better written) explanation of ancestry, the wiki pages for {{w\|Identical_ancestors_point}} and {{w\|Most_recent_common_ancestor}} helped me to start understanding the topic. I think its easy to jump to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that Cueball will be the ancestor of all living humans, however it isn't quite as intuitive as I believed. --[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	Look at the talk for that Wikipedia page. The figures for most recent common ancestor given there are incredible, but the community lacks the will to replace with decent science. [[User:Asimong\|Asimong]] ([[User talk:Asimong\|talk]]) 05:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

	I don't understand, why would come a day that he is "either an ancestor to all living humans, or to none of them"? It's very possible for him to be the ancestor to ''some'' living humans forever [[User:Egoist\|Egoist]] ([[User talk:Egoist\|talk]]) 19:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)		I don't understand, why would come a day that he is "either an ancestor to all living humans, or to none of them"? It's very possible for him to be the ancestor to ''some'' living humans forever [[User:Egoist\|Egoist]] ([[User talk:Egoist\|talk]]) 19:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 2 July 2015
Line 10:		Line 10:

	I'm also not sure how likely either of these are.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.100\|108.162.215.100]] 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)		I'm also not sure how likely either of these are.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.100\|108.162.215.100]] 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
		+	: In your case (1), that means he will both be the ancestor to all people or to none. [[User:MGK\|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK\|talk]]) 01:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

	Also! Assuming Cueball hasn't had kids yet, he is already an ancestor to no living humans. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.100\|108.162.215.100]] 23:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)		Also! Assuming Cueball hasn't had kids yet, he is already an ancestor to no living humans. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.100\|108.162.215.100]] 23:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)