"Designer" is a very broad term and can mean very different things to different people, not everyone is doing stuff that can be represented nicely by vectors.
It's not about the rate of speaking but rather about what is actually being spoken. I am currently going through the Neetcode DSA course and it's just obnoxious. His video on Union Find, a 15 LoC algorithm, is 20 minutes.
I've not tried it myself, but I consistently hear good things about Math Academy. It uses a knowledge graph so that it knows whether you've satisfied prerequisites for a topic, and it adapts itself to your level. I've never taken the plunge because it's very expensive at $49 a month, but it seems to be the one that serious maths learners use.
I did the trial of Brilliant the other day. You can get 7 days free, then another 7 days added if you cancel the first trial before the end. After that you can continue to get 2 free lessons per day with ads. I think it's about $20 a month for unlimited lessons. The maths problems are more visual (which makes them quite intuitive) and it has a nicer, more polished UI than Khan Academy. It's easier to stay in the mood for doing more lessons. The main downsides compared to Khan are that the explanations are quite minimal (short descriptions, no videos), and it doesn't reach as advanced a level as Khan. I'm looking at it as more a way to do a refresher on the maths I already learned at school rather than a serious learning tool. If it were $5 a month I'd probably consider subbing for a couple of months and trying to blitz through all the material before switching back to Khan to fill in the gaps.
There is a YC company that makes a coding interview tool. They want you to run their CLI on your machine and trust that it won't do anything malicious, when in fact it installs a bunch of things onto your machine without consent, scans processes, and intercepts requests from AI tools. It's crazy that people think this is acceptable.
> Just that fact that the company expects a candidate to even have their own machine is egregious.
In the company where I work (in recent history, the most valuable company on the planet), there are younger employees who do not own personal computers.
One of them was (with different company now) a Gen Z developer who did not personally own a computer (besides a phone).
Why? There were a lot of people who didn't own a personal computer before 2000 too. It just wasn't needed. And nowadays, it also isn't needed, albeit for different reasons. The time window where it was actually a reasonable assumption that someone has a computer at home was relatively short.
Exactly - personal computers are really just a very "millennial" thing. Only (very) late GenX and millennials grew up with, learned on and interacted with PCs on an hourly basis. By the time GenZs came knocking around, consoles and mobile phones took up the slack, while shitty Chromebooks at school and Google Drive mostly filled in for office-related software.
> > One of them was […] a Gen Z developer who did not personally own a computer (besides a phone).
> > I was floored. Still am.
> Why?
My personal computer is how I learned to be a software developer and how I continue to improve as one. So, it astonishes me that a software developer by trade doesn't own a personal computer.
To help separate my reaction from my personal bias (yeah, not possible), think about how you might feel upon discovering a professional cyclist who did not own a personal bicycle.
Cycling is something your body must physically practice in as close to race conditions as possible to get good results. Programming is not, it's all in your head so to speak. I've been programming from my phone as early as 2013. Yes, I also did program on my PC, but mostly because I already had a PC for unrelated reasons.
A better comparison is a professional influencer. You'd imagine someone posting high effort videos 5-10 times a week would at least have a video camera. Wrong. Most do it with their phones only, that's been the standard for around a decade. If you think about it, why would they buy a video cam? What benefit would be in it? The same thing is now happening with programming and laptops (let alone desktop PCs). It's only bizarre if you live in a world where there's no viable alternative.
It's just another form of authoritarianism, despotism, and oligarchy. Who decides what work is worth rewarding? What about the type of work?
It was always an antidemocratic idea sold to tech workers to stop the idea of questioning the system.
The idea that simply "talented" workers should rule just seems to speed run towards fascist aims. How do you consider which workers are worth more than others? If you do to the wrong school are you suddenly worth less? Do you think society will have certain preferences? What about in our neoliberal society where money is the only purpose to life?
Corporations are the last authoritarian forces we willfully allow to dictate how we live our lives, I think anything to dismantle their power is worth pursuing. If democracy is good enough for states, it should surely be more than good enough for the economy.
As someone who is a big fan of consensus and voice, I don't see how current corporate leadership could get worse if more workers inside the company had more opportunities to direct its future. It's their future too, they need a say and telling people to just leave goes back to the neoliberal decaying value of money above all us.
At the risk of being accused of reductio ad absurdum - do you want companies to be run like American HOAs? If so, do you expect the results to be the same or different than with HOAs?
