skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is so true. Twenty years ago the best programmer I ever worked with was a women, and I only thought of her as the best programmer that I'd ever worked with.

Something has changed since then and I am unable to perceive or explain what it is.
> But they believe that cycling on roads is unreasonably dangerous, so they
> blame the cyclist for endangering themselves.

Speaking from personal experience, as a driver I absolutely hate cyclists. Weaving through traffic at speeds slower than the vehicles they cut off, no indication of intended lane changes, running of compulsory stops, shortcuts across footpaths only to pull out in front of vehicles that have right-of-way. I've seen them push their bikes through red lights, to avoid the "but you rode through a red light so you're in the wrong" legal consequence they might face if hit. There was one group of adults and children who overtook me on the side I was indicating and moving to turn, once. That's most illegal here, and I nearly hit them. (They blamed me, but the police blamed them when I phoned the complaint in. "If you ever see that again, have your passenger phone us and you follow them, so we can have a chat with them about safe road use.")

Then there are the times I was a pedestrian. I've been crossing the road at a controlled intersection at one particular location for several years, and in that time I've nearly been hit by a car once. I'm nearly hit by cyclists running red lights there at least once a month, usually a lot more often than that.

One particularly stupid individual on a bike was doing about 45mph on the footpath, cutting blind corners very closely. Nearly hit me three days in a row, and if he had I would have been hospitalized just because of the speed he was doing - stupid little %@#! went on Facebook and started bitching about how a pedestrian had been in his way, I later heard, even though he was riding illegally.

Another one - who should be nominated for an honorary Darwin Award - was trying to squeeze between two parked buses. Had my friend (the driver) not noticed, the cyclist would have been crushed to death.

Why do I hate them? Unpredictability. Many of them are car drivers (weather extremes in my town make year-round cycling a rather miserable affair) who know they shouldn't be doing these things, but they don't care because how will anybody track them down if they don't have plates?

I'm not going suggesting that all cyclists are like this by any means, nor am I going to get into drivers because that would be off topic. I'm simply trying to add a little perspective as to why drivers may dislike cyclists. I am very much in favor of physically separated spaces for cyclists (although how controlled intersections would work is a topic I leave for civil engineers and law enforcement).
>Furthermore, commenting directly on the awesomeness of someone else's body is also not sexual. Have you never admired a femal athlete, the way you admire a male athelete?

I am bisexual so the analogy doesn't quite work lol. and yes sometimes that can be non-sexual, but a workplace is not a place to make those kinds of comments because it is a VERY thin line and can easily make someone uncomfortable. and 99% of the time men commenting on women's bodies is sexual or has sexual undertones so it's really a corner case here. when's the last time you heard a straight man say something like "wow she always has super cool outfits and I love what she does with her makeup" or whatever lol.
We are most definitely hiring: https://about.sourcegraph.com/jobs/#listings
The difficulty is whether those differences are biological, social or cultural. Its hard to tease those differences apart with our current tools.

I'll stick with the assumption that its the latter two just because its more convenient and diplomatic. Maybe the genetic data we mine in future generations will give us the real answers but I don't see any advantage in pressing the biological argument until then (as I'm not working directly in that field).
Your comment was one of the points argued in the memo.

It's important to understand and prioritize intention or else:
>increases [in our] our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies.

This means distinguishing between a well-meaning comment and a maleficent or predatory remark.
There's an evolutionary advantage to having people who are isolated from the rest of the community. And not just in terms of sickness transmission. Things such as war, famine, and natural disasters can wipe out whole population groups.
Suburbs are one thing. Cities or regular roads between settlements are a completely different thing.

In suburbs you have to watch out for kids playing on the street anyway, most drivers live in those suburbs and they know their neighbors. In my experience, drivers in suburbs are much more attentive and friendly than drivers in big cities.

Last but not least, kids tend not to ride their big on big roads that cut through suburbs, they are on small side streets that don't see much traffic anyway.

When you ride a bike in SF from Sunset to SoMa you'll notice the difference.
Your theory is that software is totally random? There's no correlation between what people do and how the project goes?

That is a really weird theory for a programmer to have about anything, let alone what he's chosen to spent 80,000 hours doing.
That's only a problem if there's a shortage of people with applicable skills, which doesn't apply to the vast majority of businesses. All other things being equal, a "good culture fit" should make a better member of the team. If monoculture improves team effectiveness, then a better culture fit is likely even worth paying a price premium.
Fair enough. I felt a fleeting moment of self-vindication when I saw it pop up in my RSS feed - hence, the reason why I kept it.
Yes I think so. I have been a teacher and CS engineer so for me it is clear that CS is more stressful. Nurse is something I couldn't do and when I always ask them why are they nurses they say they feel great when they help people and they know they cannot help everybody. I don't know anyone in CS who feels great when writting software.

