skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> But because those instances exist and these men have likely witnessed them personally, even if they're rare, they create the possibility in the minds of these men

There was never any suggestion that any of the men in the article observed some
woman "dating up" and as a consequence of that felt justified to grope or send
inappropriate messages to the women in the article.

The men in the article themselves did not even try to portray their alleged
actions as justifiable, or excuseable by association with any other past
behaviour. They either admitted their behaviour was wrong or denied they ever
behaved in this manner.

And yet, here you are relating a story about a woman you once saw "dating up" to
try and explain those men's behaviour as something else than a simple mistake
that should not be repeated.

How is this useful, exactly? In what way does it contribute, besides changing
the subject and trying to shift the blame on the people who, in the article,
were reportedly subjected to undeniably inappropriate behaviour?
The "fire in a crowded theater" standard is considered a legal joke these days. It has been superseded since the 1960s by FAR more stringent tests on speech limits. Expunge this saying from your vocabulary — it has zero relevance in modern case law.
Europe has fallen.
Undergraduate degrees are only one data point: Only 30% of PhDs are awarded to females. Math scores on SATs are higher for males than females and the top 1% scorers are 2-to-1 male to female. Males also excel in the ability to mentally rotate figures in three-dimensional space. [1]

The source concludes:

> The relatively small numbers of women in math-intensive careers result from many factors, one of which seems primary and should be accorded the greatest weight. Sex differences in mathematical and spatial ability, although substantial, appear unable to explain most of the shortage. Nor can the shortage be attributed to current discrimination, although historic discrepancies may be explained in such terms. The primary factor in women's underrepresentation is choices both freely made and constrained by biology and society. Women choose at a young age not to pursue math-intensive careers; few adolescent girls express desires to be engineers or physicists, preferring instead to be medical doctors, veterinarians, biologists, psychologists, and lawyers. Females make this choice despite earning higher math and science grades than males throughout schooling. Although women earn a large portion of baccalaureate degrees in all fields of science, including mathematics, disproportionately fewer enter graduate school in these fields, preferring biology, social sciences, law, medicine, and the humanities—even when they possess math ability comparable to males. Of those who enter graduate school in math-intensive fields, more women than men drop out or change fields, and of those who complete doctorates, fewer women apply for tenure-track positions. (...)

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2997703/#!po=37...
sorry dude, but that is not an acceptable answer. We live in a society - with moral and legal structures of what is acceptable. During my the life of this startup and the previous one I have gotten f'ed over royally by a small amount of individuals where they infuriated me incredibly. "nature" would have made me punch them in the face - but that is incredibly unacceptable behavior in a society or work environment. You have to be rational and understand what is OK and what is not like an adult.
> Honest question...

> I wasn't asked a question...

Anyway:

You didn't offend me at all.

I should've been more clear: It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this.

And as far as subjective feelings being relevant to whether a crime is committed or not: It's not that unusual. If you threaten to kill me, for example, then my feelings are critical to deciding whether a crime has been committed. Law isn't software. To a certain degree, it's gray by its very nature.

Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about the criminality of a lot of this behavior, but a lot of it definitely feels destructive and immoral.
Weird.. I posted a similar article last week ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14600155 ) and it got flagged... when really, it was just a blog post about the defense of coconut oil.
I am saying that this law discussed in the article constitutes no attack on free speech.

By implication, hypothetical stricter laws might be defensible, even. Next, the Abrahamic texts do contain truly awful prescriptions (genocide, killing people for all sorts of silly reasons, such as blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality, eating the wrong food, etc.), which one ought to argue against vigorously, and which could be illegal under (hypothetical, stricter) laws (insofar, for example, as quoting specific sections could be understood as a 'call for action' to murder people).

I don't see the mental gymnastics there?
He's in damage control mode, a purely defensive move to dig his crampons in and stop sliding.

He may mean what he says but only time will tell. Currently is all talk.
I expect that this trend of deputizing companies to police speech on their platforms will evolve in tension with rising antitrust scrutiny of the tech giants, because the rise of utterly dominant companies (a trend that the EU seems intent on slowing) would make efforts to regulate speech easier.

Large companies like Google have a global presence, and assets that can be targeted within the jurisdiction of most major governments, while a fragmented - and more competitive - market would make it more likely that "holdouts" can rise beyond the reach of a given government. These platforms would provide a redoubt for regulated speech, because it would be much harder to compel them to pay fines (though of course a country can simply block them).

At the same time, these new regulations give a competitive advantage to the companies with the scale and resources to invest in automating the removal process, and increases the challenges for upstart platforms, which now need to develop the infrastructure to aggressively police content on their networks if they want to grow beyond a certain size.

