Notice To Quit Template Uk: Fill & Download for Free

Ringo’s underrated indeed — but usually by people who aren’t drummers. In my experience, no good drummer looks down on him. They recognize he was no technician, no savant, no speed demon. John Bonham and Ginger Baker are probably the drum gods most people have in mind, and that isn’t Ringo. Those guys, however, probably wouldn’t have been quite as free to do all they did if Ringo hadn’t laid the foundation for it.But he had feel for days and played to the song. He loathed drum solos and drummer egos, and had to be cajoled into doing the drum solo in The End.He pretty much invented rock drumming as we think of it today, with the heavy use of tom fills and aggressive open high-hat eight notes. Like so much about the Beatles, his playing is often underestimated with the passage of time because we have gotten so used to the sounds and ideas that essentially began with the Beatles. It’s hard to see what’s so special about the fills in, say, A Day in the Life when we now have fifty years of rock drums to compare it to.One thing I think Ringo did especially well was to play all those bizarre time signatures that the Beatles used. We don’t notice it because it sounds so right and natural. But look at this analysis of the time signatures in Here Comes the Sun: Harrison's Everest, Part 3: Rhythmic Sophistication in [177] "Here Comes the Sun" Ringo’s playing sounds as easy as falling off a log, and that’s why it’s brilliant. As with so many Beatles songs, you don’t notice the strange time signatures until you try to play along (All You Need is Love, Good Morning Good Morning, Rain, Across the Universe — John tended to mess with time signatures more; Paul messed with modulations as effortlessly as John messed with time)Another example I always enjoy is the comparison of Ringo’s playing on the Beatles’ first UK #1, Please Please Me, with the playing of Andy White on the same tune’s early demo version. Remember that Andy White was brought in to play in Ringo’s place on Love Me Do and PS I Love You because White was such an experienced studio player, while Ringo was an untrained basher from the provinces. You can find the Andy White version of Please Please Me on the first disc of Anthology 1 for comparison.Andy is neat, tidy, and playing the snare drum like a good jazz player. But note how Ringo’s version explodes off the record, especially under the “come on, come on” part. It’s the beginning of modern rock drumming, complete with a sense that he turned the knob all the way to 11…I also think it’s not wrong to compare Ringo to Charlie Watts — not because they sound anything alike (and they absolutely don’t), but because they played similar roles in their bands and probably, together, established the template for rock drumming. Both of them had incredible straightforward feel, were steady as hell, and played thoroughly in service to the song. Watts’ drumming is particularly unusual because he really was a jazz drummer at heart, yet somehow no one could play a funky R n B groove like him. I was just listening to this old Rolling Stones outtake and trying to figure out how it’s so clear that Charlie Watts is on the drum kit even though it’s a pretty simple part. It just makes you want to move. (I love that the comments to this video say things like, “Go, Charlie, Go!”)Likewise, you can always tell it’s Ringo, and it always sounds like perfect drum part for the song.

Oooh! Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!Common knowledge in the UK is a piece of specific information about somebody or something that is widely known either nationwide or on a local level; the Queen is called Elizabeth, Mrs bloody Wilkinson at No. 62 is a miserable old trout, and so on.It differentiates from general knowledge in that the latter is what people should know but don’t. The two are vaguely related and both rely on the recipient actually paying attention to that which is being imparted and that which is being imparted being correct.I’m going to apportion blame here. Can you guess where it is going?Wrong. I’m letting the EU off with this one. I might have a swipe at the Californians, later, though. It’s not that I’m averse to blaming the EU unfairly, in fact I think it should be a national sport to see who can come up with the wackiest justification for blaming the EU for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, and I’d set an exam in it; A level Blaming the EU is something I’d be in the class for. But this time, I might do a sentence or two that isn’t full of frothy lunacy and uses some posh words like “dichotomy” or “juxtaposition”. Probably. Or something, anyway.Any road up to Halifax, what was the question again? Oh. Yes.It’s all to do with people not getting a broad enough education and then, being in these straits, not paying attention to the little they’ve been fed by their teachers. Now, this sort of thing has been boiling on for years. I’ve had Chemistry and Physics teachers bewailing at me that the students they’re getting often can’t do the maths for the pure sciences they’re supposed to be able to do when they get to University Level and have to have remedial maths lessons. The Army, Royal Navy and RAF has been moaning for years that the educational standards it wants for the officer corps is not what it should be, and the jump between O level and HND/A level has always been a bit big, but now it seems to have turned into the bloody Cheddar Gorge.On paper we have the most educated generation ever. Bloody hell, looking at all the BAs, MBAs, MAs, BScs, MScs, and D.Phils there are about now, we ought to be in a period that makes the Renaissance look like Big Dim Lenny’s Christmas Thicko Piss-up, but we aren’t.The problem