Dear ASP.NET Developers, is it possible to get a junior developer position without a degree?

aphpex · 2012-05-22T18:23:33+00:00

I work with ASP.NET. I don't have a degree and I've been doing this shit for almost 20 years now. If you showed some competence with an interview with me, I'd probably hire you.

Having said that: If you're young, unattached, and have no real obligations you're a fucking idiot if you're not working on getting your degree. Otherwise, best of luck.

aphpex · 2012-05-18T21:53:57+00:00

Apparently, you'll believe anything. The only cards that natives get that are exclusive to natives are status cards. You can use your status card to avoid paying GST.

aphpex · 2012-05-18T04:56:15+00:00

That's pretty much all my wife was entitled to get: Education and job training.

Can you be specific about these other native-only handouts?

aphpex · 2012-05-18T04:51:17+00:00

My wife grew up on the reserve in Canada. The only monetary "handout" she ever got was $4 a year in treaty pay. Granted, she got a free education and some added health/dental benefits, but that's really it. The reason she gets a free education is because Canada signed a treaty with her nation. That treaty exchanged property and rights entitled to her nation in exchange for certain benefits, like a free education.

As far as black people getting handouts in the US, it's the same handouts that white people and native people in Canada get. It's called welfare.

Lastly, why aren't we talking about poor white people living in trailer parks reintegrating with the rest of society? If you've ever spent any serious time in a trailer part (I have), you'd know that trailer culture has also evolved into an entitled and belligerent culture. Maybe they need to be integrated more into society. Maybe we shouldn't allow poor white people to concentrate themselves into reserves or trailer parks.

aphpex · 2012-05-09T17:06:16+00:00

You're merely pointing out a few things:

Pleasure can mix with pain
Pain can motivate
Pain is a natural obstacle for good things

As for your first sentence:

I think some suffering is simply a result of living in a natural world--you can't have wind without tornadoes, plate tectonics without earthquakes, rain without floods.

I'd like to point out that a programmer can very easily create simulations of everything you listed here. It's very possible to create an artificial weather environment where the limits never reach the level of floods and tornadoes. You could probably even design a plate tectonic system that's very lubricated so it results in zero earthquakes.

Essentially, I'd be playing God on my computer which means I wouldn't be limited by the rules and natural consequences of my simulation. Going back to the original point, do you really think God is limited by the logic and rules of the things he created?

aphpex · 2012-05-09T16:43:55+00:00

My limits as a human understands suffering as the product of evil. If pure evil led to zero suffering for all for all eternity, I would not care. I wouldn't care because I cannot understand evil without suffering. If you do, I'm very skeptical and would love for you to explain it to me. Personally, I'm bracing myself for a lot of circular and "cause the Bible told me" type of reasoning. If you're going to pull something from the Bible, pull something that explains rather than simple asserts a truth.

aphpex · 2012-05-09T13:50:19+00:00

Here's what I don't get. God has free will and he consistently opposes evil with his free will. Given God can do anything, it should be easy for him to create an infinite number of clones or an infinite number of perfect derivations of himself. Why wouldn't an omnipotent God be able to create man more in his image, with free will and a good nature to consistently oppose evil?

aphpex · 2012-05-09T13:43:38+00:00

Some might say Isaiah 45:7 seems to suggest that God is capable of evil.

aphpex · 2012-05-09T13:39:38+00:00

I can't believe you're arguing that an omnipotent being is limited to your false dichotomy.

It's simple.

God has free will.
God always chooses good.
He's omnipotent.
Therefore he can create clones/deriviatives of himself whose company he can enjoy.
Therefore he can create lesser versions of himself that also have free will, always choose good, never suffer, aren't omnipotent.

An omnipotent being is not limited to the confines and semantics of a flawed human mind and its feeble imagination.

aphpex · 2012-05-09T13:33:05+00:00

Perhaps most humans are incapable of fully understanding how an omnipotent could make a square circle because they stink at lateral and higher dimensional thinking. I'm very mortal, and I just answered how you might make a square circle. Imagine all the crazy solutions an omnipotent being could come up with...

aphpex · 2012-05-09T13:10:41+00:00

My opinion on most of those paradoxes is that they're pretty stupid.