I think that in the long run, this will evolve into a stable equilibrium where governments periodically levy large-but-not-devastating fines in the name of "antitrust" in order to show their dedication to "competitive markets" and "customer choice", while simultaneously working hand-in-glove with these companies to enforce what they consider to be acceptable standards of speech in online communities. In the long run, no major competitors will emerge, and both the established firms and the government will silently thank their lucky stars.
As a humanist, I disagree. This is my reasoning: Unless the feelings are mutual, asking someone out at work can have negative consequences for the person you're asking, even if your intentions were good. You can't control their feelings, but you can control your actions. Also, believe it or not, your romantic options far outstrip your employment options. Asking people out at work just seems easier but it's quite complicated.
>Is it just me, or is committing public seppuku like this really necessary?

I suppose he felt this 'public seppuku' was necessary because a) he was called out by name in the NY Times article and b) he wanted to put it on record that the woman he hit on wasn't rejected from his company for rejecting him. I suspect (b) is the true motive, and without a certain level of self-flagellation it wouldn't be socially acceptable to state that fact.
What’s in a Continuation (2016)
This rationalization is a slippery slope. "Good works" does not entitle one to behave unethically. Seems close to these two from the Ethics Alarms website list of Unethical Rationalizations:

21. Ethics Accounting (“I’ve earned this”/ “I made up for that”) holds that someone can eliminate or mitigate wrong doing by loading up the good side of the ethics ledger so that the bad side looks puny by comparison.

11. The King’s Pass, The Star Syndrome, or “What Will We Do Without Him?”

One will often hear unethical behavior excused because the person involved is so important, so accomplished, and has done such great things for so many people that we should look the other way, just this once. This is a terribly dangerous mindset, because celebrities and powerful public figures come to depend on it. Their achievements, in their own minds and those of their supporters and fans, have earned them a more lenient ethical standard. This pass for bad behavior is as insidious as it is pervasive, and should be recognized and rejected whenever it raises its slimy head. In fact, the more respectable and accomplished an individual is, the more damage he or she can do through unethical conduct, because such individuals engender great trust. Thus the corrupting influence on the individual of The King’s Pass leads to the corruption of others.

https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unethical-rationalization...
> Tests are essential to software quality and static typing does not absolve you from writing tests.

No one said they did. You have to write fewer tests with static typing, not zero tests.

> My proposition was that dynamic languages offer better velocity which lets you get to market quicker

Velocity is subjective - perhaps for the developers in question dynamic languages are quicker to market, but I argue that is more because of familiarity and popularity, and less because of dynamic typing.

For example, developers I work with are just as proficient in both types of languages, and get to market just as fast with static typing, and in the long run they don't need to rewrite or chase typing bugs or spend more money on scaling inefficient software.
Nature and humanity right? We're all humans, I find it fascinating but also infuriating how often people forget that most people just want to be happy and if they find love with those near them then I'm happy for them, far be it from profiteering companies etc... to tell people not to make connections with others.
>Counterpoint: bowing to the collective social shaming buys the individual no "points", as is evidenced by this tread full of vultures questioning his motives.

The cynics in this thread (myself included) are not the target of this self-flagellation.
I agree. Answers like the above one indicate a level of dystopia/fear that itself is concerning. Friendship on any level is highly dependent on proximity in space and time. We need to be aware of how our righteous minds work and stop throwing stones all over the place.
Sam Altman thanks the women who spoke up about the harassment they faced
While I can see being peeved about screen touching, the fact it was construed as sexual harassment is absurd.

Then again, perhaps displays have sexuality too.
>> But because those instances exist and these men have likely witnessed them personally, even if they're rare, they create the possibility in the minds of these men

Btw, this does not compute. Those instances are "rare" but those men have "likely" witnessed them? When something is rare, most are unlikely to witness it.
A lot of people here seem to not understand the power imbalance point, so I'd like to explain it.

Imagine you're in these positions:
--Being arrested, and an officer makes a romantic advance
--On trial, and the judge makes a romantic advance
--In therapy, and the therapist makes a romantic advance
--At the doctor, and the doctor makes a romantic advance
--At the bank, and the banker makes a romantic advance
--In a restaurant, and the waiter makes a romantic advance
--At work, and the cleaning staff makes a romantic advance
--In class, and the teacher makes a romantic advance
--Buying a car, and the car dealer makes a romantic advance

Obviously each of these situations is a little different, and the appropriateness of flirting in each situation is a little bit different (for example a therapist will lose the ability to practice for life if they date a client, e.g. Dr. Phil).

When you consider why some of these are obviously wrong (cop, judge, therapist, teacher) it's because the individual in question has a responsibility to make a neutral judgement call that will have a meaningful impact on your life.