You can keep the bridge you bought in brooklyn.
or it could be the big bang is the relaxing of a muscle cell is some cosmic monster. Or perhaps the big bang was kinda like enzymes, breaking something hard to eat into a nice easily digestible heat bath. or it could be an edge transition of one wire of some cosmic computer.

It's fun to kick around crazy ideas on Saturday afternoon. It could be anything. Sadly, there's no way i'll ever know. But the idle speculation is still amusing.
Uh. The vast majority of what constitutes YOU is empty space.

Sometime go look up the amount of space between the protons, neutrons, and electron cloud in an atom.
I'm friends with some of the original ZFS guys, Jeff Bonwick was a student of mine at Stanford and I got him to come to Sun, Bill Moore worked for me on BitKeeper. Those guys are seriously studly engineers. I've done file system work at Sun, I don't compare with Bill & Jeff, they are way better.

So yeah, trying to do better than those guys is going to be interesting. I'd like to know who is on the RedHat team working on this new file system, just the fact that they are trying is interesting.

Edit: and I was at SGI when XFS was pretty new, I know some of the XFS folks as well, Adam Sweeney and Mike Nishimoto.

I was the guy that plugged XFS into NFS over HIPPI, so I have more than a passing knowledge of it:

http://mcvoy.com/lm/bds.pdf

XFS was pretty cool but a lot of the technology that made it fast was XLV, the logical volume manager. XFS just made sure it handed very large, aligned, I/O requests to the volume manager, the volume manager was the layer that split them up and got all the DMA engines going. That's how we did 500MB/sec in the early 1990's on 200mhz MIPS chips, the MIPS chips weren't touching the data, the DMA engines were (the networking stack did page flipping to avoid bcopies).

I know XFS did other stuff for scaling but it most certainly did not do all the safety stuff (and I don't think it did transparent compression, those 200mhz MIPS cpus weren't fast enough to put that in there) that ZFS does.

So I'm wondering how much XFS has evolved from the SGI days. If it hasn't, I don't get why RedHat started there. Be really interested to know the back story.
$200 is for doing it. $404 for knowing how to do it.
All observations are inferences from indirect phenomena.
As I said, I am aware that you are supposedly in danger at driveways etc. I said I would pause to check at driveways and those places. You did not acknowledge or read what I wrote, you just took the opportunity to give me a patronizing lecture.

It is realistic to try to avoid putting myself in a position where I may avoid being hit or run over by a car with no steel or anything to protect me. And we are making massive strides in terms of safety with things like self-driving cars.
TFA explains—not even a quarter of the way through!—why overloading in C++ isn't good enough to implement multiple dispatch.
I think there's a bit of a difference in conservatives complaining about their ideas not being honestly considered and being excluded because of (perceived) groupthink, and claims like saying "America is the land of opportunity" or wearing a sombrero or making a burrito while being white as "aggression", micro or not. If the question were about some people, out of sexist or other considerations, would exclude feminists from being considered the part of intellectual discourse, that complaint would not get much pushback. Most reasonable people would agree that feminists should have equal chance to present their case, and for it to be considered on merits. What gets significantly more pushback is widespread attempt to use "microagression" framework to police everyday conduct and "micro"-criminalize or shame routine behavior - food choices, activity choices, clothing choices, even how a person sits - it all can be "microagression". Microagressions are[1]: "Where are you from?", "America is a melting pot", "I believe the most qualified person should get the job.", presence of liquor stores in certain neighborhoods, commenting on certain behaviors (note there how telling person of one race about being loud and another about being quiet is aggression, but the reverse is not, because obviously everything depends on the race!) posting a funny picture about Obama[2], or "Statements that indicate that a White person does not want to or need to acknowledge race" and "statement made when bias is denied"[3]. I think there's a bit of a difference here between the complaints.

[1] http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf
[2] http://time.com/32618/microaggression-is-the-new-racism-on-c...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
I will make something useful for myself.
I also thought the pair programming example was odd, as I've never noticed different propensities for pairing based on gender. As far as I can tell, it is equally disliked. :)
So reading the article above it didn't make clear - are these memes generated by AI or is it just an internal meme creation / sharing site?
You're comparing apples and orangutans.
The school was in Emeryville, between Oakland and Berkeley, Fred Unterseher and Peter Miller were the primary instructors, I was a student.
Fred's book was published while I was there.
I still have several glass plate holograms I made while there.
We thought we were going to change the world with Holography, how mistaken we were.
First of all, let me lead with: I'm a neoliberal democrat type person, I support diversity initiatives, reaching out to and supporting under represented communities, making changing to work culture to help people who haven't succeeded historically (IE mothers who leave to take care of their kids) etc. I disagree with most of the points in the guys doc.