There are, if not millions of HOAs, surely at least one hundred thousand, but you only hear about the ones being silly.
It's a bit of a lazy punchline, especially because HOAs are one of the purest forms of democracy, they really only exist (barring certain corporate controlled ones that I don't think count) because the people there want them to.
It's not a punchline at all. If HOAs are pure democracy, and businesses should be as democratic as possible, then naturally the ideal structure of a business is very close to HOA, if not identical to HOA.
As far as I know, the vast majority of HOAs fall into "exists only on paper" category, where they have virtually no rules and do virtually nothing except the basic necessities, sometimes they also maintain shared spaces and that's it. They don't even have regular meetings most of the time, only special ones. This is obviously not how a sustainable business can be run.
Of the remaining ones (which is a tiny minority of the grand total), the vast majority are exactly like the horror stories you hear - corruption, nepotism, stupid rules with selective enforcement, interpersonal politics getting in the way of actually getting things done. If a business was run like a HOA, since it cannot be the first kind, I predict it would usually devolve to this within a few years.
I honestly never heard of a single case where HOA 1) does a lot, 2) has comprehensive rules, 3) actually enforces the rules, and 4) isn't a horror story. So I really don't know how such a HOA would operate, what the governance structure would be, how enthusiastic people would be to participate and exercise their voting rights, or how it all would translate into a business. If you know of a case like this, or have a theory how it would play out, please share!
I think HOA discussion is rather getting away from the original point.
Presumably if you were running a corporation as a democracy you'd just go through the same basic stages as a city-state where you rapidly end up with representatives serving terms.
This sort of thing depends wildly on the size/number of people involved of course.
A 5-10 person company doesn't really need much in the way of a power structure, presumably everyone knows what needs to be done and you probably have different specialties anyways so you consult each other when required and then each person does their thing. Perhaps occasionally you need some kind of tie breaking vote.
A manufacturing company employing 50,000 people at every level from (ceo of 50,000 person company) to (effectively minimum wage bolt tightener) is going to need more authority explicitly defined and delegated.
Spending 5 minutes thinking about it, you'd pass the equivalent of a law saying "everyone in this class of (bolt tighteners) must work 20+ hours a week and gets paid $xx.00 an hour and so on and so forth and if they fail to adhere to this then x, y and z happens then get fired".
This law could be passed either by a direct vote or more likely created by a body of representatives.
I don't know offhand of any business that runs this explicitly as a democracy, there's various co-op businesses that do exist but I've never investigated how exactly they run these things.
I don't see anything stopping you from having a company that elects its ceo though.
Cooperation is easy when everybody cooperates and has the same goals. Even in a 100% privately owned company with strict hierarchy and egomaniacal CEO. The problems start when the goals stop aligning or people stop cooperating. And it doesn't sound like you paid any thought to what happens then in a democratic setting.
For example, those bolt tighteners. The joint vote by the tire balancers, CNC operators and facility maintainers has beat the opposition and a resolution was passed that excludes bolt tighteners from annual bonus. Or the bolt tighteners have joined with delivery drivers and passed a rule requiring a certain number of bolts in all new designs whether they make sense or not. Or a hundred other ways in which people can use their vote to put their own self-interest above the shared good.
What are the main forces that keep a democratic workplace like the one you described from collapsing due to bad votes and bad rules?
> What are the main forces that keep a democratic workplace like the one you described from collapsing due to bad votes and bad rules?
The same forces that keep autocratic ones from collapsing due to incompetent owners making bad decisions, which is to say, nothing at all.
I'm too lazy to look up actual stats, but its well known that "most" businesses fail, and if you extens the timeframe long enough they all fail, so this isn't really a problem I need to solve.
A more real problem, if you need one, is probably involving investment to create the company, but that's heavily dependent on the surrounding systems to begin with so where are we stopping this thought experiment?
It feels like you are saying that you are aware that most democratic workplaces would become highly dysfunctional in a short time, and you are okay with it. But then the question is - what exactly is the benefit of workplace democracy if it ends up with high dysfunction just like fully capitalist companies do?
You're looking at this at the wrong angle, a better lens would be: "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" I think optimizing for collaboration, rather than dominion can only be seen as a good thing to allow humans to thrive.
Also why are you assuming that parliaments would be the dominating collaboration structure? Your imagination is vastly limited if you're only looking toward western examples.
