skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It may take proactive behavior, like choosing a women over a man when growing your team, just because, or promoting women more freely.

'Just because' what? You're asking for 'more women excelling in the field' but promoting somebody just because isn't going to make them excel.

If, on the other hand, brilliant women were not being promoted 'just because' that would suggest a problem. But is this so?
bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks.

you're all idiots.
I will download Meditations right away. It's a pending book to read.
My test of the UK postal service was to address a postcard to my email address.

I figured they could lookup WHOIS on the domain, get the address, and deliver it.

Sadly not..
The article suggests that power in computing is something men have to give. It isn't. Computing is a market based economy. Anyone can start a computing company, and run it as they please.

I.e. women can start computing companies, and hire women. Women do not need permission from men to do this, nor do they need favor from men.
Hi, well, first I must admit that that by itself is not an original thought, of course. I've most recently read it in Sam Harris' Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.

I've made the same comment (nothing original, as I said... :) elsewhere in this thread, and someone replied with the golden rule, maybe you want to read the discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13731755

Elsewhere, the argument has been made that the miraculous parts of Christianity (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) are largely not original, but collages of earlier prophets, though I couldn't point you to that literature off the top of my head, and it's not the point we're discussing anyways.
I don't mean this to sound overly harsh, but I think treating this situation as some sort of mystery is part of the problem.

All that one really needs to do to understand why the field is unwelcoming to women is to start listening to women.
It seems that as thing got more business-oriented, it has become more fashionable. And in the process pushing out all but the most thick skinned and loud.
> I'm not necessarily proud of this but I'm not sure if I would be dating my current boyfriend if PREP were not available because of the risk it could present to my health.

Personally, I don't think that's a sentiment to be proud of or ashamed of. It's a practical reaction to the lay of the land. I hope you don't beat yourself up about it.
I never hear people speak about fixing the nursing gender gap....
The broken SPHINCS links should perhaps point to the paper
https://sphincs.cr.yp.to/sphincs-20150202.pdf
Things like blind interviews and blind resume screening at the initial stage of the interview have shown to reduce bias.

Also, specifically making efforts to reach out to women, and get them to apply to your company, work. (don't lower the bar! Just increase your pipeline)
Introduction to statistical learning
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~gareth/ISL/
If you disagree with Pike's implied priors, do so directly; don't huff about how logic that starts from a different set of premises to yours ends at a bad place when you swap the premises out from under it.

One very simple, coherent way to arrive at Pike's position without sacrificing the notion of merit is to accept the idea that it's very unlikely that computer technology is unique among the professions in being suited to men, and thus the gender gap must itself be an indication that something other that merit is systematically advantaging men and disadvantaging women.

You're welcome to argue that point (or any other), but don't pretend that you've beaten it by default.
They are already here and they do not want to not exist nor be treated badly

They are only here because we eat them. Look at the link I gave- nearly every mammal (counted by total weight) that is alive on earth is so because it has some use to us (https://xkcd.com/1338/). If we stopped eating them, the vast, vast majority of them wouldn't be alive. Economics demands it. Nobody is going to use land to raise herds of cattle and just let them exist. So you have to make a choice between either the animal not existing, or us eating it.

If you applied the same thinking to slavery many people would be outraged.

But in that case, the people who were slaves could have paid their own way and been useful to society outside of being slaves. Cattle can't do anything else useful. Either we eat them or they're not around. We can be kinder to them, but we can't (within any reasonable interpretation of the modern capitalist society we find ourselves in) just not eat them and have the same number around. They have no other function.
It is very beautiful, I give you star
probably this https://www.amazon.ca/Python-Machine-Learning-Sebastian-Rasc...
7 Reasons Why Your Cold Email Isn't Effective
I'd love to see those papers; I intuit the same result, but I don't trust my intuition on social issues.

The problem is going to remain - Where do we draw the line? Where does pressure towards the center start to hurt progress because of pushback? I'd posit that much of the "Black Lives Matter" debate is actually this debate - But that the communities are speaking past one another. The places where Black Lives Matter is considered axiomatic are already past that line, while the places where it's viewed with disdain are where racism is still firmly rooted.
If you think slavery was the main, or even a large driver of industrial growth, you need to explain the extreme lack of industry in places where slavery was common versus places where there was no slavery. E.g., New England versus the Carolinas, etc.
Random pass phrases written in uv marker on the underside of your desk, in a notebook (bonus: you can burn it once memorized) scrambled and/or hidden among decoy passphrases. Make the phrase long enough (high enough entropy) that you have enough time to memorize it and use it before it should be rotated.

