To Print A Race Application: Fill & Download for Free

Yes, so long as you're committed to the race for good applicants. There are a ton of top-notch applicants looking for jobs there as well as young people scoping out the field. It's a preselected group of intelligent and talented women who care about technical work as well as social interaction, leading to some wonderful interviews. I've heard of companies with so much success recruiting at Grace Hopper that they bring a full team and the ability to print offer letters on site.

Hello there,Technically speaking - this has already been done, particularly with biplanes. With triplanes, I’m not aware of this.Literally the BEST example I can give is also a racing legend - the Beck Mahoney Sorceress !Designed in the 1970’s, she remains one of the most uncompromising and high powered biplanes ever built. She married high technology to the biplane racers of Reno, and frightened her competition half to death when she appeared !I first became aware of it in my dad’s copy of the special book Air Progress World’s Best Aircraft, which featured the story of the Sorceress.Lee Mahoney was an aerospace engineer whose previous work included participation in the X-15 program, and he was thus well versed in the latest material technologies. The Sorceress put it all together, but with some amusing stories attached to its construction.Firstly, the wings are full cantilever structures, like those a monoplane - the struts play no part in strength, but are present for racing rule purposes. The underlying structure of the wings is foam, and the metal structure is riveted to the spars and formers, and bonded with aerospace glues (as used in composite construction) to the skin - thus making the Sorceress wings - and fuselage - both very light and very strong.Lee Mahoney stated that the rivets were there only to hold the wing and fuse skins in place while the glue dried - they could easily be removed, and the Sorceress would remain just as strong, and a few pounds lighter ! As a result, her G-limits are nearly that of a contemporary jet fighter.The aerodynamics are interesting too - the engine exhaust is bonded to the surface of the fuselage by the Coanda Effect, and there is also a measurable Meredith Effect, where the hot air’s expansion as it flows over the fuselage adds a small % of thrust - not important when racing at low altitude, but interesting nevertheless. The authority this gave to the rudder was therefore very high - so high, in fact, that Mahoney at one point considered not adding a fin at all. The fin (minimal as it is) has been retained for rule requirements, and as a safety feature for the pilot.The wings are vanes, positioned and distanced so that the Sorceress has no blanking of lift in corners, and is thus rock solid in all aspects of flight - when the lower wing is ‘mushing’ in a corner, the upper wing is flying and pulling strongly, and vice versa on the straights. the wings therefore are at optimum performance at all times, and as a result the Sorceress corners like a housefly.The large spinner of the Sorceress was by all accounts turned on a lathe from a large kitchen pot, and it was still possible to see the maker’s mark in the centre of the spinner nose !When she was entered into the Reno races and started to take part in trials, all the other competitors promptly wet their pants - the Sorceress was outpacing them by a significant margin in both straights and turns - it was going to win everything in its hp class.The competitors then did that most American thing when seeing the writing on the wall, and went to court and lawyered up, to force the PRPA (who runs the races) to get the Sorceress banned outright.Their reasons given where that the aircraft as entered did not have spats on the wheels, used cosmetic rather than structural interplane struts, and had a non-stock Lycoming O360 making use of an unapproved Mahoney-designed electronic fuel injection and ignition system (which was also giving Sorceress a real edge in fuel efficiency).For its first race in 1973, the Sorceress was modded - but wound up being (if you can believe it) drastically faster !The use of the stock Lycoming O360 engine had increased the Coanda and Meredith effect, and so given the aircraft a stronger low-drag laminar layer on the fuselage. The now more conventional (though still structurally unimportant) interplane struts had decreased induced drag, as had the wheel spats ! The Sorceress fuel efficiency remained very high, as did her forced induction cooling - permitting her to fly the whole race at full throttle, which her competitors found hard to match.As result, she went to on to win, and win, and win…. and then go on to set several records for biplanes, many of which remain in place to this day.For me, then, the Sorceress remains one of the best examples of a modern material, high tech and high performance biplane. Would that she were a homebuilt design (as Lee Mahoney originally intended ! ) - I’d move heaven and earth to own one !Other specific modern material biplanes are, unsuprisingly - aerobatic sports planes.The famous Pitts Special [ Refrence - Pitts Special - Wikipedia - Aviat is the current manufacturer of the type ] immediately springs to mind - designed 10 years after WWII, the Pitts has seen innumerable upgrades, material applications e.g. Kevlar and Carbon Fibre, and in the future is likely to see 3D Printed CFRP (Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic) components in its stucture.It is still in production, and, as a result, has seen its structure evolve to take increasingly fine aluminium alloys and steels to improve and enhance its aerobatic performance.The airframe has also evolved to take higher and higher powers of engine - where the original got by on a 120 hp Lycoming, the modern ones have been amenable to powers up to 300hp, and some enterprising owners have been trying to figure out how to shovel a low powered turboprop into them…Its not the only one of its type, though. Other examples include the Christen Eagle, which also has over the years incorporated more and more modern materials.It too is manufactured by Aviat, as is the next entry, the Acro Sport II, which is an aluminium-framed aerobatic biplane as well.There is also the Steen Skybolt, which has a welded frame and is Dacron nylon fabric covered ..Both the Acro and Steen both recycle components of the Piper Cub - specifically the nose cowling, spinner, and undercarriage …I could go on and on - there are also plenty of homebuilt ultralight aircraft plans, which make use of modern materials - the innovative Sorrell Hiperbipe also springs to mind.Hope this helps, and my 2c worth on the subject.

