Snaptravel | Toronto | Full-time | Full-stack/Back-end/Data | REMOTE ok within North America (preferably legally able to work in Canada)
We're in the travel industry and still thriving - profitable and growing rapidly - which I think tells you something about our focus and potential.
I'm the team lead and hiring manager for our product engineering team, which works on customer-facing features in the broadest sense. I'm looking for a couple of experienced full-stack developers (our stack includes React, Node, Python, and Postgres). There is a lot of opportunity for ownership and growth.
Snaptravel | Toronto | Full-time | Full-stack/Back-end/Data | REMOTE ok within North America (preferably legally able to work in Canada)
We're in the travel industry and still thriving - profitable and growing rapidly - which I think tells you something about our focus and potential.
I'm the team lead and hiring manager for our product engineering team, which works on customer-facing features in the broadest sense. I'm looking for a couple of experienced full-stack developers (our stack includes React, Node, Python, and Postgres). There is a lot of opportunity for ownership and growth.
And have been! Careful attention to stylistic features has allowed us to get a pretty good idea of the chronological groupings of Plato's dialogues, for example, which helps us understand things like how his views evolved over time. That's a typical sort of use of stylometry.
It is interesting to notice that when people want to sound official or authoritative (in business documents, for example) they tend to lean more on long, latin-derived words rather than the plainer, earthier words of Germanic origin.
That reminds me of what I think was a flaw in the computer-based adaptive GRE. "Adaptive" because it gives you harder questions when you're doing well, and easier ones when you're doing badly, thus allowing for the same measurement precision, if you will, with fewer questions.
My Spanish girl friend and I studied English vocabulary to prepare for the GRE, and took many old-fashioned paper based tests (non-adaptive) for practice, then later the actual (adaptive) one. Her result on the actual test was much worse than on the practice tests, by many standard deviations (only in the verbal section, not in the quantitative section).
Now, in English, the more difficult words are frequently the words of Latin origin (for example, "to lament" vs "to mourn"). However, those were often cognates of the equivalent Spanish words, thus easier for her. So, the hypothesis is that she got some questions wrong initially, and the algorithm decided to give her "easier" questions (with more Germanic words), which would be harder for her, though; while withholding the harder questions which she could have solved correctly.
Intriguingly, it might have gone the other way around (depending on whether you first got predominantly Germanic words, answered them wrong, and got even more of them, or first got predominantly Latinate words, answered them correctly, and got even more of them.)
Thus, if ETS tested the adaptive algorithm on native English speakers, the adaptive test might have lined up very well with the traditional test, validating it.
(Now we're coming to the intriguing part.) If they tested it also with Latinos/native Spanish speakers, it might well have been that the mean deviation (between adaptive and paper based result) was also very small, but the variance of the deviation larger: many large deviations to the upside, many large deviations to the downside.
I wonder whether that was ever researched in depth, and whether it could have been grounds for complaints (that members of some community had measurements that were "worse", but not in the sense of biased, but of "less precise", with more variance!)?
> I wonder whether that was ever researched in depth
Yes, it was. My wife studied linguistics and she has an MSc in Education, she has tens of books on grading and evaluating English learners, and GRE is a test that has been studied extensively. I don't have any reference at hand (on my mobile) but feel free to search on any education-related journal: you'll find tons of sudies.
You're hypothesizing an additional axis of question variation, "Romance-Germanic", in addition to the well-known axis "difficulty". Do we have any reason other than this anecdote to believe this other axis actually exists for GRE? Why wouldn't easy Romance questions be sorted in with easy Germanic questions?
One reason to believe it (or more specifically, to believe the correlation between the Romance-Germanic axis and the difficulty axis is not zero) is that easier / more common vocabulary is often Germanic and harder / more literary vocabulary is often Romance, as a result of the origins of social classes and an intentional desire to use Romance words (or straight-up import Latin words) among those of higher learning / standing. That's the claim of several comments in this thread.
Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers(1). ... It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one's meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.