Whether you like this implementation or not, the solution is to choose better passwords.
I think it might be valuable to reflect on why your immediate reaction to "push them into positions of influence" is to think that women are unqualified to be there and they must be receiving "special advantage" if they are.
Prophet is a procedure for forecasting time series data
Communication, people management and organization.

Being able to work with your team effectively is IMO extremely important especially for engineers that jump around a lot to different jobs, teams and corporate cultures.
Is 'diversity' selfish? Perhaps women/teenage girls aren't interested in becoming programmers, because they don't find it to be an interesting or fulfilling career.
> And what of the girls who learn that their role models have been given a handicap, pushed upwards beyond their skill by well-meaning but naive men?

Proponents of affirmative-action policies argue that the handicap offsets disabilities from the glass ceiling, discrimination / stereotype threat in the workplace/education pipeline. The calculus of what "balances out inequality" is imperfect, but arguably better than just having the disability.
> If it happens, some people are certainly going to be badly, maybe lethally, injured.

"Billy Mays here!!..."

(granted that was a freak accident but if you're in a vehicle with a seatbelt you should wear it)
The rise of artificial intelligence is creating new variety in the chip market
I happen to agree with your first para, but I think indifference and dislike are separate

I am indifferent to warhols work because I already agree with the inherent message and find little beyond that message

You can even dislike Warhol for other reasons, but it still remains that disliking the work for its mass production qualities means you are responding as intended

As for your second para.. you seem to be an adherent of a dull and unskillful ideology

I think all art takes skill, of varying types of skill, but more specifically a lot of modern art(o) consists of paintings that inarguably required a lot of skill to paint

You seem to be arguing something other than modern art

Personally I think it's dangerous to apply limitations on how others can express thaemself

(o) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art
I said 2/20 fees aren't the norm anymore. You quoted from the letter. I provided a source that shows hedge fund fees are going down and remarked that the Buffett bet started before the 2008 crash when fees were higher then they are now. Because it was a boom period and because index funds that push down management fees have only recently become popular.
But why would we start from that assumption?

Developer hiring is pretty rigorous compared to a lot of fields where the process boils down to "turn up, is the candidate presentable and interested, do they avoid saying anything dumb in the interview, do they have a good CV, hired". People are asked to actually demonstrate their skills during the hiring process, for instance, something a lot of job interviews lack.

Moreover, the demand for skilled talent is enormous. All sorts of people who are kind of weird or anti-social get hired as programmers when they would struggle to get hired as, say, business analysts or salespeople, simply because people want software and beggars can't be choosers.

In such an environment, implying that the industry is not meritocratic or hopelessly biased against women is especially silly. Women programmers are sought after everywhere. They already have the playing field tipped in their favour in precise, specific, concrete ways. The idea that there's some impossible to see glass barriers stopping them from getting into programming is never nailed down with specifics, probably because no such barriers exist.
Now you're talking past me. It does not follow from the fact that active investment is necessary that people should invest with active investors. Again, fierce competition among active investors can --- and probably have --- created conditions where all the returns on active investing will go to (effectively) proprietary traders.
I raised two girls who found the "alpha geek" phenomenon totally repugnant. One is heading back into a CS degree in her thirties; the other went bio and is an entrepreneur.

I have to wonder if the chasing away is not to their benefit. Perhaps the ugly is not just a ... social artifact but more of a reflection of the nature of the course of study.

Two things spring to mind:

- the curious economics of program-correctness.
( people quickly abandon all hope and despair - the
"fixes" are all very tedious )

This one's weird - I hope I do not try your patience with it...

- the observation that is made by Adam Curtis in "All Cared For" that what we now call the "environmental movement" could be an artifact of computing. The mindset that there is a knowable and optimum equilibrium for complex systems is something I find increasingly puzzling. It just seems to be a bootstrap; I can't really come up with an ...epistemology of it that isn't circular. People 100 years ago just didn't care; they do now; there was propaganda; it's a thing now that used to not be.

Now suppose that there are other, irrational "optima" that people in our field become obsessed with.

Finally, I believe that prior to the 1990s, people used things like punch cards and other madness to filter participants. After 1990, the unemployment rate of GenX led to the abuse of computing to find those kids something to do. That, I think, led to the "alpha geek" phenomenon as it is now - we had "alpha geeks" before but they seemed nicer, somehow. Or something.

