dan7678's comments

Yeah, I used Anki a ton in college, and doing things like this was always futile and frustrating. Flashcards are fantastic for learning short bouts of things, but not large structures like many lines of code.

Additionally I'd say even if you succeeded in memorizing it this way, it's not making you a better problem solver, which is what actually matters for that particular subject; you're just (temporarily) better at regurgitating some lines of code.

This matches my experience almost exactly.

I had a common point about hashmaps -- the interviewer seemed to be at loss, and was asking weird questions that had little connection or relevance to the implementation path I'd chosen -- I politely explained the confusion and we swiftly moved on. They then marked that as a weak/"fuzzy" spot in their evaluation. I made sure to give my feedback about this to the person who shared the evaluation, but did not receive a response.

In the end, after making it to the company-matching phase, they found a whopping 1 company with <5 people, in an area I had clearly said I didn't plan on moving to. I don't know which part of the data-centric recruiting process got this so badly wrong.

Hoping that this process improves, but so far it hasn't lived up to expectations and I ended up finding multiple great matches on my own afterwards.

Thanks for your opinion. Quite a few intelligent people disagree with you. Please see below.

http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/05/30/debate-this-house-believ...

I agree with you, there are so many places in religious texts where we would be ridiculous and possibly have some evil agenda to read the text literally. But in other places, we have 'proof' (if you will) from the "Sunnah" (way) of the last Islamic Prophet regarding those exact things, so there's no debate nor room for interpretation. For this particular point, we have too much "proof" (in the same regard), so that's why there's no room for interpretation here and the question of reading things literally is irrelevant.

It's a matter of belief. I made the assumption that those people "probably don't care", implying they probably don't believe that something like that's a sin. When you don't believe in it, you're not a Muslim. If they still believe in it and yet do it, it's a major sin indeed, and they are still Muslims. But Muslims possibly bound for hell.

'Killing the infidels' isn't a requirement of action nor are you bound by belief to do so to be a Muslim. Can you cite a full Surah from the Qur'an where this is unequivocally required of Muslims, under all circumstances?

Are you claiming it's an opinion or something "up for interpretation" whether it's a sin to prefer boys over girls in Islam? Or it's an opinion or only an interpretation that woman are allowed an agreement before the marriage regarding the circumstances for divorce in Islam?

That's incredibly unfortunate... in areas like that, people hardly know a thing about Islam but can label themselves Muslims and then pretend they're practicing it. Preference of boys over girls as children in Islam is a huge sin -- written so explicitly in the Qur'an. But the families and people described in the story clearly don't care and thus are hardly Muslims. I hope she finds a safer setting soon.

With that said, divorce in a Muslim setting is no free lunch. The couple agrees before the marriage on a certain amount of money (or any other thing) given to the woman in case of divorce. The only time that isn't given is when the woman asks for it herself (for obvious reasons -- the woman can 'play' the man into a marriage in very lenient divorce terms, and divorce on purpose afterwards for it). Not sure what the terms of divorce were for this woman and her past 3 marriages, but she should be careful what she agrees on.

Since you seek to genuinely help the follow and now apparently me, I would reckon you take internet comments quite seriously, so you're welcome. Naturally, this particular topic is touchy for both sides here, so it's just as irrational to expect him to dress it up without feeling what a potential respondent would feel if the original poster had an invective tone. It's hard, and I don't blame him for delivering it like that.

Thank you, this was brilliant.

As one of the other comments makes clear, it's a matter of perspective. The ones that benefit always see it in a pretty light, regardless of whether the rest of the world absolutely hates it. If you insist for someone's words to be tailored to be lovey-dovey or the kind you'd expect from the pretty-light side, then don't read criticism because it'll always sound "invective" to you.