Now I'm not saying I have the answer to this, but I think we need to begin the discussion by establishing some principles.
https://gist.github.com/andrewarrow/63d4dbbf171e00b0b455e362...

wow, you can say display: grid and display: flex in css? and then flex: 1 1 200px;, grid-row-end: span 2;, grid-column: 1 / -1; What browser support these? Like is it 90% or 50%?
Zero utility? Chicago, Minneapolis, Toronto, and Detroit are are among the most populated and most economically powerful cities in North America. Connecting them and other cities on and around the great lakes with high speed rail would provide massive economic opportunity.
I didn't downvote any of your posts.

>This is not how market works. The transaction you describe is not beneficial, and if that's what you see here, you don't account for all variables (one that people often miss is time, another is investment).

You were suggesting that he's benefitted by her employment and she's benefitted by being employed. I'm saying that balance is very much in his favor. She is much more at his mercy than he's at hers.

>You redefine what having power over someone means.

Then how do you define it? If you come to some sort of "gatekeeper" in a professional setting, like a hiring manager or investor, and they, right off the bat, they say they want to have sex with you, then how is this at all appropriate given they hold the power to fulfill the person's goals? A relationship like that is the definition of holding power over someone.
Exactly. How many untold stories are there where they 'quit their jobs, remortgaged their houses' and now they live in a cardboard box under a bridge and their kids have been taken into care.

Passion is a fantastic asset but a lot of these people confuse it with stupidity.
Good to know. (As I said, I am no expert here, but (as I know from other areas) that does not prevent people from having an opinion...)

Do I understand you correctly in saying "more stringent tests" that more types of speech (beyond that) are considered off limits today?
I would be interested to know if there were any variance in marketing materials/information provided by male vs female led firms that might seed the discrepancy.
Good idea!

https://gist.github.com/mikeash/ce38d3a77b88734a9e0e9dc3f352...

You'll notice how `normal` takes all of its arguments out of registers `x0` through `x7` and places them on the stack for the call to `printf`. And you'll notice how `vararg` plays a bunch of games with the stack and never touches registers `x1` through `x7`. (It still uses `x0` because the first argument is not variadic.)

On the caller side, observe how `call_normal` places its values into `x0` through `x7` sequentially and then invokes the target function, while `call_vararg` places one value into `x0` and places everything else on the stack.

So, no, it looks to me like varargs very much change the calling convention.
Porting a 15 year old .NET 1.1 Virtual CPU Tiny OS school project to .NET 2.0 (hanselman.com)
2 points by riqbal 33 minutes ago

This title is misleading, it's .NET Core 2.0, not .NET. The blog post gets it right.
Recruiting is lossy and the standard of interviewing in the tech industry makes it fairly easy to game.
Exactly my feelings, I wouldn't hire someone into my team that I didn't think couldn't become my friend should the situation play out as such, it just seems logical to me.
Your falling hard for the broken window fallacy. Transition need not be over a weekend, and the net gains from increased efficiency more than cover transition costs over time.

If the VA spent 1/2 as much money and covered 1/6 of the costs while provoviding the same benefit that would be a good thing. This analysis ignores survives provided because the only way to make them look bad is to pretend spending more money is somehow a good thing.
Quetzalcoatl (ケツァルコアトル) – Kobayashi-San Chi No Maid Dragon (小林さんちのメイドラゴン)
Give us a break, it's not a huge no-no. One of the most lasting TV series of all time was based entirely on co-worker romances (The Office). I know multiple girls and guys who met their SOs as coworkers.

You may think it's lame (I do too fwiw), but it's still clearly acceptable almost everywhere, so I don't appreciate your gatekeeping.
I don't know if what you said about the insurance is correct or not, but if it is then that should have been factored into the price that Khosla paid to get the land (and possibly the government's assessment of the land value). Nobody forced him to buy that property.
California is already 15% of the US pop.
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1827:_Survivorshi...
Today I found the Ritz Carleton hotel in half moon bay provided access and free parking! I was having trouble finding even paid beachside parking today and stumbled on this.
I believe these systems are based on neural nets, they are trained, not programmed, to recognize animals.
Almost 70% browser support according to caniuse [1]

1- http://caniuse.com/css-grid/embed
What about the years (not weeks or even months) after pregnancy? Toddlers aren't hands-off.
Completely agree with this sentiment. If we all start acting out of our 'natural will', the world will just go bonkers.
If they live long enough, some people may actually get paid by Nautilus.
I don't see how I'm "gatekeeping" by merely answering a question by giving my honest opinion and then pointing out a tactful way to go about doing something I personally would not do.
This is actually not a real risk, because the German Federal Constitutional Court is generally not any fonder of content-based speech restrictions than the US Supreme Court (it is more permissive when it comes to content-neutral speech restrictions, however).