is we are teaching people to paperwork. Oh, you want a justification for that, do you? Well you can bloody well wait for it because I haven’t finished asseverating yet. It’s now perfectly possible to get very good exam results simply by following an academic process and something that is offbeat but very clever and worth a good deal of marks may be entirely discarded because whoever is marking it is not an actual SME but is in fact working off a template where if certain boxes are ticked you get the marks, if not, you don’t.Now, at school, I and my contemporaneous acquaintances were all fairly meh pupils; we were in the “stupid but can be salvaged” section of scholarly pursuits. Every one of us was bog-standard at most everything (some of us were trailing and some of us leading in Maths and others in English) and none of us were going to make the grade as Cambridge scholars (the posh kids might do, but not us) if we were given a zillion years and a modern-day Library of Alexandria to roam about in.And yet the vocabulary and general knowledge (as opposed to the esoteric) was not all that removed from that which the posh kids had.Hands up if you are in the UK and you can state the years in which the following happened:The Battle of Hastings.Magna Carta.Agincourt.The English Civil War (range of years, here).The Act of Union between Scotland and England.Battle of Trafalgar.Battle of Waterloo.End of the Great War.Start of the Second World War, The Soviet Union’s entry, and the American and Japanese entries.All of these used to be widely known. They aren’t any more. As far as I can see, the United States of America is having similar problems with its own teaching of History. I’ve actually heard somebody say “History isn’t about dates” but it bloody well is. If you want to do a piece on the Spanish Armada you aren’t going to get very far with an armful of books on the Roman Empire, are you?Now at school there were only two things I was above “barely adequate” at. One was computer sciences. The other was English. These were my two best O levels. The reason for that was that I actuallly put some effort in at CS and having been reading since before I was three (yes really) I had a very good idea of how sentences work and could craft offbeat, odd, and yet exquisitely beautiful prose that made the teachers’ tails wag. Not only that I could write in several registers; whatever was the appropriate was the one I’d use and it was always right. Consequently in the exams I could, in those two subjects, safe in the knowledge that SMEs would be marking, rip up the rule book, piss all over the process, and toss out the templates, and do stuff that was nuanced, subtle, and textured far beyond what was expected and the SMEs would notice that and grade accordingly. In A level English I wrote an answer that was so good that it was used for years after as a model because it was better than the original model and somebody who knew what they were looking at had noticed. But it didn’t follow many of the normal rules.They actually advise kids today not to do that, and follow the safe course, in case they get somebody who doesn’t really know their subject blindly following templates to mark with.I’ve just had eleven days off work. This means that I could interfere with the Screamy Blonde Thing’s remote schooling. I sat and interfered with a maths lesson. It was simple algebra. I was shocked to learn that the SBT, who regularly tops the maths class, couldn’t do simple transpositions of three-part formulae because the method they were teaching was so convoluted that bloody Euler would have looked and gone “ehhhhhh?”Apparently this gives them a greater understanding. No it doesn’t. It might give them a greater understanding of the abstract, but unfortunately it means they’ve got no bloody clue when it comes to actually doing the work. This is bloody easy:V=IR and if you want the resistance knowing the current and voltage all you’ve got to do is shift the I over to the left and make it do the opposite action. It’s multiply on the right so it becomes divide on the left: V/I = R. Plug your numbers in and job done. Quite why it needs about a jillion steps to solve is beyond me. Percentage. Gain/whole X 100 = %. Reverse percentages. If 120 is sixty percent of something, what’s the maximum?If it’s sixty percent of something, the rest must be forty percent. So divide by six to get your ten per cent (20) and then by ten to get your one per cent (2) and since it’s the missing forty per cent you’re looking for, times by forty (80) and tot that on to the original 120 to get 200. Check it:(120/200) * 100 = 60Job done. Five marks in the bag in less time than it takes to make some toast. But no, they have to go through some convoluted process that’d be ridiculed on BTEC cores as being unnecessary to solving the problem and that just confuses the issue.And this is the problem. Whilst they are buggering about trying to resolve the abstracts it actually takes more time and effort to do it and they haven’t got time to potter about with looking at other stuff, even if they’ve got the motivation to. I’ve recently had to lay the law down to the SBT about how we aren’t going to spoon-feed her answers and she’s got to get the hang of finding things out for herself, and so consequently I am now the living embodiment of Beelzebub. Tough, kid. If you don’t know how to find things out properly, you’re going to be bloody useless, and I’m not having that. It’s not like you’ve actually got to get on your bike and heave your way to the library like I did, because there are five bloody computers, five bloody tablets, three smartphones and a Unix box in the house, all of which can go on the bloody internet, and whilst I might help