Snowden (Reading 06 Response)

This June will mark 3 years since Edward Snowden, former contractor for the CIA, leaked upwards of millions of documents (so much that the U.S. government and maybe even Snowden himself do not know the exact amount) to the media, exposing the details of the NSA’s extensive internet and phone monitoring.  Some look upon his actions and hail him as a hero, as some champion for data privacy in a world in which 1984-esque governments attempt to find new ways to monitor their citizens or access our private information.  Others see him as a traitor who, in an act of arrogance, “threw the secrets he knew up in the air –  and trusted, somehow, that good would come of it” and should be willing to face the consequences and accept whatever punishment his actions bring, whether that’s jail time or a duel with a Stormtrooper.  I would argue that Snowden is a hero, albeit one whose good intentions were marred by actions that he was either unaware of how harmful they could be or simply believed what harm they caused would ultimately be outweighed by their good.

There is no denying that some good has come from Snowden’s leaks.  American citizens are now fully aware of their government’s monitoring of their private activities and of the fact that these broad stretches/abuses of government power in the name of patriotism actually had not even succeeded once in stopping a terrorist attack.  Snowden in essence opened the eyes of every American citizen and got them off a path of slowly relinquishing their right to privacy under the pretense of protection.  However, it’s how Snowden achieved this (by downloading the documents and handing them off to the media) that is problematic.  While his actions were morally right in that he was shedding light on an abuse of power, they were not entirely ethical in execution and the amount of collateral damage caused.

First is the fact that he went to the media with his information instead of pursuing some other legally viable option, though this can still be forgiven in light of the fact that high ranking government officials in support of the widespread surveillance would have done very little to change their actions.  Second is the fact that Snowden chose to simply collect and then release a massive amount of documents to the media, trusting them to sort through all of the information and report on the important matters.  While it is understandable why he would elect to release that much information instead of a select few documents (while the initial uproar may have been enough to lead to action against whatever practice was leaked, the public would have still been unaware on how pervasive the abuse of power was), doing so gave the media, who is ultimate concern is selling papers/getting views online, the unique opportunity to whip the public into an uproar with each new bit of information disseminated from the leaks.  This has not only place a stigma on the U.S. in terms of foreign relations, but also exposed the inner working of U.S. intelligence to friend and foe alike, weakening America’s economic advantage in foreign markets, and eroding public confidence in the government.

Should he face the consequences of his actions?  In light of the damages his leaks caused, yes, though he’s probably more deserving of the punishments befitting someone who has broken the terms of a contract than an actual traitor.  In my opinion, Snowden’s actions, both heroic and damaging, paint him as a bit of an enigma in my mind, one who’s good deeds might honestly be evenly weighed with his bad.  On one hand, I agree with his opinion that the ability to conduct mass surveillance of ordinary citizens is too much power for one man or organization.  On the other, I still believe that we no longer live in a world where the bad guys where a single uniform and fight on clearly defined battle lines.  The information age has ironically made the world more opaque and we’re fighting wars against beliefs and ideals whose soldiers strike us from the shadows.  I still believe that is where we must do battle.  But with these leaks and the repercussions of Snowden’s actions, I’m afraid the public will swing from one extreme (mass surveillance) to the other (no monitoring whatsoever, both domestic and foreign).  I am by no means arguing for mass surveillance.  Instead, thanks to Snowden, I, and hopefully others in this great nation, am left reflecting about how governments are given power through a social contract in which the governed relinquish some of their freedom in exchange for protection and the benefits of society as a whole.  We as a nation should be working together to help shape our government and create systems which create this balance of personal freedom and general security.

Interview Guide Reflection (Project 02)

This Interview Guide was created by Dinh Do (ddo), Chris Ray (cray), and Nathan Vahrenberg (nvahrenb).

From my experience, the most important sections of the guide are the ones detailing when and how to start preparing for interviews as well as advice on general and alumni networking.  During my internship and job searches I found that being prepared well in advance for an interview (e.g. having brushed up on my OOP, algorithms, data structures, etc. as well as having researched the company and position) was directly related to how calm and confident in my answers I was during the interview itself.  Conversely, for those interviews where I went in having not reviewed some computer science concepts and or only researched the company the night before I often found myself nervous and occasionally struggling to come up a satisfying answer, at least a satisfying answer to me, on the spot.  While I’m not saying that you have to go to Batman levels of preparation in order to nail an interview, doing a little homework in advance can reduce a lot of stress in the moment.