At the opposite end, maybe a question to ask yourself if the current system is leading to good outcomes and for who because the vast majority of Americans are suffering as the result of our current neoliberal economic system that was forced upon us with no consent from the governed. Alternatives should be explored and giving voice to workers seems like the simplest thing we can do. People should be allowed to have a voice in the direction of their employment.
> "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?"
Compared to what? The most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable? No, not really, the most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable already provides me with pretty sweet life, how can workplace democracy improve on that?
If you compare the best example of one system with the worst example of another system, of course the best example wins. But then you switch around the picks and you end up with exactly the opposite conclusion. It's useless.
The only good comparisons are average v. average, and worst v. worst. What is the expected situation most workers will find themselves in? What is the lower bound of how bad things can become? Only equal-to-equal comparisons give you any useful information.
I'm not assuming parliaments. I'm assuming interest groups acting selfishly and collaborating with other interest groups to further their respective selfish interests. No matter how the democracy happens, in the end somebody chooses what gets voted on, and somebody votes on those proposals, and sooner or later somebody will try to put the question of "should we steal from this other group?" under vote, and everybody not in that group will be heavily incentivized to vote yes. That's just human nature. If your system cannot survive that, then it's not a good system.
Reality is a lost cause. Replacing the system with something better has 0% chance of ever happening. So, since it's all purely theoretical anyway, what's the harm in considering the downsides too in addition to upsides?
lol if you got HOAs out of that link IDK what to tell you. Workers should be able to vote for their leadership full stop, poor leaders can easily make their lives bad. Voice needs to have more place in the economoy, relying on just monetary incentives has created our current decaying society.
It won't fix everything but it will give people a chance to dictate more of their lives through means of mass consensus while experiencing less authority.
Maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see how HOA doesn't fit here.
How would workplace democracy solve the problem of office politics and the associated corruption and nepotism dominating the leadership elections? Or do you consider workplace democracy to be better than the current system even if that problem stays unsolved?
Sure, you're assuming that workers would want to form an HOA. I don't think this is true.
Like other commentators, some guess that they would form representative republics. I also don't think this is true.
What I do think is that by giving people the ability to shape their world, they may very likely shape it in ways that are beneficial to more than the few.
How they do that is their prerogative, but surely you can see how this would be more beneficial than the oligarchies or dictatorships (the version of HOA you're thinking of, where the tyranical minority selected few harass the many) that form the vast majority of working corporations.
We already know that centrally planned economies are extremely inefficient and some of the worst ways to foster collaboration, so why should we accept the same system in our working lives?
I'm not saying I know how things will be better, but surely letting workers decide their fates is better than the current reality.
You're acting as if workers don't know what's in their best interest to have sustainable careers. Give people a chance, they're way more imaginative than you think.
Comment should have ended there. Meritocracy isn't authoritarianism, because it isn't anything because it isn't real. Meritocracy isn't despotism, because it isn't anything because it doesn't exist.
However, authoritarians, despots and oligarchs often pretend they're meritocrats (or several other popular ideologies).
It absolutely is a real thing. You don't get to declare that an existing word with more than 2000 years of history doesn't exist.
It may not exist in the Bay Area or in whatever subset of parameters you invented, but it absolutely exists and is something to strive towards.
> The idea that simply "talented" workers should rule just seems to speed run towards fascist aims.
Complete non-sequitur with 0 evidence.
> How do you consider which workers are worth more than others? If you do to the wrong school are you suddenly worth less? Do you think society will have certain preferences?
You decide just like everything else. Based on context and some objective measurements. It's not a perfect system, because sometimes measurements can become the goal, rather than the underlying objective, but it's the best system we have.
One knows a guy who runs local meet up, and offers them a spot to talk about it. Present at the meet up is a tech funder who catches them afterwards, and wants to meet for lunch to talk about this cool idea...
The other doesn't. They live in a small rural town. They may have even have come up with the idea first. Without a local meet up they don't get the chance to present. So they post to HN, but Apple announced a new AI tool and their stuff quickly gets bumped by links to Apple, Ars Technica, and a few Apple blogs.
Same idea, different outcomes due to outside forces. Sorry to break it to you but your environment has far more influence to your success than your personal merits.