I'm increasingly attributing thready employment to Fed policy, as per Dean Baker, and Scott Sumner. That's not a main stream view...

I would submit that the tech industry is definitely moving backwards. Whether this is all part of it is a hard question.
One thing I hadn't thought of til just now: how was he able to start a company in a competing market right after leaving google?
I wasn't suggesting importing for resale, but rather earning referral fees. It looks like he's being paid for the top spot now.
Pointing out that a source isn't credible isn't an ad hominem attack --- or, in my case, even an attack at all. I'm broadly sold on the idea that Renaissance profits largely through tax loopholes.
There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability

Look at the discourse on HN, particularly on contentious topics, where people make general statements and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements. Or look at the the polarization in the US where it's so often the case that it's "us" vs "them", bucketing people into two groups, without recognizing that there's significant overlap in values between them.

It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong

I would consider cognitive bias to be a pretty well-accepted idea. One of the strengths of the scientific method is that it provides a way to attempt to remove cognitive bias from observation. Do you disagree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread. I'll leave it at that.
Was it not his entire point that these people should be given an advantage? What else do you think it means to be "pushed into positions of influence"?
Keep UI on mobile is way too confusing to me.

I just make spreadsheets at sheets.google.com, make it editable offline, edit on phone with Sheets app

tune in next time when I bore you with my org mode setup!
Learn how to write (and edit) design documents. Realizing things are a bad idea early is the best way to do it, and nothing pushes needed change more effectively than a concise and well thought out design doc.
Well, we do have, as most modern countries do, a system for the taking of private property for public use. But that's not even what's happening here, as no property is being taken.
If you pick your starting assumption, you can reach any conclusion you desire.
Some say the decline happened because computers became household objects and a boy's toy.

Which makes sense to me.
Meritocracy paradoxically seems to lead to worse results overall

An extreme opinion stated as if it's a fact. Can you show me the phalanx of companies systematically beating their competition by deliberately hiring incompetent but genetically "diverse" people?
I read somewhere that over the last 50 years or so an average apple has grown 2 to 3 times in size and sweetness and like you mentioned a large apple is 3 portions. We can be sure that other fruits and vegetables have also grown in size. So today having a serving of fruit could very well be 3 times the size of a serving of fruit was 50 years ago. Know wonder people eat healthy/well and still gain weight.
So I'll preface my opinion with the fact that we're both putting words into some dudes mouth.

When he or anyone else says that we should promote women, it's not saying that we should promote incompetent women. It's saying we should promote women who deserve it by challenging our biases. Take as an example orchestra auditions; when orchestras move to blind auditions the gender ratios for top positions suddenly become much more representative of the actual population. Since we do not have the luxury of blind auditions, we have to challenge ourselves to lean more on objective measures, as well as questioning our subjective measures that (unknowingly) take gender into account.

And maybe you're right; maybe women have less interest in science than men. The problem is we'll never actually know because society tells children, teens, and adults that women don't like math and men don't like nursing. So the best mechanism we have is encouraging women and men that the status quo is arbitrary, which involves having events focused on women in tech and working to promote women who deserve to be promoted so that there is an alternate narrative. Because that narrative has just as much validity (and in my opinion much more so) as the narrative that women just don't like science.
Have you ever seen a product manager or "the meeting guy" train juniors ? That doesn't even make sense, as you haven't hired those juniors to do either product management or "stakeholder management" or ... whatever the next fashionable term will be, so they simply can't provide the training that is needed.

At least where I work, the "workhorses" are the ones training the new guys.
While I think it's important to not neglect the horrors of slavery and the theft of lands from indigenous peoples, it's disingenuous to imply that the sole (or a major) cause of America's current and continuous booming economy was either of these.

The easiest way to dispel this notion is to show that the vast, vast majority of American wealth (>99%) came about long after slavery had ended. Indeed, if we could return to the economy at the time slavery was in full swing (even disregarding morals), not one rational person would choose to do so. Another way is to compare the US economy to those that didn't discontinue those practices. Or to show that even in current circumstances the US economy continues to grow rapidly, after hundreds of years of doing so.