You can find lovely examples of this in The Lord of the Rings -- like the chapter "The Voice of Saruman" or how the language of the narrator modulates in describing Sam being tempted by the Ring versus his more down-to-earth thoughts. (IIRC. I don't have it handy to check.)
LoTR gets way more complicated than this, but you're right. There are very localized changes in language and dialogue throughout the book, and they're all intentional.
Note that the Rohirrim alliterate, for example (they're saxons!), and the elves don't.
I assume that's a fossil of the Norman invasion (1066) the way ordinary animals (cow, pig/swine) get transformed into fancy Romance words (beef, pork) when placed on the table. These kinds of linguistic scars can last a long time.
There's that, but also, Latin was the language of science throughout Western Europe until the 18th or 19th century; Euler, for example, published his papers in Latin, and if you browse the Mathematical Genealogy Project, you can see the transition from writing dissertations in Latin to writing them in local languages like German and Italian.
Nowadays, English occupies a similar position in much of the world — if you study a scientific or engineering discipline in a non-English-speaking part of the world, chances are excellent that you will also have to study English in order to read the literature in the field. To take an example you've worked on yourself, GCC's comments are in English, and so is the mailing list.
So it's quite common for people to use English loanwords in, for example, Spanish when discussing computers, video games, and so on.
Yes I remember in France in the 80s you had to translate all the technical words (stack, buffer, etc) into French equivalents in order to publish, even though we used the English words in conversation, email etc.
I know Latin was the language of science (later German until the late 1910s) as French was in diplomacy, but the contemporary significance of the use of latinate words is more of an English thing IMHO -- certainly more than in romance countries like Spain! There are some use of latinate endings in loan words in German but technical jargon (e.g. legal language) tends to simply be complex German words.
I gave long found it odd that English went through a phase of using Latin or Greek roots to construct a new word (e.g. television) while most people use their own language (e.g. Fernseh). Or jarringly, combine the two (e.g. "monolingual" -- yech)
The reason German, Polish, Russian etc. aren’t chock full of Latinisms, Hellenisms and even more French than is already the case is because of deliberate language reforms and coinings of “authentic, native” terms. Of the Germanic languages I believe Dutch is the only other national language to escape such reforms, which is why it, like English, still has many more loanwords than languages that didn’t go through this. Übersetzen is an obvious calque of traduction. I don’t know the geographic extent of it but French was the language of all upper class people over a huge portion of Europe for centuries, whether we're talking about the Russian nobility and haute bourgeoisie or the upper classes of all of what we would now call Belgium, not just those areas where they now speak French, or the Rhineland.
Funnily though, after Latin, German became the lingua franca (or should I say deutsche Zunge?) of natural sciences for a while, before English dethroned it in the second half of the 20th century.
In Polish, killing an animal changes its gender instead: you can butcher a pig (_świnia_, feminine in Polish) but get "hog-meat" (_wieprzowina_, from _wieprz_, masculine).
Same with a cow being turned into "ox-meat" (krowa -> wołowina) and sheep -> "ram-meat" (owca -> baranina).
In medicine Latin and especially Greek terms are still ubiquitous of course, to the point where a classical education must be a huge leg-up in learning the terminology. Eg: I once astounded my medical student neighbour in halls at Uni by correctly guessing what a 'salpingogram' was, despite never having seen that word before.
Similarly, for (modern) Greeks a lot of opaque medical jargon that baffles most of us must be more or less plain speaking to them.
And then using latinized words also makes normal things sound more technical or scientific than they really are. For example you can say "let's implement business process improvements" or you can say "let's do things better."
Was going to link the Monty Python skit about words being comparatively woody or tinny (in relation to "earthy" words), but the rights holder has erased it from the internet.
Side note: can't edit the link above, but due to an ARC bug from more than a decade ago[0], HN does not correctly delimit it at the ">" (because they escape it a second time, but don't escape the escapes I guess, which causes the ">" not to match as a closing delimiter for the URI).