You may have heard the joke that polyamory is wrong, because it should be multiamory or polyphilia. Meritocracy is a similar case. Because the word mixes Latin and Greek roots, it's unlikely to be old.
The first recorded uses of "meritocracy" are apparently by Marxist sociologists in the 1950s. They used it to describe a dystopian society, where merit serves as a moral justification for social classes, and social class determines the opportunities available to gain and demonstrate merit.
Of course the idea that career success and influence should be based on demonstrated ability and effort is ancient. But once you start building a society based on that idea, you run into Goodhart's law.
> Of course the idea that career success and influence should be based on demonstrated ability and effort is ancient. But once you start building a society based on that idea, you run into Goodhart's law.
Do you have any evidence for that? Aside from the thought-terminating cliché "it was used by Marxists once" ?
(Upper) middle class culture, where parents try to give their children a favorable start in life, which often involves a lot of effort. Such as buying a home in a good school district or helping them gain admission to a good university.
The moral justification for meritocracy is that the society benefits when the most capable people are in charge. Which means the society should find the children with the most potential and give them the best education and other opportunities available. But parents subvert this by trying to improve the relative standing of their children. Which means the people who had the best education and other opportunities will be less capable on the average, and the society benefits less.
Man you need to read more, I'm happy other users commented in a more pleasant manner; but congrats on learning that you have a total misunderstanding of both the term and it's real world applications, I bet you can solve 2 LC hards in an hour huh?
I’ve personally run into this issue of not having a working laptop in an interview setting. It’s not always money . I just don’t like getting work done on a laptop. I use a desktop. I’ve been staff+ for more than 5 years .
> Are those the people you want to hire for software development jobs though?
Why do you think the job posting doesn't explicitly mention "owning a PC" as a requirement? If it's a relevant criterion why not make it clear there? If it's not, why have it at all, only to keep it hidden in your biases?
Accepting to run random code sent by someone you don't know should be a red flag for them. Getting asked to run random code sent by someone you don't know should be a red flag for you.
> Accepting to run random code sent by someone you don't know should be a red flag for them. Getting asked to run random code sent by someone you don't know should be a red flag for you.
This is a different problem. If a candidate said "I don't want to run the code you send me" it might be a good opportunity to talk through what it does. Maybe I'd set up a VM for them in the cloud, or we could find a mutually acceptable solution. If a candidate says "I don't own a general purpose computing device" then I would really be questioning that candidates interest in computers, and therefore ability to develop and test software for them.
> Why do you think the job posting doesn't explicitly mention "owning a PC" as a requirement?
The job description also doesn't say "owns clean clothes", but how the candidate presents themselves is certainly a consideration when hiring.
Obviously. I just figured I'd point you to the real red flags you missed instead of the "I find it weird so it's a problem" thing.
> The job description also doesn't say "owns clean clothes"
That's a false parallel. A commenter higher up already pointed out to you that the candidate could own a tablet. An iPad Pro M5 is faster than most laptops, perfectly good for coding, and not able to run any of the crap sent out by the interviewer which likely expects desktop OSes.
The advert also shouldn't mention such a thing. Some people work remotely, others could honestly tell you they'll get better clothes from the first salary. If you're interviewing someone, they're the best at the job but you stumble on this, it's definitely a red flag. For the candidate, to look elsewhere. Why would you want to work for an employer who focuses more on the sweat stains on your armpit than the actual work or your character?
And now let me paint a different picture to understand the magnitude of the unfairness in your logic. I assume you are the Leo Rampen from the website you advertise in your profile. How many red flags do you count from someone advertising a blog which at the time of writing this has a certificate expired more than a month ago, and the last content update is more than a decade old? How does this reflect on a multi-disciplinary HW/SW engineer who even works on things as critical as satellites? This is to say, don't focus of flagging trivialities. You'll probably look in all the wrong places.
it's a red flag, not hard requirement. Most of talent devs i met usually code in their free time when they were in school. You dont need PC to do that, but it's much more convenient to have your own PC.
and with PC is so accessible now (you can even find free PC in some cases), that tells me you are not really passionate about software dev.
I'm talking about hiring a software engineer for a software development job. I have not met a good software engineer who wasn't also some level of geek. I'm thinking of all the great colleagues I've had over the years, and I would be really, really surprised if any of them didn't have some sort of computer at home. These are not "I just use my phone for everything" people.
