site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

24
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Out of curiosity, did you expect the warmup to be addressed with something like:

Compare two middlemost entries; the max lies in the half of the array containing the greater of the two. Return this half of the array. Repeat until the remaining array has length 1 (with the max entry guaranteed).

Or is there a better way? Conversely, suppose the interviewee does the obvious thing and compares consecutive pairs until a decreasing pair is found. Would they have any chance of getting hired?

More or less. It's essentially a binary search, where you're looking for a local maximum instead of an exact value. It's optimal.

Usually competitive candidates see this immediately. If someone suggests a linear scan, I'll ask if we can do better and they eventually get to the binary search. That's not in itself something that results in a NH recommendation, but in practice the people who get the binary search right away tend to do better on later parts.

Or is there a better way?

The max can be any one of N entries. So in order to specify its position, you need the number of bits in N. Any search which allows you to find the max in fewer than that many bits would imply that you can specify the position of the max in fewer than that many bits, and is therefore impossible.

If a query on the list just gives you a single bit of information, you're right, giving us the log2 bound. I have seen the claim made in an interview that a quantum speedup is possible to improve on that. (Cf https://web.mit.edu/rsi/www/pdfs/papers/2003/2003-brianj.pdf for a quantum search on an ordered list).

Would love for someone well-versed in quantum algorithms to confirm.