During my most recent job search was often kicking myself for not realizing how important networking was during previous years.  Perhaps the one thing I know now that I wish my younger self understood was how many doors networking can open.  I sometimes wish I could go back in time and tell the younger me, “Don’t look at it like you’re playing some stupid game of kissing up to people.  Look at it as a proto-interview, a chance to know a company, employee, recruiter, etc. in a more casual setting and jump-start the whole interview process since the employer will already somewhat know you.”  Perhaps that greatest bit of advice about networking (though perhaps it would better be described as an amusing anecdote) I have ever heard was from my mentor at an internship one summer:  “I’ve had interviews where I’d already met the guy.  I knew I wanted to hire him so we spent the whole time talking football.”

While there is and will most likely always be a high demand for engineers, I feel as if most engineering students (and by extension college students)these days are trying to focus on classes and activities that they know will beef up their resumes while universities not traditionally geared towards sending people into industry seem to gear their curricula towards academia.  I am by no means saying that one side is better than the other, but am instead wondering if there are universities that offer students the choice between gearing their college path towards industry or academia.  If universities gave students a path that would prepare them for industry, such as by offering classes on modern day industry practices or chances to alternate between working and studying during semesters in order to gain valuable experience, I feel as though those students would be able to enter the professional world with significantly greater advantages than we have today.  For example, the Notre Dame CSE program could offer the chance for students to work during odd semesters and study during even semesters in order to gain industry experience as well as offer classes to those students who are confident that they want to enter the job market a wider array of business classes, classes in the most commonly used languages in industry, classes on how to develop startups/new product ideas, etc.

Remembering Challenger (Reading 05 Response)

January 28, 2016 marked the 30-year anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.  The events of that day are well documented for the most part:  73 seconds into the flight the shuttle broke apart, leading to the deaths of all 7 crew members.  The cause of this disaster, one so costly and devastating that it grounded the shuttle program for 3 years,  is two-fold.

First, from an engineering perspective, there’s failure of the O-ring seal of the shuttle’s right solid rocket booster (SRB).  When subjected to low temperatures (< 50 degrees F) such as those present on the day of the launch, the O-rings become brittle and can no longer form the necessary seal  This material failure allowed pressurized, high-temperature gas to leak from the SRB and impinge on the shuttle’s external tank (ET), leading to the complete structural failure of the system.

Second is the fact that the shuttle was even allowed to launch in the first place.  Engineers at Morton Thiokol, the NASA contractor who had manufactured the SRB’s, had warned about the risk the cold weather the morning of the launch posed and even recommended waiting until it was at least 54 degrees F before launch.  Despite these warnings and recommendation, NASA managers decided to proceed with the launch.  From Nasa’s perspective, launching a shuttle carrying the first U.S. civilian into space with millions of Americans would demonstrate the value of the shuttle program in the eyes of American government and public.  From Nasa’s perspective, the possibility of O-ring failure wasn’t hazardous enough to warrant serious concern.

Roger Boisjoly, one the Morton Thiokol engineers who had warned NASA about the launch, would later pass on his personal files to the Rogers Commission, which was assigned to investigate the Challenger disaster, as well as secretly meet with an NPR reporter to disclose details of the problems at Morton Thiokol.  These acts not only branded him as a whistleblower, but also left him shunned by his colleagues, cut off from any space-related work by Thiokol, and blackballed from the space industry by NASA.  In essence, his life became a living hell.  But was it worth it?

While the hindsight offered by looking back at the Challenger disaster 30 years later would place Boisjoly firmly on the moral high ground for reporting his findings to the public, would his actions still be ethically sound in the context of 1986?  In short, yes.  Boisjoly’s passing on his files to the Rogers Commission did not involve going outside of approved channels in order to raise legitimate concerns about safety and well-being.  Even the seemingly ethically ambiguous act of meeting with the NPR reporter 3 months after the disaster was still in the right as his request for anonymity left it out of the public eye.  Boisjoly unmistakably did the right thing in handing over his information.  Why would it be ethically wrong for an engineer to hand over information that would help identify the cause of a disaster (one that has already happened mind you) and hopefully help prevent future disasters?  That’s basically telling engineers to go against everything that have been trained to do in order to protect their careers.