> Why haven't I read a 10 page pro-diversity creed circulating at google?

The corporate culture in SV is pretty far to the left (all things being considered), you don't see things like a 10 page pro-diversity creed circulating internally because for the most part, those type of documents are official company policy. IMO, this is a good thing.

I think open discussion of ideas like the one in this document would be beneficial because they are easy to refute and all people involved can take it as a learning or educating experience. The guys conclusions aren't "morally bad", but they are "demonstrably wrong" and its easy to see why if honest discussion was permitted. The problem is, open discussion is not permitted because the culture of the left seems to confuse "demonstrably wrong" with "morally bad" and thus makes having bad ideas a sin, instead of say, an opportunity that one can be educated on an enlightened.
> I don't see what's micro about losing your job for wrongthink.

I admit this is my first time hearing the term "wrongthink" but I assume this means something along the lines of "thinking the wrong thing".

If that's true, then nobody loses their job for wrongthink. What they lose it for is actually acting on it, which i guess you could call wrongdoing.

Take for example, sexual harassment. It's okay to find your coworker sexually attractive, and also okay to think about them in a sexual manner, but to openly say something without regard for whether it would make them uncomfortable is not okay.
> Except he didn't say that the differences we observe are 100% due to biology.

He did, if he didn't intend to he used the wrong language. He had a section called:

> Personality Differences

Where to his credit he did say: "on average" but then he failed to distinguish these differences as cultural or social. Rather he prefixed that part of the article with a section that stated:

> On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed....

I don't know how to read that otherwise. My understanding is that he IS saying that biologically women (on average) are less able to negotiate pay, prefer social work to STEM, etc.
Now while those are perfectly fine things to consider stating them as fact is a bit of a leap. You have to prefix your work to make it less assertion and more speculation for people not to assume what I assumed.
> I mean why not?

Why not have a broad-based program to appeal to all demographics? Black Americans are also underrepresented. Rural children have less access to certain kinds of resources like magnet STEM schools.
> Are you sure the modern world isn't constantly at war with itself? I am not

In the Western world in North America and Europe we are doing pretty well. The many big issues are here such as climate change and low reproduction and lack of economic growth and the widening gap between rich and poor is problematic but it isn't leading to any major violence locally. There are problems but society is generally safe.
I used to have conversations like that with a female roommate, and since then, have developed some interesting ideas about human-born artwork.

It sounds to me like the phenomenon you are describing is a form of dysfunctionality that is not universal to all men. It is incorrect, specifically sexist, to insist that all men can only see woman for their sexual potential. Please stop, you are doing us all (including women!) a great disservice.
Yes because for loops are syntax sugar around gotos. It all boils down to the same thing. However maps can be determined to be turing incomplete if the mapped function has no function calls and no loops and if the input list is not infinite. This means that it's suitable for a wide range of dsls that would like to know if programs are susceptible to the halting problem (e.g. bpf -which doesnt have maps but I think it could...)
Yeah, it's not too bad. Odds are, you were probably doing it already anyway.

My recommendation, learn how to translate "unquantifiable" ideas to quantifiable ones. You can do this through a simple tool called an "OKR", which stands for "Objectives, and Key Results".

OKRs are generally built for quarterly runs. No need to stick to that. But come up with four objectives, split them each into six or so actionable items. So those actionable items can be split up into tasks, sprints, etc..

At that point, you will have quite a bit of work set up, and it will be easily measured. Take the percentage completed of each of the tasks, which make up the percent completed of the Key Result, and then the percentage of the Key Results completed make up how far along in your objective you are.

The objectives should spread across several different domains that you're directing, and your priorities should take care of what goes in there.

Take a good amount of measurements on those, do Gap Analysis' often, to find out why you overshot, undershot, etc., and keep track of that information. Do Root Cause Analysis' often as well, so you can find out what is really going on.

The crux of it all really depends on what you're willing to do with your team, and how accountable you're all willing to be held. Without their backing on your objectives, it'll be a bit more difficult. So if they understand what it is that you're trying to accomplish, and they see your leadership (i.e. owning up to all mistakes, and sharing all accomplishments), they will back you. But the keys to that are understanding the goals of the objectives (not just the objectives, but the reason that they're up there).

