Programming languages are a lot easier to grasp. ;)
The oldest programming languages are only 50 years old, whereas the oldest music notation is at least 4000 years old.
Most programming lanuguages haven't crossed any spoken languages, but modern music notation & terminology has been heavily developed by countries all over Asia and Europe.
This is a big reason why musical notation seems so weird at first, especially to engineers, because it is a legacy that comes from a different time, a different context, in a different language. The people who developed musical notation had different math, different logic and different musical motivations than we have now.
Think about this for a while and it starts to feel like a miracle that musical notation works at all, not to mention how well it works.
Programming languages were developed by people nearer to us in every way, and made to be logical and simple, so it makes sense that they're easier to grasp quickly.
Can't speak for the parent, but as far as I can recall, I did. Well, maybe not literally immediately, but to me, the syntax was generally the easiest part of learning a programming language. (It probably helps that they are often very similar to each other.)
The only things that were hard were forgetting to write semicolons after statements in C (I have previously mostly written Pascal), and C declarators — but even the latter were easy after I learned that "declaration reflects use".
Well, in our programming world new languages seem to come out every week, trying to find better ways to write programs. By this standard a new way to encode music is long overdue.
In that metaphor, coming up with a new way to encode music is like releasing a new programming language and then asking everyone to write their own compiler for it. Not impossible, but it would have to be a hell of an encoding!
Maybe not as many as programming languages, but new notations do appear time to time. It's just that none has ever got as popular as the traditional notation, I guess.
A 2 hour drive south of Anchorage is Seward, where there are several kayaking companies which will take you out into Resurrection Bay. People often see a variety of wildlife on these excursions, such as humpbacks, orcas, sea lions, jellyfish, etc. A cool kayaking trip from Seward is to Caines Head recreation area, where you can hike through boreal forest up to an old abandoned World War 2 fort with beautiful views of the bay. Homer is about 3 hours south of Anchorage and is also a good place for sea kayaking.
I personally have more experience with packrafting, which I highly recommend. High quality lightweight packrafts can easily be carried on/in a day pack. A recent packrafting trip I did: drive 1 hour south of Anchorage to Portage railroad stop, take the train 20 minutes south to the Spencer Glacier stop, paddle around the lagoon adjacent to the glacier (don't get too close, it calves frequently and can be quite dangerous), then paddle all the way back to the car on the Placer River (not a technical river)... about 8 hours total trip time.
Not really sure exactly where OP is coming from, but kudos to you guys for all the hard work. Just worked on a MVC6 app recently and I really like the new DI and front-end tooling features. Thanks!
I recall part of the Triplebyte screening process was to implement a solution to a whiteboard-type problem under a time constraint. It occurred to me that not all companies would necessarily place heavy weight on solving whiteboard problems in the interview process, yet Triplebyte seemed to filter applicants right out of the gate based on this measurement. I am curious if the genome project will alter this aspect of the screening process?
I went through the triplebyte process twice; once in the take-home project track and once in the "normal" track.
Their feedback to me on the take-home project track was "we thought you did a great job; very impressive. But you interview so poorly that we decided not to move forward." I don't see anything to do in response to that other than to keep trying to interview, so I tried to do the "normal" track.
It was entirely time-constrained, supervised whiteboard problems.
I used to work at a very busy pub/pizzeria. Customers could order from the standard menu of about 45 items, order a modified standard menu pizza, or they could completely build their own custom pizza. Custom pizzas could be half and half, and have almost any number of sauce, crust, or topping choices. There were at least 75 toppings/sauces to choose from, in addition to the rotating ingredients every two weeks. I can't say that I loved the touch-screen POS system utilized by this restaurant, but the GUI it provided was designed specifically for pizzerias.
I am having trouble imagining how a keyboard-centric interface would require less key strokes than the number of screen-taps for a POS system designed for a pizzeria. For instance, to add or remove a single ingredient to a pizza in the touch-screen POS system it required a single tap. In a keyboard-centric POS system, assuming the ingredients are identified by id starting at 1 through 75, most ingredients would require two keystrokes plus the enter key. My personal experience leads me to believe that specialized touch-screen POS systems certainly work well for some of the more complex restaurant menus.
I went through the initial TripleByte process earlier this year but was rejected. I passed the initial multiple choice programming test, but I failed miserably at the 1 hour programming exercise. I actually found the problem to be one of the more difficult algorithm type problems I've encountered in an interview situation. I am curious if the problems chosen by Triplebyte are representative of the typical types of questions for YC company interviews? I can't imagine they all have identical pre-screening processes, so how do you choose representative problems?