If there was any ethical wrongdoing committed during the investigation into the Challenger disaster, it would definitely rest with Morton Thiokol and NASA’s actions towards Boisjoly.  Again, Boisjoly had acted within approved channels.  The only “crime” he had committed was not submitting to the groupthink and providing evidence that painted those organizations in a bad light.  The fact that NASA and Thiokol reacted with such magnitude only makes them look even worse in light of the disaster, like a child throwing a fit when he finds out he’s in trouble.  Not only was it unethical in the fact that undue harm was caused to Boisjoly for doing nothing wrong, it was unethical in again perpetuating a culture of trying to find excuses not to act (and thus protect careers) as opposed to genuinely trying to protect customers.

Boisjoly’s story is an example of both the good and bad aspects of whistleblowing.  Whistleblowing is good in that it exposes unethical and possibly dangerous practices, leading to public scrutiny, organizational overhauls, etc, all of which ultimately lead to safer products and more well protected customers.  It’s bad in that company cultures will most likely shun the whistleblower for going against the flow and rocking the boat, the magnitude of the retaliation depending on the legal avenues which the company has at is disposal (i.e. the company will probably take different actions depending on whether or not the whistleblower acted within approved channels).  Whistleblowers can therefore seen as a weird mix of saint, martyr, and vigilante, sacrificing themselves so that we the customers may live a better life.  They either die a hero, or live long enough to see themselves become the villain…

ubuntu (Reading Response 04)

Yes, I am fully aware that the title of this post in the context of computer science most commonly refers to one of the most popular Linux distributions.  However, the “ubuntu” I am referring to in the title is the South African philosophy of “human-ness,” “humanity towards others,” or the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity.”  I chose this title because I firmly believe that this philosophy can be applied to more than just great open-source software.  I believe that people practicing “ubuntu” could help solve one of the tech industry’s biggest problems:  the lack of diversity.

Let’s start off by asking the question:  is there really a diversity problem in the tech industry?  Well, if the relatively recent release of Google’s workforce demographics is anything to go by, then the answer is a solid yes.  Is this an issue that really needs to be addresses?  Well, the fact that several major tech companies are making efforts to improve the diversity of their workforce certainly points to it being a problem that needs solving.  But if we want to attempt to resolve this issue, we must first understand where this imbalance in demographics comes from.  Let me preface this next section by saying that these are just some of my opinions as to why the lack of diversity in tech has arisen, which I have formed through both the readings as well as my personal experience.  I realize that my perspective on life will not fully cover the full range of experiences felt by everyone in the tech industry who feels the effect of this lack of diversity and I welcome and encourage additional view points and discussions.

One of the major factors that contributes to the imbalance in demographics in tech is the set of stereotypes associated with the tech industry, e.g. pale, socially awkward nerds with a love for gaming, D&D, etc. who have been coding for most of their life.  There’s even a whole show dedicated to satirizing all of these stereotypes!

I’ve mentioned before how the real danger of stereotypes isn’t the stereotypes themselves, but the lack of awareness of their presence and using them for discrimination.  The stereotypes about the tech industry and community are no exception.  In this case, the lack of awareness of how harmful the current stereotypes of the tech industry really are as well as the media’s constant perpetuation of those stereotypes have pushed away many great, intelligent people who wold have thrived in the supposed meritocracy of Silicon Valley.  We now have scenarios where students are choosing to study other fields because they feel they won’t fit in with the hackers (less people study computer science = less people entering industry = less innovation = ??? = less profit) or, in the worst case, people are being actively discriminated against by either being passed over for job opportunities or being the subject of racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks simply because they “don’t fit the culture.”

Not only are minorities and women facing these obstacles created by the tech industry stereotypes, they also face the added pressure to “overcome” their negative stereotypes to even be considered on par with their coworkers.  Victor Foreman felt it while searching for internships in Silicon Valley.  On a more personal note, I have a friend who faces this “stereotype threat” everyday here at Notre Dame.  I’ve comforted them while they broke down in tears from the pressure to perform at a level where, in their mind, they can prove to everyone around them that they actually belong at this school.  Even though they are one of the smartest, most thoughtful individuals I have ever had the privilege of meeting, I’ve helped them through sleepless nights, panic attacks, and multiple discussions of just throwing in the towel and dropping out because they are afraid of reinforcing negative stereotypes.  It’s absolutely heartbreaking to see it happen in front of you and to realize that it happens to many other people as well.