So, please don't forget the atrocities caused by the United States. But also don't attribute everything that ever happened in the United States to those atrocities. It may be a cheap way to brush aside the success of the United States, but it isn't an honest argument. Clearly there's something else going on that has made the United States the most wealthy country in the world (per capita).
During the Cold War, if one showed up in one of the weedout classes for EE, you got the "look to your left & right. One of you will not survive this process" lecture. EE was very seriously a defense discipline and the values-pyramid was feeding bodies into the Military Industrial Complex.

I imagine that is part of it.
Couldn't you combine work and travel? Take your laptop with you to exotic places, and work as a "digital nomad" while telecommuting in to work?
I think it means that due to existing biases, the role models, promoted people, etc. are biased towards men and women, and therefore by definition include some number of men less qualified than women who could potentially have those roles. We need to push back on these biases, which means that we need to push women into roles where they are qualified, and push out unqualified men as a result.

It's harsh, but if we want a meritocracy, it's the right thing to do.
I'd like to add the only optimistic response I can think of. The only benefit of deregulation is the opportunity for disruption of monopolies. Especially so in a landscape of tech.

If provider A starts providing terrible bandwidth, incredibly high prices, and terrible service, it means that that provider X has a lucrative opportunity to provide better bandwidth, better prices, and great service.

I hope these rules aren't used to help entrenched monopolies, but provide an ripe opportunity for the space to innovate.

I hope these rules will be on the wrong side of history, but there is little stopping anyone from using the free market to their advantage.
Are unit tests insufficient to catch these kinds of mistakes?
How Nokia made the modern cell phone
Luxry Car Rental Dubai – Limo Services Dubai
Hear me out before you downvote me to oblivion.
Diversity talk is the war against middle class and men. That's how elite stay in power. There is no need to "FORCE" women into tech and become managers.

I would argue that 99% women are mediocre and so are 99% men. Those who are smart rise to the top automatically. You are saying that because women have the vagina, promote them. I worked for three large tech companies. One went down in flames as we all know and sold for pieces.

I see two fold problems in the US and Asian/Indian women joining this diversity cult.
1) Most of these women are at-wall or post-wall women. They are single, pumped and dumped over the years and no man in sight. These women are depressed internally. Getting these women into tech is not going to solve any problem. In fact, thousands of lives may be destroyed because of failing businesses. It has happened with Yahoo, HP, and others and will follow the pattern.
Of course, there are smart women. They know their value and may rise to the top chain due to their talent.

2. In last 10 or so years, there seems to be the war against men. Ever notice how easy life is for women? Money, sex, shelter, divorce, courts, state et al. What about men?
These white-knight pussy hungry betas, who are vouching for women, are actually worse. That's what you get from broken families and not having fatherly figures. Most, if not all, are the product of single mothers and/or beta fathers.

I am not saying women should not work in tech. I am saying forcing them to be in tech or promoting them because they are women is going to end in disaster.
"but it seemed to me that the difference stemmed from the demographics"

feminine social primacy != equality

Why is this part of the narrative of women in STEM? Do people not realize this language is counterproductive?
Yeah, people are about the density of water but even an isle full of people isn't enough to be too meaningful to an airliner. The only times it may be a problem would be a short runway with a full fuel load at altitude. Airliner are typically flown well within it's performance limits. No airline would allow a flight plan that's close to the maximum performance of the aircraft since it would be a recipe for disaster in addition to hard on equipment.

Keeping the cargo secure and the wrench that extra passengers throws into emergency procedures is the real issue here.
Great to hear! I'll keep an eye out :)
The Future of Not Working
That's because you haven't looked.

Here's a post I made four years ago that mentions programmes to increase men in nursing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6210618#6210989

Or from user Anechoic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350093#5350655

Or from dgabriel five years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3452516#3453224

or this from dragonwriter three years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6980431#6982189

There are hundreds of these posts on HN.
But they do need capital.
Does anyone have a good comparison between MariaDB 10.x and MySQL 8.0? Also, when will MySQL 8.0 be out? (The current version is "Not yet released, Development Milestone").
I'm guessing this may also apply to MariaDB (MySQL fork) as well?
I think its fairly common for people to believe both that the US is the greatest, and it isn't what it used to be. There's obviously some tension between those ideas, noted humorously by Stephen Colbert's book entitled 'America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't'.
I think it will fix itself frankly, the job is way too good not to. Easy 6 figures with a 2 year degree, huge ability to rise into management, lots of different areas to work if you dislike the standard floor nursing. Men can't stay blind to that forever.
Doesn't the original text imply just that?