you sort out the bollocks from the good stuff on Google (which is a modern-day Library of Alexandria) I’m not doing your bloody work for you because when you are twenty-three there’ll be no excuse for being helpless. Get on it and look at things. Even if they aren’t relevant to what you’re doing now, squirrel it away, because you never know when it might come in handy; I once won £350 in a pub quiz because I knew how many rivets were on the Forth Bridge. That got me a few brownie points from the bird I went to the pub with, as a bonus. Six and a half million, if you’re ever faced with that, and bung us a tenner and we’ll call it even; I’m not bothered about scoring with your girlfriend (unless your girlfriend is Kylie Minogue or Joanna Lumley. What? What? I likes ’em blonde, what’re your irrational prejudices, then?)So it isn’t common any more because they’d rather teach the processed abstract than the concrete and people just want to be spoon-fed answers every time. Nobody wants to have to work things out from first principles any more, let alone discover what the first principles are in the first place like we had to.Like I said, on paper we are a clever society. In the real world, though, we are as dumb as toast.STEM subjects, whilst affected by this, are largely insulated because there’s always been a tradition of “do this this way to get the right answer” and indeed in experimentation it’s imperative that you follow exactly the right process every time to get repeatable results. Having got those repeatable results, though, the next step should be “what now if” and then you tinker about and see what happens until something breaks, gets on fire, or violently explodes and that’s what we are largely missing; the linking together of random wild ideas because those ideas aren’t known and don’t fit our rigid models. We used to call it imagination and it’s how all the important stuff got discovered. But imaginations are rarely being fed any more in our move to bland and bloodless homogeneity where any snippet not immediately relevant is discarded and kernels of truth cleverly camouflaged go unseen (which I suppose is the point of camouflage, but there used to be an art of peeping under the tarpaulins). The problem comes in arts. There is a lot of pseudo-intellectualism there.Let’s talk about Lady Gaga. It’s not a subject that would come up much at a smart dinner party in Islington. She’s often dismissed as a pop tart. However:This is actually exceeding clever. Musically it has a quality that can fairly be described as symphonic; it would not sound out of place as one of the movements of one of the great Romantic symphonies. Some of the choreography here is quite stunning; I’ve seen worse in ballet. The choreography after about four minutes is utterly breathtaking - getting eight people to move in unison in a display like that is a true art. The video is weird and wacky and rips up a lot of rules but if you look through the abstract it’s actuallly a comment on the toxicity of homogeneity, as are the lyrics. And yet most people would look at this and dismiss it as a mere spectacle of a trifle, especially the firework tits at the end.We see the same sort of thing in writing. There are very few if any now that can take twenty-six ugly little characters and scatter them in patterns over a page that leave burning words that remain in readers’ heads long after the book is back on the shelf in the way that Shakespeare, Burke, Voltaire, Schiller, Sun-Tzu (well alright he had a lot more characters than twenty-six), and yes, even Karl Marx, could. Where is the rhetorician that can inspire as in the past? I’ve remarked on here before that I often wish I had been alive at the time of Hitler and Churchill, two of history’s greatest gobshites matched in a superb battle of “who’s got the best lines” because could you imagine taking a nation that had been crushed, humiliated, rent asunder and very nearly destroyed, losing thousands of its men in the most horrible war ever seen on the planet only twenty-one years ago and, by the power of your words alone, persuading them it would be a really good idea to do it again? Or, on the other side, when you’ve seen all of Europe rolled over by the most efficient war machine there’s ever been, and your own army has been evacuated leaving some of its own men and most of its equipment behind, persuading everybody on a damp and foggy little island that, despite what it looks like, it’s a really good idea to stand up and say “bollocks, you mustachioed little shortarse, this is where it stops” and then getting them to do it? Because I can’t.All of that comes from observing the trifles and raising them up to equity with the important stuff. We don’t do that any more. We both concentrate and teach things in isolation and to process; we don’t ensure we know the basics before going off into flights of abstraction that even then have been processed for us and we never, ever work out the first principles any more and build from there. What it leads to is a small cadre doing the real intellectual work, and the rest blindly following theories they may not even fully understand as they can’t or won’t process the small detail any more. Because they can’t or won’t, what used to be common knowledge is now disregarded if it is ever learnt at all.Sometimes I fail to blame anybody at the end of an answer, and this disappoints people.I blame the Californians.Actually, thinking about it, a lot of the pseudo-intellectual bollocks does come out of California.I blame the Californians again.Well, chuff me, look at that! I was aiming for a 2500 word piece here and when I measured the above, look what happened:Damn, I’m good. It’s probably not the Californians that caused that.