So what needs to change?  The way I see it, there needs to be a set of short term solutions to try and remedy the current diversity issues with the tech industry as well as a set of long term solutions to ensure that these issues die out with time.  The short term solutions would work to create a more accepting environment for all people, removing the “stereotype threat.”  Programs like Google in Residence and Code2040 or even simple acts like creating codes of conduct to establish guidelines of acceptable behavior would hopefully create the safe, collaborative learning environments that foster the innovation and growth necessary for the Valley’s meritocracy.  The long term solutions are about providing everyone with an interest in tech with the resources needed to develop their skills as well as working to redefine the stereotypes associated with the tech industry to make a career in Silicon Valley more appealing to all, such as Harvey Mudd’s strategy for increasing the number of women computer science majors.

All in all, solving the issue of diversity in the tech industry comes back to ubuntu.  If we all work together to create an environment of sharing and uplifting all people who surround us…  well not to sound stereotypical, but we would be making the world a better place.  Take it away Tommy Wiseau…

 

Balance (Reading Response 03)

Going through the readings for this week was…  Okay let’s be honest, it was kind of depressing.  Reading both posts by the Slaughter family (cool name by the way) made me think that perhaps it’s impossible for men and women to “have it all,” to strike that magical balance between climbing the career ladder while maintaining your idyllic family life.  Not gonna lie, this is an issue I’ve also grappled with in my personal life, having turned down the chance to interview for a job position after learning that the job would require changing positions, most likely with relocation, every 6 months.  I know what you must be thinking:  “But you’re young and mobile!  You shouldn’t be thinking about settling down right now!”  To that I have…  nothing really to say.  I have no comeback or witty response.  All I can do is shrug and say, “Sorry, but my family will ultimately always come first.”

So it seems we’re at an impasse.  On one hand I feel the pull of the tech industry to be constantly giving everything I have to my work.  On the other, I feel the budding paternal drive to be present in my family’s life.  Though I do believe that achieving a perfect balance between work and life is impossible, unless of course you are some superhuman with unlimited energy and no need to sleep, I do believe it is possible for men and women to reach a balance that is suitable for their particular lives, but will ultimately involve sacrifices on either side.  Being available for your kid’s adolescent years might mean sacrificing a more prestigious position.  Maintaining an executive position might mean careful coordination with your significant other.  The point I’m trying to make is that men and women should prioritize what is most important to them, and then shape their lives around those priorities.  As a mentor at a previous internship once told me, “Work life balance isn’t something that magically happens, it’s something you make for yourself.”  When it’s time for me to start my career and family, I’ll take the time to reflect on my priorities and decide what sacrifices need to be made to achieve a balance I am comfortable living with.

On that point, I think companies should do what they can to accommodate workers and the priorities they set for their lives, e.g. a mother should NEVER be punished for choosing to have children and stay home to raise them during some of the most critical stages in their development.  Companies like Facebook and Google are already making strides in this area by providing things like generous maternal and paternal leave, “baby cash,” etc., but I think these are only bandaids, temporary solutions to a much larger problem.  What really needs to change is the general attitude towards treating work as the “be all end all” of life, not just in tech but across all industries.  Doing so proactively as opposed to waiting for the leaders of industries to age and start families of their own would result in many of the issues involving work life balance being solved or at least significantly reduced.

As to whether or not companies today are ethically obliged to help their workers achieve work life balance, I couldn’t say for sure.  After all, a company’s goal is to produce the best product possible and it makes sense to strive for a workforce composed of only the best.  What I will say is this:  Look at Google.  Google shows that you can still be competitive while maintaining a happy workforce.

Response to the ND CSE Manifesto and Portrait (Project 1)

Please look here for the original post.  

