|
Hopefully things will turn around again? In some ways there seems to be a lost sense of direction everywhere at the moment.
It's all the internet's fault, I tell ya! 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
We moved from South Africa to the US. We looked at Australia and Canada as well but decided on the US since the country is diverse and chances are high that you'll eventually find somewhere that is a good fit.
We avoided California because it seems that, for the most part, most employers expect you to work long hours. They provide great benefits and the pay is good. They have a high turn-over rate. I was surprised to find out recently that there is no restraint of trade in certain areas and so it is easy to move onto a different job in the same area.
We lived in Florida for a while when I went to University there. The weather is great, there are a lot of outdoor things to do. I found that, in general, the people that you meet on the street not to be super-friendly, but they were friendly enough. As for prospects, 5 years ago I was not able to find any programming work at a place that was prepared to help with a work visa.
We're now in Kansas and the work environment is great - a family-comes-first sort of place that also happens to do some fun things. The weather can get quite cold in the winter and hot in the summer.
|
|
|
|
|
If outdoors is your penchant then forget the tropics, stick to the temperate zones. Coming from a western culture you are going to struggle with anything Asian unless you like that sort of thing. You are also not going to enjoy a 3rd world economy. There, just removed 60% of the planet for you.
You need to assess the employment possibilities REALLY carefully, example my son in law just spent 9 months out of work in Sydney trying to get an IT job in Sydney. MM also struggled to get employed there some time ago. Yet Sydney is often a preferred destination.
Personally I'd like to work in Canada but them I've never been there, grass is greener I guess.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I was thinking of avoiding Australia, but the other half likes the idea of Australia at the moment
We've started planning a visit to see what it's like. I think Sydney probably is too much of a popular destination, so maybe Melbourne would have more potential?
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I am working on an idea, but I am looking for any prior knowledge to the problem.
I have a dataset that contains records with a large number of searchable fields. I want to do a search for a set of criteria where I get matches with more than n% criteria matched.
Given Cn as a criteria that matches to between 0 and 1, it would be something like sum[C0..Cn]/n > 0.75 for a match of over 75%.
Is there any way beyond scanning the entire data set that this can be achieved?
My current thinking is to use several probable fields that will be in most [if not all] searches and apply indexes to them and use some jiggery-pokery to join data sets.
I'd take this to QA, but /someone/ will just tell me it is well known problem and to try looking on the internet. Well FU internet, I don't know what the name of the problem is, so I can't search!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds very similar to spatial search trees[^].
You will not get around building the tree every time the criteria change, but then you can get any result you are looking for by simply navigating through the tree.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
That was something I looked at, but it will it work with a large number of dimensions but only searching for things intersecting a sub-set? Such as near an arbitrary line in 2d.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Such trees are often used in computer graphics where the objects are loaded once, sorted into the tree and then searched before every frame is drawn to exclude objects which are not visible at the moment. That's (among some other tricks) how your favorite shooter can still feature a high level of detail without having to draw thousands of unseen objects.
I see no reason why this would not work with many dimensions. The real question is, wether or not your search(es) justify the effort of building the tree first. Navigating the tree to find out what you are looking for also is not a big issue. the real work already has been done when building the tree.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
It is rather annoying, because I wont know if it's worth while until I try it. 
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
In the past I've gotten good responses to posting questions like this in the CP Algorithms forum: [^].
What you are describing sounds to me like what I read folks do with graph-databases, like Neo4j: [^].
Or, perhaps, what you can do with Microsoft's Trinity graph-database: [^].
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, oh Font of Abstraction! My reading list has just got longerer.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure I fully understand as I am drunk. that said.
Is the 0..1 matching an essentially analog match (i.e. any value between 0 and 1) or are there only specific (i.e. digital) values
If the latter, and there are a reasonable number of discrete values, one can turn the problem around by storing each possible value as a boolean, in a bit pattern
we did this in a real estate system (as a concrete example)
so bit 0 meant 1 bedroom
bit 1 meant 2 bedroom
bit 45 meant swimming pool
bit 312 meant close to bus stop
etc.
then we read and logically AND ed each record with a search bit pattern.
because it's bits it's small and you can load a surprising number into memory for comparison.
Probably not your problem - but I think interesting anyway - much like this local Red
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, it varies from value to value. Some are true/false but a lot are in a range. Using your example, would be price and location as obvious analog values, but also something like number of bedrooms.
So when there is a range, let's say 3-5 bedrooms, those value would be 1.0, anything outside half the range would be proportional to how close it was so 2 and 6 bedrooms would be 0.5 match. That is my problem. So even a failure to match on one criteria may not mean that there is no match as it depends on the number of other things that match. Don't get me started on the weighting issues as that just makes your brain go off in a sulk and stick its tongue out.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you need to use a similar method to that I proposed but using qubits...
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Starting from endless battles, via a storage building, to a higher place? – flotsam at journey’s end
(6, 2) 
modified 4-Sep-15 5:18am.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say washed up if it was (6, 2)
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
erm - it should have been 6,2.. my brain needs debugging.
|
|
|
|
|
In that case;
Quote: Starting from endless battles, via a storage building, to a higher place? – flotsam at journey’s end
endless battles - wars
a storage building - shed
a higher place - up
flotsam - washed up
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
You win 
|
|
|
|
|
Nuts, just remembered I'm going to Legoland on Monday.
Why do I only win these things when I'm going to a theme park the next (working) day?
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is either you don't win this very often or you go to a lot of theme parks. 
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Well I was Alton Towers last Thursday, going to Legoland Sunday and Monday, then to Thorpe Park the following Monday.
This is unusual activity though.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: This is unusual activity though.
Mid-life crisis unusual? Psychotic break? Lottery win? I feel the nation should know!
|
|
|
|
|
Bought Merlin Annual passes at the start of the summer, my daughter is about 5 cm too short to get full use of them in the bigger parks, but we've already saved more than we spent (if you ignore the fact we wouldn't have paid to go so many times if we didn't have them).
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: I'm going to Legoland
For some reason this made me think "Pull yourself together"
and I laughed out loud.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
