I agree with the first point but can you cite some examples for the second. I personally feel they are/should be most developer friendly company considering they are purely engineering driven.
A lot of it seems to be the vastly different quality of documentation and support based on programming language. Where AWS seems low level enough it doesn't matter what language you write your software in, and Azure has made "bring your software no matter what language you write it in" a very explicit message even in its high level cloud offerings, Google gives the strong impression/ego that there are "right languages" and "wrong languages" and they aren't going to support you well (or possibly at all) in the "wrong languages".
Some of that impression is leftover from the way App Engine handled things and the first impression that left, but even GCP documentation itself still seems to struggle outside of "Google approved" languages.
Disclaimer: I interviewed with GCP as a .NET developer with a lot of experience in .NET to try to improve the situation. I got a lot of nasty ego directed at me that interviewers didn't trust my technical expertise because it was in such a "gross" stack and didn't know how to interview me technically. I personally saw that as direct evidence for why I'd never use GCP.
Why would the one imply the other? The Spartans were the most military driven nation in history (possibly excepting the Mongols, who are another fine example) but they weren't exactly open-arms to foreign soldiers..
I have been using - WORDS, CHIME, FAULT for the first 3 words. Eliminates all vowels. Then I either proceed to guess the correct position of letters if I have 2-3 yellows from the first 3, or proceed to eliminate consonants.
For the most part, human detection capabilities of modern NNs are very good. This would include detections from a variety of camera angles and resolutions. There are already a lot of labeled training sets available with people in various poses, heights, clothing types, etc.
Bicycle detection is probably one of the more challenging elements as it relates to pedestrians and things you don't want a SD car to run into. Depending on the angle and color of the bicycle, rider position, and background elements, it can be challenging to discern the rider from the bicycle reliably. For the most part, just knowing there is a human present is a good start, but being able to anticipate movement speeds and directions of pedestrians vs. bikers is helpful in anticipating collision paths and distances, and also figuring out distances and terrain (person on bike is slightly elevated above ground, which can cause range perception issues, among other things).
source: have been working in AI/MV space for security/safety applications for 12+ years.
I recall some controversy a couple years ago over suspicions that defense contractors were using them to train weapons systems. A few people got captchas asking them to identify helicopters.
I'd love to identify helicopters. I do get planes now, but was it specifically military helicopters?
I like getting to identify basic things like cars, airplanes and trains with hCaptcha. It's like a picture book for adults, and feels strangely pleasant compared to other captchas.
Exactly and that is precisely why the current interview system is bad. The companies want candidates to pretend they just invented these algos on the spot and haven't solved like 50 similar questions on leetcode to remember the approach.
The algorithms are supposed to be fun and deriving them a group exercise.
Lol. Show me someone who can solve these problems under interview conditions after taking a freshman algo course, without further practice and I will show you the greatest genius who has ever lived. Humans are not that smart. But they are tricky lying assholes who will pretend to have not practiced if it advances them.
This is literally practice. What part of my comment caused you confusion? (I cannot repress the snark, but you are performing some pretty intense mental gymnastics to support some internal emotional state)
There's plenty of us professional devs out there who never went to uni, so is leetcode designed to eliminate us? And since we didn't go to uni, we learnt what we actually needed for whatever job we happened to do, which (surprise, surprise) has very few algorithms (web dev). Most algo problems are abstracted away behind a ready to consume library, so if you want to quiz me on stuff I've never made, and most likely never will, that's kind of dumb.
But then again this is the same logic that gave us google doc coding interviews so I'm not sure why I'm expecting anything at all ...
I am sure there are professional home builders/construction workers/house flippers who never went to college. I bet one can learn building house from youtube.
yet there are Architect/civil engineering degrees and large engineering firms that design and build skyscrapers/bridges/industrial facilities that require quite a bit of formal training.
both of these engineering subtypes can coexist, same in software
As someone without a CS degree, I was quite happy I could use a week worth of algorithms training / practice to prove my suitability for the industry, rather than have to go through a whole formal degree in CS.
Do they really? It seems to be blown up by media. Talented people are still applying in droves for a job at FB. The competition has definitely increased with good options out there for candidates but hiring trouble is bit preposterous.
I guess I could be wrong, but I remember reading that they were having to give even higher offers than other SV companies. That indicates a real, widespread reluctance to work there.
A. it tracks native calls by default B. it can track wall time as well C. you can have neat interactive flamegraphs