The manifesto is more of eulogy honoring ND CSE students than a war cry.  It was meant to describe to the rest of the world the general ethos of the average CSE student:  innovators, creators, boundary-pushers from all walks of life united by our passion for our field, our Notre Dame community, and by our desire to serve others.  That dedication to service is actually why we decided to frame the eulogy as a speech honoring an ND CSE student, possibly one inspires them and others, as opposed to the more militant proclamation made in the Conscience of a Hacker.  At least from what we could tell, ND CSE students, possibly due to the fact that we get to live in an academic environment with ample opportunities to follow our intellectual pursuits that actively encourages service and giving back to the community, do not feel anger or animosity when it comes to defending their field and their individual curiosities.

As for my personal thoughts and feelings, the manifesto does reflect my beliefs…  for the most part.  While deep down I like believe that, to at least my friends, families, and acquaintances who aren’t as knowledgeable about computer science and tech, I am as ripped and sweet as the manifesto makes ND CSE students out to be, on a more day-to-day basis I find the manifesto a tad idealistic.  Maybe it’s because I’m still a college student who hasn’t even started his career, but when you’re only writing code that will be run only once for an assignment or by an extremely limited number of people as part of a research project on a daily basis, you do sometimes lose track of how awesome ND CSE can be.

 

The portrait seemed to successfully capture and image of the general population of ND CSE students.  Reading through it I found myself identifying with almost all of the descriptions, except for the part about physical activities (being perfectly honest, I fit more of the stereotype of the nerd who stays in a little too much playing World of Warcraft Skyrim Diablo Hearthstone Fallout).  One thing I noticed though was that the portrait could possibly also be used to describe the Notre Dame student body as a whole, with the exception of a few specific points such as experimenting with technology and reading tech articles.  This is probably due to the fact that Notre Dame students in general fit a very specific profile.

As humorous of a read as the portrait was, reading through it got me thinking about how much stereotypes influence how I, and all other people, view the world.  It makes sense why:  we are constantly being bombarded by a wealth of sensory information that would overwhelm us if we did not compartmentalize and sort it for later use.  While there is no doubt that nobody is a fan of complete sensory overload, the real danger of this is not being aware that we stereotype on a daily basis and using stereotypes as a way to actively discriminate or bully people.  The presence of the ND CSE Manifesto and Portrait is not harmful by its mere existence.  In fact I hope it creates a positive stereotype  of computer science for the people who read it.  The danger is in how people will use it.  I guess when all and said and done, no matter how pervasive a stereotype is, both good and bad, there will never be a substitute for actually taking the time to get to know a person.

The ND CSE Manifesto and Portrait (Project 1)

By Dinh Do (ddo), Chris Ray (cray), and Nathan Vahrenberg (nvahrenb)

The ND CSE Manifesto

We are the children of revolution.  The history of our field is filled with stories of how young upstarts who came seemingly out of nowhere took the world by storm, disturbing the status quo and sticking it to “the man.”  In 1976, 3 guys in a garage, like a modern-day Prometheus, brought computing power to the masses.  In 1996, 2 students began a research project that would give the English language a new verb and give the masses, for the first time in history, access to all of humanity’s collective knowledge.  The world as we know it today would not be possible if not for this legacy, a legacy we are poised to inherit and carry on.

We are the innovators of a new frontier.  We stand at the crossroads of math, engineering, and art, yet we stand as something completely different.  We’re the weird kids who decided to make a new game using everyone else’s rules.  To some, that makes us frauds, upstarts who stand on the shoulders of giants and shouldn’t be counted among their prestigious ranks.  To others, we’re just a bunch of geeks and nerds.  But we know better than that.  We know who we are.

We’re the creators.  Through our hopefully theoretical blood and our all too real sweat and tears, we have the power to create anything within the realms of our imaginations.  We’ve built tools as simple as a command line calculator and as complex as a protein-folding simulator.  We’ve produced content of all forms, whether it be text, images, videos, etc., and have created a way to share it with world.  We’ve created entire virtual worlds to explore and filled them with people we’ve breathed life into.  And given time, we may even help bring forth new, artificial life.

We’re the boundary-pushers.  We don’t look at a challenge and shy away with fear.  We simply smirk before charging in, the words of Master Yoda echoing in our head:  “Do or do not, there is no try.”  To those who say a project will take 5 days, we say we’ll do it in 5 hours.  To those who say our creation is groundbreaking, we ask how we can take it even further.  To those who say it’s never been done before, we say we’ll be the first to succeed where others have failed.  To those who say it’s impossible, we say bring it.