I'm sure there are outliers, but given the low cost of used ex-corporate laptops in the western world, and presumably the candidate's interest in computers and software development, it's a fairly low bar to expect a candidate to have some sort of PC (laptop, desktop, Linux, Windows, Mac - whatever). I wouldn't expect it to be modern or expensive (I do this for a job and barely spend any money on computers these days), but I'd be really surprised if a candidate had nothing available.
I don’t own a personal vehicle, and you would not believe the types of jobs that were simply inaccessible to me because of that.
They apparently couldn’t ask directly whether I owned a car, but the coded question is: “Do you have Reliable Transportation?” <wink wink> and that was a confusing question to me, at face value; I would reply with candor, “I take public transit!” which of course gave away my situation every time.
Every job I had post-school effectively required that I owned a car and knew how to operate it--whether to go into an office or for frictionless business travel. In one or two cases, I could maybe have gotten off with flying and then renting (or taking some other form of transportation where available).
What if your laptop is broken? You should be restricted from getting a job? What about if you just landed in the US and didn't want to have to present it to the authorities to scan and plan on buying a new one because they are cheaper there. What about if a family member was currently using it. There are plenty of valid reasons why you might not have a laptop in general or at the moment in your life.
In most work places you are provided a computer to work on. So you could very easily not have a personal computer during your career as you are always provided one to work on.
Probably not common, but certainly plausible. Not everyone wants to bring work home or have hobbies that are the same as their work.
Why? Some people like to spend their free time doing things that aren’t what they do all day at work.
I knew one software developer who basically spent all his free time outside hiking and camping and rarely did anything with a computer when not working. He was a good dev and very competent. Just after being cooped up inside on a computer all week he didn’t want to spend more time on one at home.
It’s not much of a stretch beyond that to simply not owning one.
Like I said, you could own one and it's broken. Your 5 year old knocks over a glass wine the night before a morning interview. What do you do? The fact you can't work around it also might reflect badly on you as a potential employer.
I’m a lead engineer and have been Staff plus for more than 5 years. I’ve actually personally run into this problem (not having a working laptop for an interview). I don’t really do laptops well because it’s not a good environment to get work done in. I can see a large screen(s) desktop setup better and prefer that.
I used laptop because that's what the parent said, but I really meant a computer of any kind at home. I assumed a remote interview. If its an interview in person at an office I'd definitely expect hardware to be provided.
> I can see a large screen(s) desktop setup better and prefer that.
I kinda assumed that most developers took a similar approach to me. Laptop because portable when you need it, hooked to large screens, nice keyboard, nice mouse/whatever. I don't know what having a desktop would really buy me. I do 99% of my work with the laptop docked but that remaining 1% it sure is handy to grab it and go.
Desktop gives you a ton more oomph when you need it. Not that it is affordable today, but my personal desktop has 192GB of RAM, 24TB HDD, beefy GPU, and is basically never going to thermal throttle.
If you are just making web apps, it does not matter, but I do data processing where having the headroom can make a big difference.
I do have the cheapest used laptop I could find for those moments when I might require portability.
That’s a fair point. The most I use my laptop for is some local LLM processing. I’d have more headroom on a desktop, for sure, but 96GB M2 max has plenty of oomph for my needs. Maybe I’m underestimating how many power users there are. For my day job I tend to offload most of my work onto a big server anyway so I could probably get by with a Neo at this point.
I always do the same thing: work for a new company, get offered a MacBook, ask to choose my own non-MacBook for the same price. When we part ways, I offer to buy it (at used laptop prices). Never had someone say no.
Yes, that's me too and why I mentioned it. Often it feels like I'm alone in that many of my peer developers have sweet gaming rigs with beaucoup RAM while I'm just chugging along with a laptop.
In one instance for a data-oriented job interview I spun up a VM in the cloud because they linked a kaggle dataset for the at home test that was just a bit too big for my laptop to handle.
But to have nothing, no desktop, no laptop at all, is _odd_ for a developer. How did you get through school? If not school, then how is it a hobby-turned-profession without something to develop on?
The whole "no one should be denied access to a job" angle is weird too. What is the limit to accommodations?
American jobs more or less assume you have a car, given the lack of public transport. You could borrow a car but also borrow a laptop? Dunno, it's not a bad thought to reconsider some assumptions.
If a candidate reached out claiming they didn’t have a machine to interview with, I’d gladly find another path forward. But I imagine that’s a small minority in this industry.