If you can do those things, you'll find it very easy to manage.

Other more specific things might be setting up controls so that you can easily audit the SDLC: get "sensors" and "measures" in place. Sensors would be something like a CI server, automated testing, security unit tests, post deployment tests, code sniffing, static code analysis, dynamic code analysis, regular fuzz testing, ensuring that your environment is locked down with file integrity checking, track third party tools that are in use for any known vulnerabilities, get software bill of materials (while you're at it), get a known authorized hardware list, get a known authorized software list, have a monitoring system for when these are violated, and get the response time down to 1 - 24 hours.

The measures will be something like:
* adding a benevolent unauthorized machine to the network.
* adding benevolent unauthorized software to an unauthorized machine in the network
* adding benevolent unauthorized software to an authorized machine in the network
* make a change to a file that does not decrease the security of the environment (ex: change from 10 char password complexity to 14 char password complexity), and see if the file integrity check finds it.

Basically for every sensor, you want to have a measure that checks it, otherwise you won't know if you have it set up properly, or if it is broken.
Anyone who knows anything about biology or genetics knows that it is absurd that there would be zero phenotypic difference between males and females. There are simply different factors driving each gender's reproductive success, and therefore the XX and XY chromosomal difference will push different traits.

Sociology and anthropology depts can't handle this because they aren't interested in science.
UI Museum: Norton Commander 5.0
>bunch of middle class white male tech bros who have never taken a soft science course in their lives discussing racism and sexism in tech doesn't sound very productive to me.

This is a strawman unless there is more data to back it up.

Anecdotally, I'm aware many CS bachelors have a "general education" requirement, which includes soft sciences and humanities.

Let's also not forget soft sciences are just that -- soft. They are not as scientifically rigorous as hard sciences, and face similar problems that economics does (another soft science). This includes over-simplifying with unaccountable variables and a wide-spread dissonance and lack of agreement within.
We don't need to wait for genetic data mining, this has been widely studied already.

Differences are visible within the first two days of birth : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe...

and are present in monkeys too : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

I'll let you draw the conclusion.
That is not a "good recap of research", it is a motivated collection of cherry-picked data points put together to suit the author's political purpose. Dig a bit on the author of the piece and you will get a feel for his objectives, and dig a bit into the actual points he is, poorly, attempting to make in the article and you will see that they seem to hand wave over a bunch of questions that any real researcher would examine further. Please provide real research rather than spamming this blog post as though it was actually a useful contribution to the conversation.
It works!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2815183
PBS Infinite video on the same subject and how it expands into 4D space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8jOxEGVyPo
Yeah. That initial attack seems like a huge straw man to me. The author's cartoon version of "emotional intelligence" isn't much like my understanding of the concept.
So your comment is (rightly) getting downvoted. I think readers here tend to reject anecdotal arguments and rely on data. The critiques of sociology and anthropology are legitimate: those fields are not like technical fields and they lend themselves to weird conclusions that don't get peer reviewed in a way that's different from, say, math or physics.
There's a difference between asking not to be fired because somebody overheard and misunderstood your conversation as being "microagression" and asking mentioning anything that might upset you to be proscribed. In fact, the persons doing the latter are very likely to be the perpetrators, and not the victims, in the former. So it's completely logical - what they are saying is "we do not believe in declaring everything that we disagree with is violence and should be purged from existence, and we do not want to be purged from existence because we think so". I think there's nothing wrong in such opinion.
I have a rule of thumb, to designate "busy" streets as having 2+ lanes going in each direction. That's when traffic gets faster, and more dense, so that drivers are no longer in complete control of their cars. This is just convenient in order to have a definition.

I avoid those streets if possible. I also don't like fast traffic and parked cars on the side. That's just me. Safety aside, calm streets are more pleasant.

In my locale, there are enough slow side streets interspersed with the higher density neighborhoods, that I can generally avoid fast streets. In some places, a bike path along an old rail line solves the problem. There's a sort of "Jane Jacobs utopia" neighborhood on the other side of town, where cars drive on one street and bikes / buses on the next street over.

If it's dense enough, then people can walk.

The odd thing is that the suburbs aren't necessarily great. They might not have sidewalks -- an issue for pedestrians and the smallest kids -- and everything is great until you have to get past a high speed road or intersection. Plus, due to lower density, distances are longer. I live in a moderately dense urban area. My friends who live in suburbs are the ones who drive everywhere.