White Walker Texas Ranger

Members
  • Content count

    4,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About White Walker Texas Ranger

  • Rank
    Neoliberalism with Chinese Characteristics

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Name
    Ericxihn

Recent Profile Visitors

10,684 profile views
  1. One thing I've noticed over my career is that I'm really bad at interviewing. I think I might be 0 for 8 or so in the past 5 years. But it was this last rejection that got me thinking. I got some feedback through back channels and they said that while I had the skills and qualifications, I was a bit too shy and didn't explain my thought process clearly during a 'technical' question. That second one's fair. My process for any sort of mathematical problem, especially in the early stages is iterative probably comes across as jumbled and incoherent when I try to explain it. But I think that with some work and help, I can figure out how to fake it, and don't necessarily need a professional career coach for that. But the first is a bit more alarming to me. They said that my speaking style was too soft and wouldn't work in their group. I've also gotten feedback like this for a similar role at a similar company a few years back. The thing that sort of galls me is that these aren't Big Swinging Dick Wall Street Trading Floors, or high pressure sales roles, these are data analysis jobs at large, relatively staid corporations. Am I too soft-spoken and meek even for that? I don't think I need to completely rework my personality-I have friends and good relations with people at my current job. I can argue my case and occasionally even sell things to clients. Defintiely less of that lately, but I can probably chalk a lot of that up to ennui or disillusionment with my current role. I think my social skills are mostly fine, even if I won't be gunning for any 100% client facing or sales roles. But clearly there's something wrong with the way I present at interviews, or first impressions or whatever. Maybe I do need a professional interview coach. Has anyone ever used one and had good results? It just feels like a field where the ratio of charlatans to actually useful is pretty high.
  2. Too bad it's not possible to recall a DA in New York.
  3. There were a lot of non-policy difference between Obama and Clinton. In fact, policy goals were one of the smaller difference between them. Nothing Trump's done is as bad as the Iraq War. Yet.
  4. I’ve always thought ‘nationalist’ was a weird description of an international, Kremlin-backed movement.
  5. I was wondering if Altherion would change his views once it became absolutely clear that Trump does not give a fuck about the poor or middle class. I guess the answer is no.
  6. Well, there's a good chance a lot of them end up in Florida. That's almost as good, right?
  7. Mike Duncan, the guy behind the History of Rome and Revolutions podcasts, made a nice reference to the legend of Nero fiddling while Rome burned: https://twitter.com/mikeduncan/status/920629040582725632 https://twitter.com/mikeduncan/status/920629040582725632
  8. Couple drunk ones: One time, in college, a girl at a party asked me a completely mundane question and I somehow heard "what are your hobbies?" When I got arrested for public intoxication, I had just recently binged The Wire, so I yelled for Bunk and McNulty to get me out.
  9. That's a good point, but the Courts are still ok with simpler empirical analyses, right? Like Reynolds v Sims established "One (person), one vote". It's not supposed to be exact (in fact it would be impossible to make exact), but if it turned out that one legislative district had 3 times as many people living in it than another, then some district court would intervene, right? And they'd be operating off of empirical analysis, albeit a very simple one. Or a more common case: disparate impact. You don't have to show intent -just inequitable results, and you show inequitable results through statistical analysis. I understand that the gerrymandering is a bit dicier, since there's an open question of constitutional law.. Now I could understand, though I'd disagree, if the Justices' argument were along the lines of, "Sure this is clearly unfair, but there's unfairness built into the Constitution (like the structure of the Senate), and so we can't do anything about it." But instead they seem to be questioning the very fact that it's unfair.
  10. Hey guys, it's a been a while since I posted here, but I saw this fivethirty egiht article and was wondering if any lawyers could comment: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-is-allergic-to-math/ It's about the gerrymandering in Wisconsin case initially, but it's also about general anti-intellectualism regarding empircal and statistical methods in the Supreme Court and legal profession in general. It's obvious that it's mostly partisanship that will determine the gerrymandering case, but even Stephen Breyer expressed skepticism: And John Roberts famously called it "sociological gobblygook" What's astounding to me is that the people drawing districts are clearly using sophisticated empirical models. If the Supreme Court is generally dismissive of using less sophisticated methods to monitor what legislators do, then that means legislators could essentially run rings around any SC decision. What the solution? Do we need lawyers to be better at math? Or maybe assign each Justice a team of statisticians or data scientists in addition to their current staffs?
  11. Hey does anybody here know any lower level football coaches I could talk to? I'm working on a football data visualization project and could use input from someone who know what he or she is talking about. We have a dataset with player positions for a couple high-ish level club friendly matches and would like some input as to whether some of the stuff we're doing would be useful.
  12. Best outcome is McGregor forgets where he is and knocks Floyd out with a knee or kick before getting DQed
  13. Other possible matchups: Cristiano Ronaldo v. Lebron James one on one in basketball Leo Messi at shortstop for the Yankees Tom Brady as a center midfielder for Bayern Munich
  14. So Trump is obviously just a populist struggling with the system while Obama was compromised by the front row kids as soon as he stepped foot in Washington.
  15. I think you might be giving the board a bit too much credit on that one. My impression of her personal advice threads was always that she'd already made up her mind.