Well, we would love to ask you to write a 2000-line full-stack web application instead, but we’re not going to do that in a 45-minute interview, right?These questions are “stupid” and “hypothetical” in the sense that you’ll never ever have to solve those exact questions in “real life”. They’re toy problems, so to speak, because that’s all we have time for.But good ones can help us learn a lot about how the candidates thinks, how they approach problem solving, how they communicate, and how they react to adversity.I’ve covered this in a lot more detail in other answers, e.g.:Gideon Shavit's answer to What value do whiteboard interview questions have, for software jobs, over questions executed in a runtime environment (i.e browser)?Gideon Shavit's answer to What value do whiteboard interview questions have, for software jobs, over questions executed in a runtime environment (i.e browser)?Specific questions might also be very helpful to identify particular strengths or weaknesses that might be important. For example, let’s look at the two questions you posted in your comment:A link list end up being in a loop, find the location of loop?This is a classic data structures question (a bit too classic, and probably overdone by now). Here are a few things I would be looking for if I were interviewing you:Did you ask the right questions? For example, did you ask what the hell I meant by “the location of the loop?” Or did you just assume that you knew what I meant?How did you handle pointers/references?Did you think about bad inputs (e.g. a list with no loops, a list with a bad pointer) and edge cases (empty list, list with one element, etc.)? Did handle them correctly?Did you think about complexity? Do you care if your solution is “good”? Did you think of different ways to measure “goodness”, e.g. memory consumption vs. time (a critical question for this problem), and when to optimize for each one?Did you think outside the box? For example, did you ask me if you can simply delete list elements as you go, or mark them somehow? Maybe I’d say “no”, but most likely I’d ask you to tell me how that would help you.Two threads are printing “a” and “b” respectively, how would you make them print “abababab……”?Obviously you’ll never actually want to print “abab…” using two threads. That would be insane! But this question is not about printing strings. It’s all about thread synchronization and — to a lesser extent — resource management.Here are some things I’d look for:Did you ask the right questions? For example, how do I print? Is the print mechanism thread-safe? Can I change the code that creates the threads?Obviously, how did you synchronize the threads? What sorts of synchronization mechanisms are you familiar with, and do you know when to use each one? Are there potential race conditions or deadlocks?Did you handle exceptional cases? I/O errors? I/O slowness?How did you verify that your solution is correct? Verifying correctness in multi-threaded application is notoriously tricky. Did you use a systematic/proof-based approach, or did you just try a few examples and wave your hands?All of these things are highly relevant to your day-to-day work as a software developer, and if you can’t do them well on a “toy problem”, you’re not likely to do them well when the problem is much bigger and more complex, in a domain that’s foreign to you.