Any obstacle whatsoever, especially one you yourself admit is very rare, is much more likely to result in a dropped interview if one is even offered. Why bother?
You’ve got 10,000 candidates applying. Seriously, what would make “doesn’t have a laptop” stand out to you positively? Why not just go with the 9800 applicants who do have one? Surely there’s no reason to think “broken laptop = good dev”. It’s so much easier to simply go with a candidate who has no problems. Beyond that, what’s the deal with making candidates do stuff on their own machines anyways? You don’t know what’s on there. You don’t even know if it’s stable enough for a test, and none of that has any bearing at all on their skill.
I’ve never worked in the Bay Area, but if this is common practice, I think I dodged a bullet.
Same answer as what if my clothes or shoes are broken, what if my car is broken, what if my arm is broken, what if my glasses are broken, what if my toothbrush is broken, what if my device I use to receive the job interview appointment is broken.
I don't know about "should" but there are many things that must be working in order for you to get a job. If they are not then you won't get a job.
I first thought this was a tongue in cheek joke before I realized you were the original commenter and looked them up.
I've described some prior experiences with some interviews as failing my litmus test and have cancelled further interviews when people start demand much too much from me before I'm on a payroll.
When I was hiring at my old place we set up disposable cloud VMs with a shared screen we could both remote into for interviews. No need for the candidate to install anything, and more responsive and secure than sharing my corporate desktop. Obviously the best thing is in-person at a shared screen (and the human interaction goes better too). This seemed like the best and most respectful compromise. https://www.edparcell.com/remote-desktop.html
If you want me to run a particular piece of software, send me a fucking computer. If you want me to be on call on a company-managed cellphone, send me a phone that you can own and manage all you want.
Do not ask me to download, install, or run malware on MY computer or phone as part of the APPLICATION process. If you are the sort of company that thinks this is appropriate, then I do not want to work for you. I've actually turned down work because of this. "Oh, they just want you to install this Chrome extension to make sure you're not cheating during the video interview." No. Fuck you. Don't touch my fucking equipment.
You're allowed to be angry when people do dumb things. Expecting your interviewees to install malware on their computer just to do an interview is dumb. Not only is it asking for trouble, it's also completely unnecessary. We have platforms specifically built for coding interviews, you just don't need to do that.
I guess, sure, companies are technically allowed to request you install malware on your computer. It's probably a CFAA violation, but nobody gives a rat's ass about the CFAA unless you're hacking the FBI, so who cares.
Also, make no mistake: a piece of software that is designed to record your screen, keypresses, etc is malware. It is spyware. You have absolutely zero guarantee it isn't install hooks into your system that will exist long after the application is gone.
Just do the interview in a browser sandbox like a normal person, and share your screen. Boom, problem solved, we figured this out 10 years ago. Really that paranoid about cheating? Then pay up and do an in-person interview, paper code test and all. I've had it done to me multiple times.
I agree, but that doesn’t mean you can’t call things dumb. You can. Asking interviewees to install random software on their computer is dumb, and you should stop if you’re doing that. You’re certainly allowed to disagree, that’s just my opinion.
Personally I judge hiring practices based on cost efficiency and quality of candidates, but I suppose "making people mad" could be an alternative criteria.
First, every BloomyBot response streams through an inline safety classification, and then an independent second-pass audit sweeps every stored message — a deterministic rule layer merged with a separate LLM classifier, taking the highest-severity result. It flags three categories (crisis, distress, inappropriate) across every language we support, and confirmed flags alert the teacher and school. We also constrain what the model is allowed to do: the tutor won't reveal answers, and it's completely absent from Summit assessments — so an LLM output never decides whether a student has mastered a skill. That comes from scored assessment performance against our 90% threshold.
Second, a nightly cron job runs across all BloomyBot interactions to flag erroneous outputs (so far, none) and safety alerts (these happen real-time anyway, but the cron job is a backup).
Third, I sample the interactions manually. I've read most interactions so far (although this will become much harder with more scale).
Finally, we are building structured evals to draw inferences across grade levels, skills, common misconceptions, etc. Ideally we will be able to identify the optimal level of scaffolding to help students achieve mastery, but that will take more data and time.
Was this comment generated? Your other comments use "--" instead of an em dash... or were all of them generated, but you forgot to replace them with "--" in this one?
reply