As I wrote elsewhere, the problem here is primarily not what the government does – because there are effective constitutional safeguards in place –, but what social media companies may do.
Not entirely, no. But like I mentioned in my other posts, women are freely choosing to pursue other careers which are more stereotypically female, a phenomenon which is even more pronounced in societies with high levels of gender equality. The evidence for aptitude and interest outweighs the evidence for discrimination.
One marvels at the rigors of a "high school philosophy class" that prepared you to "rebuff" this article by cherry-picking, an appeal to Mussolini making the trains run on time, ignorance of the history of your own field, multiple straw hominids, and a hearty "fuck you" to boot.

Clearly there are those who could perhaps benefit some from additional ethics education, and training in reasoning.

Then there are your actual poster children for the need.
Precisely the opposite. "More stringent tests" mean that any law that tries to limit speech must pass an exceedingly high bar — higher than ever before. The "clear and present danger" test used by Oliver Wendell Holmes in his "crowded theater" opinion basically says that any speech that could cause dangerous effects could be outlawed. Modern 1st Amendment jurisprudence, by contrast, has evolved toward the "fighting words" standard, which basically limits restrictions on speech to outlawing "true threats"; e.g. me saying I'm going to kill you.
Sure.. but dont you think Germans understand that their hate speech laws arent a simple black and white issue? that theyve made a compromise of their values because of their history with nazism and the wars that devastated their country. I think they know full well the compromise they've made.

So if google disappeared tomorrow in Germany because of this law.. do you think they pick up their protest signs and start marching? Or do you think they understand it's more complex than that and the answer isn't that simple.. and because they are busy people, they type bing.com into their browser instead.

Their history contributes directly toward their motivation to fight for a change in those laws (for the benefit of a foreign company I might add), and their willingness to use inferior alternatives. Given what they believe they are protecting against, I don't think they will bow to pressure easily.. they'll change them when they believe the threat is gone.
Speaking as a california lawyer: This is quite literally some of the most settled law california has.

Sorry, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary in this thread: california laws on beach access are incredibly clear.
If you think I'm the one who brought gender into this, you're either ignorant to the structural realities of our industry, or you're willfully being obtuse. If it's the former, let me be the first to tell you that men have most of the power and it's no accident that in the story this post reacts to, it's the men in power committing the abuse and not the other way around. Not to say that women can't be inappropriate at work or whatever, but if you're looking to promote equality, "both sides do bad things" is not the right way to do it in this case.
>Had the woman been hired she would have been denied by him the satisfaction of knowing she earned the position through her hard work, intelligence, and capabilities.

Meh. People get hired for bad, or unfair reasons all the time. Nobody cares about that. If that wasn't the case referrals and affirmative action wouldn't be allowed. The reality is that reasons for getting hired aren't as important as being competent in the job you were hired for.
>Warren Buffet 86, Chomsky 88, James Harris Simons 79

Wow 3 of them! And it helps to ignore the (likelihood of) older people who kept using their brains and now have mush upstairs.
I look forward to seeing it! I still remember seeing the trailer and now impressed I was, and was recently wondering what happened with it. If it lives up to its promise it will really be something.
Drones may soon have to identify themselves electronically while in flight
This has so much malicious capabilities now for legacy hardware. It's perfect.
Thankfully, all Chrome extensions can at least have the source viewed.

The .crz file type for Chrome extensions is actually a .zip file, so the code can be inspected. If it's obfuscated this doesn't mean much though.
The Corporate Blockchain
I could not understand how can you set a custom height for one of your grid items, and then align it top/bottom/center for example.
We do, and it's called the Framingham heart study.

It's a landmark, decades long (began in 1948) research study that revolutionized health guidelines and what factors in death and heart disease.
There is a code of ethics by NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers): https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics

And as programmers are calling themselves engineers, they should adhere to that code.
Wow, that's a lot of explanation for a fairly straightforward concept.

Cool site though. Didn't know it existed.
This is an interesting blend of rigid paranoia and moralistic finger wagging.
Rail only going to a fewe small city's would be underutilized. Ballpark 1/3 of the people going from A to B using high speed rail and you need a lot of people going from A to B. However, if B is on the way to C and people from A and B also go to C... etc you start to see massive network effects.

Sure, if Texas wants to spemd their money go for it, but this would be a relative ware of federal funds.
One of the most difficult things you'll do to explain success is say, "I just happened to be in the right place at the right time". So, lacking that, reasons must be provided to explain all that work and risk that was taken.
I'd advise to never interact with co-workers beyond day to day work interactions. It's just not worth the risk in a society hell-bent on being offended and convicting others of wrong-think. I'm not speaking about actions that are objectively illegal.