We’re the do-gooders. Ingrained in our psyche is the insatiable desire to work for the common good. We dream big and aspire to use technology to eradicate diseases, uproot inequality, stop crime and eliminate poverty. Impossible, you say? Maybe. But our greatest fear is doing nothing. We will never stop.

Most importantly of all, we are ND.  We are part of a community united by our love of God, country, and Notre Dame.

The future is uncertain and full of endless possibilities, be we will be there on the forefront, ready to guide our fellow man into the light of a new age.

 

Portrait of an ND CSE Student (a.k.a. The Odds are Good, but the Goods are Odd)

Appearance and Dress

Mostly well-dressed, but not formal. Plenty of Notre Dame attire. CSE students are dressed the same as the general student body at Notre Dame. You wouldn’t be able to point out a CSE student just by the way they dress. Jeans, t-shirts, occasional flannel. Regular college attire. More are clean-shaven than not.

Reading Habits

They like to read, but don’t read as frequently as the used to – not enough time in the day. The average student desires to read more than they do, but don’t have as much time as they used to. Reading has also shifted away from paper novels and more toward online articles and “quick fix” reads. Assigned readings can be hit or miss: Most CSE students don’t mind assigned readings as long as they’re somewhat relevant or interesting. Technology news sites are popular, as well as sites that aggregate content like Reddit.

Other Interests

Experimenting with technology, and using what they can find to create something useful. Socializing, whether in small groups or large. Video games are popular. Students think highly of most of their classes and professors at ND, and appreciate classes with obvious relevance to the professional workplace.

Physical Activity and Sports

Club or recreational sports are far more common than varsity-level competitive team sports, although casual pickup games of soccer or football are common. Individual sports (like biking or skiing) are also well-represented. A generally athletically fit group, despite a sometimes less-than-healthy diet, particularly around finals week.

Education

34% of students were ranked in the top 1% of their class, and 75% were ranked in the top 5%. Most have very high SAT and ACT scores. 40% came from a public high school, 40% came from a Catholic private high school. Interestingly, many CSE students are relatively new to coding, and did not know any programming before the middle of their high school career. A good portion had their first coding experience on campus.

Gender and Ethnicity

Approximately 75% of students are caucasian, and while Notre Dame’s full admitted class is 47% female, about 25% of CSE students are female. However, CSE students come from a very diverse background independent of skin color. Students could come from any economic or social background.

Religion

The vast majority of CSE students are Catholic, and a large number of the remaining percentage are Christian of some denomination. Despite atheism and agnosticism making up a sizable portion of the “hacker ethos,” that population does not seem to be well-represented at Notre Dame.

Communication Style

Electronic communication is popular just by necessity: video chat, text messaging, Facebook group messages, etc. Interestingly, CSE students tend to prefer to meet in person to work on group projects, even if it means walking a good distance in terrible weather. Most likely this is to boost productivity compared to group messages.

Geographical Distribution

The vast majority of students are American citizens and/or live full-time in the United States. Some are international students. Of the international students, many plan to stay in America after graduation.

Post-Graduation Plans

A large majority of the class will be entering the workforce after graduation. Few to none plan to start their own software business, and most will be working for very large, well-known technology companies as software developers. Even among the more hardware-focused Computer Engineering majors, software-oriented jobs are more sought-after.

Miscellaneous

There are very few ways that an average CSE student differs from an average ND student. It would be nearly impossible to determine if someone was a CSE student or not just by looking at them.  

 

On Interviews (Reading 02 Response)

At the time of this blog post I am still in the middle of the interview process with a few companies, so apologies in advance for the overall vagueness of the response.

The job interview process I’ve been going through for the past couple few months has followed pretty much the exact same formula for every position I have applied to:

1. Submit your application.
2. Make a good 1st impression during the initial phone screen.
3. Make a 2nd good 1st impression during the 2nd phone interview.
4. Make several more good 1st impressions during the followup phone and on-site interviews.
5. ???
6. Profit…  or get rejected and repeat the entire process all over again while trying to maintain your sanity.