I haven’t been on an interviewing panel, but I recommend considering the following.It probably isn’t a bad idea for you to treat them similarly to someone that has 3 - 4 years experience. Aside from the fact that you need to validate their claim to eight years, you also need to make sure that they’ve been using C++ properly, assess what C++ libraries they are aware of, and find out how involved they are with modern C++.It should be noted ahead of my suggestions that segregating classical C++ (C++98/C++03) and modern C++ (C++11 and beyond) is not recommended. Don’t blatantly ask a modern C++ question: instead, ask a question, and see how they solve the problem. Do they use modern features (e.g. lambdas, smart pointers) over classical features (e.g. functors, naked new/delete/auto_ptr)?Similarly, unless they don’t mention the Guideline Support Library or Boost for quite some time, refrain from asking direct questions about these. See how they integrate these libraries into their answers. Do they use Loki or Folly (of lesser importance, but still interesting to note)? Do they mention the Technical Specifications? You haven’t specified which industry you are interviewing for, so I cannot provide you with any specific libraries.If they don’t mention any of the above, I’d be raising some eyebrows, but would then try to coerce answers out of them.Do they stick to something like the Google Style Guide? If they adhere to the Google Style Guide, then they aren’t using C++ to its full potential. Nor are they using C++ the way it should be used. I wouldn’t be considering them too seriously. If they stick to the CppCoreGuidelines, they’re a gem, and I’d be seriously considering them.At a recent talk I attended, the speaker said that “after competency comes complacency”. A programmer with eight or more years is supposedly a competent programmer. How complacent are they with their simplistic design? Things to look out for regarding all C++ programmers, regardless of experience:Introduce problems that require RAII.Do they use standard containers/Boost, or roll their own?Ask a variety of questions: find out when they’d use a vector, a list, a set, an unordered_set, a multimap, a std::unordered_map (use of boost::unordered_map is an indicator that they might not be familiar with modern C++, but certainly not a deal-breaker), a boost::adjacency_list, a priority_queue, and so on. Why did they choose that container?Note that not everyone may have had a situation where boost::adjacency_list is appropriate.Ask them an extension question: perhaps the priority_queue problem could be mutated so that the comparisons are performed differently. Do they roll their own priority_queue, overload operator<, or place a custom comparison routine in std::priority_queue’s template arguments?Ask them how they’d implement std::vector. Do they resort to new[]/delete[], or do they choose to use std::unique_ptr?While on the topic of allocation, do they know what actually happens when you use delete on something allocated with new[]?In what situation is a shared_ptr more appropriate than a unique_ptr?Are they using make_unique and make_shared?When is weak_ptr a good idea?Have them improve code similar to this (hint: this is a perfect way to get them talking about the CppCoreGuidelines and GSL!). There’s also a bug in the code I’ve written: can they find it? Adjust the difficulty accordingly, but the key things here are to get them thinking about std::vector/std::array/std::string/std::array_view/std::string_view, range-for loops, gsl::span.#include <iostream>  void print_integers(const int x[], int size) {  for (auto i{ 0 }; i < size; ++i)  std::cout << x[i] << '\n'; }  void print_characters(const char* s, int size) {  for (auto i{ 0 }; i < size && s[i] != '\0'; ++i)  std::cout << s[i] << '\n'; }  int main() {  int xs[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };  int xs_size = 6;  print_integers(xs, xs_size);   char silly_string[6] = { 'a', 'b', 'a', 'c', 'u', 's' };  print_characters(silly_string, 7); // +1 for the '\0'  // note that the above line is the buggy  // and down right dangerous line of code } Have them design something with exceptions at the core of the design. To paraphrase Herb Sutter, exceptions are not something that should be implemented as an afterthought.Follow the core guidelines’ recommendations when setting criteria up for these questions first and foremost.Follow Sutter’s recommendations (Exceptional C++) and Meyers’ recommendations (More Effective C++) equally after the core guidelines.Do they use noexcept?Are they using auto, decltype, and template metaprogramming for type deduction? If they are, happy days. If they aren’t, ask why. There shouldn’t be a need to avoid type inference. Scott Meyers makes a good