civilized

Forgive my ignorance - is that true even for non-synonymous mutations? They usually have a hard time disrupting the big structure?

If the mutations were non-synonymous, resulting in different amino acids, the fact that they keep the natural function is still kinda cool. Very much a pure research result AFAICT, but worth a little something.

Yes, I see. There's a desire to map intervals pointwise through functions, but also a desire to produce intervals by all-pairs calculations, and the impossibility of representing both interpretations in one notation leads to some inconsistencies.

> Why x^2 isn't always x * x

It turns out he's claiming they're different if x^2 is interpreted as squaring each element in the interval x, while x * x is interpreted as a cross product: the interval obtained by multiplying all pairs of elements in the interval. But I haven't ever seen anyone use x^2 to mean pointwise squaring on an interval x. Is that some kind of standard notation?

Not your mistake, he does his best to imply that the hats are dropping on heads.

He's got a future in marketing.

But is that "willingness to do for a low price" some kind of inherent property of artists as a group of people, or does it come from somewhere else? (The "or" here is not necessarily XOR.)

What if it all comes down to supply and demand? Maybe the supply of artists is much greater than the demand for art, while for tech products it is reversed?

In the past I have thought about it as you do. But it occurs to me now that this is also a property of tech products, isn't it? These products can be built by a small team and serve millions or billions of people. The most successful ones usually expand the team (Google Maps now employs over 7,000 people!) but it remains true that only a small team is really needed to keep the thing going.

So why are tech employees thought of differently than entertainers? Why is the math so different, such that tech employees have much more predictable and favorable employment prospects?

This is the real story. Mouse Jiggles a Key Performance Indicator at Major US Bank.

While the law allows it, in my opinion there is no real moral basis for a company to lay claim to all of an employee's time. If the employee is sufficiently responsive and productive, there is no issue. If not, the company can dismiss the employee. There is no reason for the company to have more surveillance and control power over the employee than this.

Providing objective, accurate, relevant contextual information that reasonably makes people outraged is not in itself an appeal to emotion and outrage.

The information is relevant to how we view Wells Fargo as an ethical entity. Bad food in the cafeteria would not be relevant.

Why not go even further? Why not say that the whistleblower was wrong and Microsoft business leadership was right? Maybe their profits from ignoring this issue have been fantastic, and the externalities from e.g. mass theft of national security secrets are not Microsoft's problem.

I think that context about the company in the article is context about the article, but I understand your difference of opinion.

To see my point, consider this pull quote from Wells Fargo which is contained in the article:

> “Wells Fargo holds employees to the highest standards and does not tolerate unethical behavior,” a company spokesperson said in a statement.

It is important to understand that this is coming from a company whose recent unethical behavior went far beyond what anyone really thought plausible.

Many of you will be familiar with this story: military pilot gear was once designed for the average person, but then they realized that actually, most people deviate significantly from the average in at least one way. So they made the gear adjustable, and that greatly improved performance and reduced mistakes.

Why is it that in tech we are often told a seemingly contrary narrative -- that everything is better, or at least more profitable, when targeted to some hypothetical average person, and who cares about the diversity of individuals?

Leetcode-style tech interviews fall far short of standardized tests. In real standardized tests, the same questions are given to everyone, and effort is made to develop new questions not known to the test takers.

They're more like a standardized test than a pure shoot-the-shit interview is, but still pretty far away.