Impostor syndrome is not incompatible with being smart. Quite the contrary.
It could be an extension of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The more you know and understand something, the more you can judge your performance and notice your failures, thus making you feel like an impostor.
Confidence from being told you're smart might be important for child development and performance in school.
Cheating and dishonesty are morally bad but most of the times this behavior leads to good outcome (but very bad sometimes). Looking at it another way, it's called hacking/gaming the system/bending the rules.
The results of the study show that kids are more likely to cheat, but they don't show it is bad for a successful and happy life.
They lie. Most candidates will tell you the coding exercise took less than it actually did because
1) they want to appear efficient
2) you said it would take only 3 hours so if they say it took 8 hours it would look like a failure
Source: me, last week, for another company.
Plus, programming is not just writing code, most technical interviewers will want to see the global design, unit tests, comments, etc... Which are not accounted for in the expected time
I went to an engineering school in France. In France it takes 5 years to get a master degree.
Each year we must do an internship that varies in length between 1 month in first year to 6 months in the final year.
While I was in school, one of my friend and me, created a small game server hosting company (Minecraft, counter strike, ...). We started with 0€ and ended up with ~2k/month each, more than the minimal salary, while being students. We were working on that after school and during the week ends. It was technically challenging and we both learned a lot quickly (Rails, how to manage and promote a company, how to handle customer service, ...) .I remember we even used the first versions of Docker to create game server containers.
Thanks to that, I got an internship in Switzerland during my 2nd year.
That school requires that during your 3rd year of study you have to do a 3 months minimum internship (up to 9 months using your 4th year) in an english speaking coutry.
Most of the students go to the UK or Australia, because they are cheap options, but thanks to my job in Switzerland I had tons of money and I wanted to go to New York so I sent hundreds of resume to companies in New York. I finally got contacted for an internship offer but in San Diego. I had no better option so I accepted. I didn't even know where was San Diego.
I worked during 9 months and I loved this city. I went back to France to get my degree and instead of doing my final internship in France, like everyone does to get a job, I sent a couple of resume to companies in San Diego.
It was way more easy this time due to my first experience and I was able to get an offer from one of the best company in San Diego.
I worked well and after I got my degree the company wanted to switch me full time, so they applied for an H1B. I did not get it the first year but got it the second time. I had to work remotely for ~9 months because my intern visa (J1) expired but I finally went back to San Diego. Now I'm waiting on my green card (EB2).
There are more people in San Diego (~1.2M) than all of South Dakota (~800k). Even absent the context of replying to a comment about having moved to San Diego, I think it would be reasonable to assume that "SD" stands for San Diego instead of South Dakota.
It was supposed to be a temporary state but no politician wants to be responsible of an attack if they shut it off...
I don't live in Paris but overall this doesn't change daily life by much. You basically only see a couple police officers in front of police stations and a couple guards in front of universities.
On one hand that seems fairly reasonable, on the other hand I can't escape the feeling that the author had a conclusion and was fitting results to it. It is an inherently messy and complicated field and there are many ways one could interpret this largely qualitative data, but the author seems to have not a shred of doubt or uncertainty, for my type of personality it makes my spider senses tingle.
One of the problems with Cook's appeal to authority is this: So far, no one has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming. In fact, it cannot be done easily, said Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University who has been studying communication strategies for decades.
While the Cook study may quantify the views expressed in published literature, it does not establish the beliefs of any defined group of scientists, Krosnick said.
"How do you determine who qualifies to be surveyed and who doesn't qualify?" he asked. "Personally, I haven't seen anyone accomplish that yet."
EDIT2: This might be an interesting read if it wasn't behind a paywall:
But even for the simplest, back-of-the-napkin calculations, you'd have to deny the contribution of CO2 to conclude anything else. And the CO2 contribution is 100% proven.
The same stands for the basic chemistry: The humanity burns immense amounts of carbon, burning hydrocarbons produces CO2 (if there's enough fresh air) or CO (if there's not). If you don't believe that, I suggest you to close yourself in a sealed room and burn a fire (coal) inside and keep it burning. You'd die, provably, unless somebody rescues you.
The concentration of the CO2 increased proportionally to our burning of the hydrocarbons increased, and additionally, the seas got more acidic. Everything fits.
P.S. If you "just" doubt in the study of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, you are free to evaluate them yourself and to publish your take on them. I really doubt that the results would significantly change, if the scientifically valid methods are used. I have emphatically not called you personally a "denialist." But I argue that you can't be intellectually honest if you use an "argument from incredulity" (which you suitably call your "spider" that is, in reality non-existing, non-sense sense) or stating "there are many ways one could interpret this" which obviously isn't true. You linking to the work which main conclusion is "that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate" has also no relevant scientific value, as the scientists agree about the human caused global warming occurring at least 30 years already. There are scientific facts, and to establish other facts you have to do real scientifically valid work. Scientifically valid also means accepted by the scientists. The majority of them in the relevant field. Again, politicians, lobbyists and media don't count. It's very known that the US public perception of the scientific agreement is wrong (including OP the statistics we comment), and your "spider sense tingling" (your name for you avoiding logically and technically valid arguments) fits that exactly.
Simple, honest skepticism, what used to be considered an intrinsic part of the scientific process, literally isn't an option? The irony. :)
Note that in this case I wasn't questioning the science of global warming, I was questioning the methodology and manner in which they qualitatively reviewed these scientific papers. There are, in fact, many different conclusions one could draw, depending on your agenda. Presenting it as nothing more complicated than simple math seems suspicious. Being accused of being a "denialist" when pointing this out is cringe worthy.
I think a good, free, open and multi-platform product that can help.
However, I recently tried it again (after a couple years) for a professional project, and it's nowhere near Photoshop in terms of usability.
I was expecting the software to have improved, hearing so many great things about it, but I was very disappointed...