argument why it’s great. So does Herb Sutter.What’s their stance on metaprogramming?Do they use metaprogramming in general?How often do they use template metaprogramming?How often do they write template metaprograms? (b) and (c) are different questions.Ask questions involving partial template specialisation, full template specialisation, template parameter packs (variadic templates), and combinations of these.How about constexpr? (hint: constexpr is a great way of eliminating magic numbers!)Do they use static_assert? Why or why not?What is their reliance on the preprocessor, particularly #define and #pragma, like?Are they using enum class in favour of marcos? Are they at least using enum?Are they using constexpr in favour of macros?Are they using inline in favour of macros?Do they use standard attributes such as [[deprecated(reason)]] and [[fallthrough]]?How much const-correctness do they have?Are they using constexpr whenever they can?Are they using const when they can’t use constexpr?Are their member functions specified as const when they can be?How do they use mutable? Do they use it? Why or why not?How do they rely on move semantics?Are they using std::move when appropriate? (hint: when is “appropriate”?)Are they using std::forward when appropriate? Do they know when to forward over moving?Are their std::move and std::forward qualified, as shown?Why wouldn’t they want to move an object (explicitly ask this)?When should they pass by rvalue reference? When shouldn’t they pass by rvalue reference?Do they get copy elision?Do they use C++ features over C features?Are they preferring cout/cerr/clog over [f]printf and cin over scanf?Are they using string streams and file streams?Are they using stream manipulators?Do they know the subtle, but very important difference between std::endl and ‘\n’, and std::ends and ‘\0’? If they claim that std::endl is an OS-independent line separator, they are wrong.Do they know that C++ isn’t simply C with Classes? I don’t care how many years experience you claim to have, if you can’t answer this correctly, you are not a C++ programmer in my eyes. This question is probably best worded as “What’s the difference between C and C++?”, and is probably best asked by someone that has read The Design and Evolution of C++, by Bjarne Stroustrup.Do their main functions return int or some other type (e.g. void)?Do they mark their main functions with some specifiers such as static, inline, or constexpr?Have them implement something relying on the threads and concurrency libraries.Do they prevent race conditions? How?Do they prevent deadlocks? How?Do they rely on things such as std::lock_guard?How do they utilise condition_variable?How to they utilise standardised atomics? Do they know which atomic variables are truly atomic? How are the others implemented?Are they using volatile correctly?Can they make their solution lock free?Can they make their solution wait free?How simple do they keep their solutions?Bjarne Stroustrup states very early on in Programming: Principles and Practice Using C++ (2nd Edition) that programmers must strive for correctness, then simplicity, then efficiency. This means that at the heart of C++, simplicity is preferred over lightning-fast efficient code that nobody can understand.Have they read A Tour of C++? This is my refresher for C++ interviews. I recommend to everyone that it is an immediate must-read. The university I tutor at teaches C++ after C and Java, so I recommend that they read it within the first week. Then again before every assignment, and once again before their final exam. Yes, in my opinion, this book is something that should be explicitly mentioned in the interview.What tools do they use?Do they use compiler warnings? How about -Werror?Do they use static analysis tools, such as clang-analyser?Do they use profiling tools such as valgrind (insert Windows equivalents here)?How competent are they with their debugger?You’ve probably noticed that I’ve left out a bunch of things: object-oriented programming; multiple inheritance and virtual base classes; abstract base classes; RTTI; and so on. These are topics that you can integrate into the above with limited difficulty.See also: What is expected in a C++ test in an on-site interview with the AAA game developer in the UK?I provide a list of questions I would ask a C++ game programmer. The questions asked there don’t have the maturity and backing of the research I have conducted since (e.g. reading the Standard and Technical Specifications, reading and using the CppCoreGuidelines and GSL), but you might be able to extract a few questions from there. Also note that in the linked answer, I do segregate modern C++ from classical C++: I don’t know why I did this, as it is not something I recommend.