I think I’ve been doing well so far during this process, with most interviews having ended with me confident in the answers I gave as well we me and the interviewer(s) having friendly conversations on subjects ranging from work life to the coolest little restaurants in Hawaii.  Really have to give a special mention to Notre Dame’s Career Center here for helping me prepare with all the resume reviews and practice interviews.

What really surprised me was that for all but a few companies, none of the interviews required me to do any coding or submit examples of my previous work.  One would think that a company that’s looking to hire computer scientists/programmers, or anyone who has applied for a technical position for that matter, would want to test out skills.  If this was me a year ago applying to internships, I would’ve simply discounted it as a simple lucky break.  Now, especially after my internship experience last summer, I’m more inclined to think, and be be thankful for the fact, that maybe these companies really are just looking for people with the capacity to quickly ramp up to their responsibilities in their position as well as successfully integrate and possibly become leaders within their workplace.

The only thing that has really frustrated me so far during this process is the wait period between each of the steps.  While in the grand schemes it really is only a minor inconvenience and I have no control over what’s happening over at the company’s HR Department, the anxiety of not knowing how you did during a step during an interview as well as the sheer uncertainty of your future career dangling in front of you can become overwhelming, especially during the school year.  Though, I will admit that it is exciting to realize that in a few months all of this anxiety will be gone and I will have an idea about where I’ll be living and what I’ll be doing as the start of my career.

Overall, I personally don’t have any qualms with the general interview process as it is.  Just learning the basics of interviewing, being professional, and being honest with who you are goes a long way.   In terms of efficiency, I think the process could be faster or at least the wait times between responses could be reduced, though I do understand that this is a really difficult goal to accomplish due to the multiple factors at play at each company’s HR Department.  Increasing efficiency could also run the risk of resorting to methods that would allow interviewers to quickly filter through candidates, methods that may or may not accurately reflect how a candidate will actually perform when interacting in the work environment with coworkers.  In terms of effectiveness, I think the odds of an ill-suited candidate making it through the entire process drop with each interview round.  In other words, while an ill-suited candidate may be able to smooth-talk their way through the earlier rounds, they are eventually going to be outclassed by more qualified candidates as the rounds become more and more selective.  Finally, in terms of whether or not the process is humane and ethical, I have not personally encountered interview situations which could be considered humane or unethical such as what happened to Steve Shrogan.  While I do not know whether or not such interview practices are the norm, I think most people and company’s would agree that an interview process like Steve’s would would be considered unethical, would ultimately hurt the company’s reputation, and should definitely not be considered something worth emulating.  An interview should ultimately be viewed as a relationship:  if the interviewer and the company they represent do their best to make the process as smooth and non-nerve-wracking as possible and the interviewee does what they can to be professional and make that good first impression, the result is an interview that either ends with an offer or ends with the interviewee walking away with no hard feelings and recommending that their friends apply.  If either side fails to put in their effort, then neither side wins.

Hippie vs Hipster (Reading 01 Response)

I’m not going to lie…  As I type this post late at night in the comfort of my room, peering at the Portrait of J. Random Hacker , I’m flashing back to my sophomore and junior years and the multiple night’s I’ve spent caffeinated during long hacking runs for either school assignments or whatever coding side project I happened to be interested in.  I’m even find myself laughing at the surprisingly/creepily accurate descriptions of my wardrobe, sports interests, reading interests, etc.

Humorous (and almost stalker-level accurate) descriptions aside, these articles show that there is a disconnect between how larger society views/defines hackers and how hackers view /define themselves.  There even seems to be some contention within the hacker community as well!

Mentioning the word “hacker” to someone without technical/computer background will most likely illicit images people locked in their dark rooms, illuminated only by the light of their monitors, furiously typing away as they digitally infiltrate some corporation or government’s security for reasons ranging from espionage, to terrorism, to online bullying, to “the lulz”.  While those people certainly exist and definitely have a reputation over-inflated by the media, they represent only a facet of what constitutes the hacker community.