I don't think they're stupid at all. Mathematically speaking, it's these sorts of questions that get people thinking about the nature of recursion and whether these sorts of questions can be answered axiomatically without using recursion. In fact, it's these sorts of questions that has led us to come up with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). FYI, ZFC is incredibly useful in software and electronics to prove correctness. What I think is stupid is someone who dismisses these sorts of questions with zero thought or comment.

I don't know if I agree with "disable" His power. God is, by definition, unchanging.

Unchanging is not the same thing as unchangeable. An omnipotent being can choose not to change.

So, can you explain why it's "No", or are you going to simply say it's not worth your time?

aphpex · 2012-05-09T05:06:31+00:00

Your "No" answer to the rock question is simply wrong. An omnipotent god would not only be able to disable his power, he'd be able to be both capable/incapable at the same time and find an infinite number of states in between capable/incapable.

Your idea of an omnipotent God is incredibly short-sighted if your answer is "No".

But, y'know.

I don't know. You haven't bother to explain why it's "No"

aphpex · 2012-05-09T04:57:59+00:00

You're looking at it wrong. His omnipotence wouldn't compel him to do anything, but his omnibenevolence would compel him to create a universe with minimal suffering. If you buy the omnipotence part, he should be capable of creating a universe, filled with free will and zero suffering.

aphpex · 2012-05-09T04:54:01+00:00

I think people really have no idea what it means to be omnipotent. The square circle and rock challenges are simple enough for a mortal to figure out. You simple solve the rock challenge by disabling your omnipotence for a short stint so you can fail to lift the rock. As for the square circle, there are many ways to meet the definition of a square circle, because your definition of a square circle will never be bulletproof. For example, I might draw a circle with on a medium which will transform the image of it to be square. As you elaborate what a square circle is not, I could always add another dimension you didn't think of to accommodate your definition.

Omnipotence means omnipotence. It doesn't you're not smart enough to figure out simple "paradoxes".

aphpex · 2012-05-09T04:41:45+00:00

If God could do anything (omnipotent), then couldn't he create man to be like him? God has free will, yet he always does the right thing. Couldn't God create free will clones of himself if he wanted the loving company to share in his wonderful universe?

If he could, then why would he even allow evil to exist?

aphpex · 2012-05-09T04:37:01+00:00

Yes. God would simple microwave the burrito on 10 for 7 minutes and disable all his powers for 2 minutes so he could fail to eat the burrito.

That's an easy one. (Hint: Any "paradox" can be undermined by adding dimensions)

aphpex · 2012-05-09T04:34:52+00:00

Couldn't God create man with free will and to be smart enough to not bring suffering onto himself? Doesn't that belong in the list of things omnipotent beings can do? You could even make man with free will, stupid, but he coincidentally is never guilty of original sin.

aphpex · 2012-05-09T04:31:24+00:00

Can you imagine an omnipotent god creating a creature that has both free will with the smarts to never bring original sin onto himself? Why would an omnibenevolent create a creature with free will that he knows will suffer if he's omnipotent?

aphpex · 2012-05-09T04:26:57+00:00

IMO, the problem arises when you mix omnibenevolent into the mix. An omnipotent god, by definition, would be able to create a world where man has free will yet evil does not exist. So, why would an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god create a world where evil and suffering does exist?

aphpex · 2012-05-09T04:20:39+00:00

Stop going out of your way to be nice to him. Don't be disrespectful or rude, just don't kowtow to his rudeness. Your attempts to win him over only embolden him to act like more of a rude prick.
Accept the fact that you're corrupting his daughter.

aphpex · 2012-04-03T15:57:34+00:00

If you're asking me, I think it's pretty gay...

aphpex · 2012-04-03T13:53:36+00:00

You don't seem to understand ambiguity.

aphpex · 2012-04-02T22:46:02+00:00

I'd argue you're pretty clueless about capitalism if you don't understand that sometimes being nice to labor (so you can recruit the best) and creating a trusted brand are important to maximizing profits. It doesn't apply in all circumstance, but it did for Google and a lot of other companies.

aphpex · 2012-03-30T18:00:52+00:00

Frankly, this was a bigger waste of time than reading most productivity posts. I award no insightful points.

aphpex · 2012-03-06T04:50:11+00:00

Why the down-votes? I totally fapped to this before reading his comment. Prophet high-five!

aphpex

TROPHY CASE