Philosophers tend to be interested in the "foundational" questions about math and other sciences. In the case of math, in practice this means that good philosophy departments will often teach courses on first order logic and set theory, and philosophers such as Frege and Russell made major contributions in these areas. But they may also get more interested than mathematicians would in the questions about about the nature of logic - the nature of truth, propositions, the viability of alternative or non-classical logics, and so on. And then for example various modal logics can be helpful for thinking about possibility, epistemology, ethics, and so on.
Historically there is also a lot of overlap as well. Formal logic was invented by Aristotle. Leibniz and Descartes are equally large figures in mathematics and in philosophy.
I don't know the English translations, but Frege's "Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik" are a fascinating piece if one would like to know how modern philosophy of mathematics started and which questions one might ask about mathematics from a philosophical point of view. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundations_of_Arithmeti...)
Plato is certainly very approachable, and perhaps Athanasius is as well; of course there are examples on the other side as well - Aristotle leaps to mind. Better, probably, to read an account of his logic than to try to read the Prior Analytics, for instance.
The first paragraph reminds me of the great example by which J.L. Austin distinguished precision from exactness: a stick could be exactly, but not precisely, six bananas long.
In the present case we could say that six random bananas could accurately but not precisely represent the length of a stick.
My go-to example of explaining accuracy vs. precision is the distance from Earth to its moon. 400 000 km or 250 000 miles is a fairly accurate, but imprecise figure. 31 415 926 nanometers is a ludicrously precise, and incredibly inaccurate one.
Also, accuracy is dependent on appropriate precision. Rounded up to nearest billion kilometers the moon is zero terameters away from the Earth, which is only accurate if you're comparing it on a scale where the Moon is insignificant. Conversely, reporting the exact distance to the nearest meter will imply variations insignificant on one-meter scale, which is obviously wrong, making a less precise figure more accurate for use over an arbitrary period of time.
This is really neat in concept. However, I would be cautious about the substance here. I took a look at one philosopher that I know well---Socrates---and several of the entries seem very doubtful to me.
> We need to know how to conduct our lives and ourselves.
Sure, but doesn't everyone think that?
> Things like 'justice' do exist; not materially, but in some sort of essence.
This is getting metaphysical, something quite foreign to Socrates.
> There can be no cut and dried answers; answers themselves are open to question.
This reads to much in to the conversational aspect of the dialogues. Socrates is always pointing out that in many areas of life there are experts who know the correct answers and can be appealed to. In the moral realm, sadly, there seem to be no experts (though there are pretenders, hence lots of questions), but the point is that it would be great if there were experts here too!
> To the man who preserves his integrity no real, long-term harm can come.
"Integrity" sounds too personal or individual; this should be "the just man", or "the righteous man". And it does not need to "long-term" qualification.
That is four out of seven items. There rest of the list seems broadly ok, though it is a rather eccentric selection of Socrates views. Gotta start somewhere though, I guess.
One the other hand Socrates presents unusual problems of interpretation, so this may well not be a representative entry.
I'm familiar with Socrates too. I haven't clicked the link, I'm on limited data and worried the site would suck it up.
I'm curious about the other three items. Would you mind sharing them?
As for the last point, Socrates had this idea of "caring for one's soul". Not sure about the nature of the soul besides it being one's "true self". Notably he believed that it's better to be harmed than to harm someone because the latter hurts one's soul (not sure how this is supposed to work).
BTW I am interested in developing his ideas that no one willingly does wrong, and the related one that the only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.
We're in the travel industry and still thriving - profitable and growing rapidly - which I think tells you something about our focus and potential.
I'm the team lead and hiring manager for our product engineering team, which works on customer-facing features in the broadest sense. I'm looking for a couple of experienced full-stack developers (our stack includes React, Node, Python, and Postgres). There is a lot of opportunity for ownership and growth.
The job posting is here: https://jobs.lever.co/snaptravel/5f2ad904-ce27-484d-8cb3-457...
Feel free to reach out to me with questions: brendan@snaptravel.com
Some of our other teams are hiring as well; see our career page here: https://www.snaptravel.com/careers/