My personal opinion of what a hacker is aligns pretty closely with the descriptions given in the articles and the description I think most of the hacker community would ascribe to:  an individual with an almost insatiable sense of curiosity that leads them to do things like take stuff apart in order to figure out how they really work and push the boundaries of what can be done simply for the challenge.  The are, in essence, innovators with the same revolutionary, counterculture spirit that would not be out of place at Woodstock.  Given this definition, I would normally be quick to say that I am not really a hacker.  Yeah I do enjoy taking toys apart and looking and open-source code form time to time to learn how things work.  Yeah I do enjoy reading articles about technology and new discoveries.  However, ask any one of my friends or relatives and they will most likely laugh at the notion of me having any sort of rebellious side.  This revolutionary attitude is what seems to be one of the most important elements of the hacker archetype, even more than the desire to learn and create.  Or is it?

With the rise of Silicon Valley came a redefinition, or as Brett Scott put it, a gentrification of the hacker archetype.  Hackers are no longer playful troublemakers looking to challenge convention for the sake of curiosity, but rather quirky (dare I say “hipster”) innovators who love getting things done and solving problems for profit.  While that redefinition does make it tempting to call myself a hacker, there is a sense of dysphoria that comes from these two characterizations that prevents me from ultimately making that jump or from even fully accepting that redefinition.

On one hand you have the hippie hackers, the ones with the rebellious streak who hack websites and break code for the sake of curiosity and fun.  To identify with them would be to lie to or trick myself into believing that I too share those revolutionary tendencies.  On the other hand you have the hipster Silicon Valley crowd, the startups who like to portray themselves as the “underdogs” despite being part of the now incredibly wealthy and influential tech industry.  To identify with them seems to coincide with everything that my engineering career here at Notre Dame has been leading up to, yet I can’t help but romanticize the notion of the hippie, rebellious, innovator hacker, as if that archetype is what I should really be striving to be.

I guess all I can do right now is be content with my title of “Computer Scientist” as this civil war over definition works itself out.  Who knows, maybe this myriad of forces will yield a definition that I can wholeheartedly identify with, not unlike how computer science is the beautiful crossroads of math, engineering, and individual innovation.  Maybe this fight is just the inevitable result of a field born from rebellion finally reaching maturity.  Maybe this is all just the ramblings of a student who’s reached the end of another highly caffeinated night.

 

Reading 00 Response

The Parable of the Talents tells the story of a man who entrusts 3 of his servants with some of his money before heading off on a long journey.  The first 2 servants go out and invest what they were given, doubling what they each had, which the 3rd, slightly fearful of his master, does nothing with what he was given.  The parable ends with the first 2 servants being praised and rewarded by their returning master and the 3rd servant being punished.

While the word “talents” used in the parable refers specifically to money used back in the 1st century AD, the modern use of the word still lends itself well to the lesson being conveyed.  God has given every one of His children gifts and He wants all of us to use those gifts to the best of our abilities.  While some of His children may seem more gifted/talented than others, He will still reward those who actually use what they have been given.  The parable even somewhat harkens back to the original task God gave Adam and Eve (and all of humanity by extension) of being the stewards of creation in that God will reward those who use their gifts to care for the world and ultimately leave it in a better state than they found it.  Going into an even broader interpretation and relating the parable to Christianity as a whole, the man leaving on a journey represents Jesus’s ascension into heaven and his eventual return, where he will judge and ultimately reward us, his servants, for remaining faithful and using our talents for the greater good.

The lesson taught by the Parable of the Talents should especially resonate with computer scientists and engineers.  Computers and software now play a part in nearly every aspect of daily life.  Computers in cars control a range of functions from giving driving directions to controlling the brakes.  Companies like Amazon utilize software to carry out transactions on a global scale.  There are even microprocessors embedded in some pacemakers to control their function.  The number of roles computers fill in daily life will only continue to grow, and with it the amount of responsibility and accountability computer scientists and engineers should be held to.  These individuals have a unique set of talents and gifts that allow them to influence many areas of society thanks to how pervasive computers are.  With that influence comes the potential of both unintentionally or intentionally causing serious harm to society, from minor inconveniences like web applications slowing down due to the number of users  to major controversies like massive data leaks (e.g. the iCloud leaks) or entire airline systems being going down.  In short, all computer scientists and engineers, regardless of religious affiliation, have a responsibility to society as a whole to use their talents and gifts for the benefit of all mankind, ensuring that the products they create have been developed using the best standards and practices available and that they adhere to some set of principles that protect the rights and lives of all users.