skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have the impulse to become a hermit myself, fundamentally because I'm tired of living up to other people's ideologies: going through schools and finding a job in a cubical. getting married at the right age and then raising the right amount kids, saving for their college fund and then for retirement.

but why?

I can't help but compare with my surroundings, even I have quit Facebook for many years. I can't be myself when I'm around others, but become a money maker for things I don't need. I can't concentrate on what makes me happy.

I recall what made me happy. it was when I finally understood some papers, some equations, some code. I just want to find a quiet place to do these. I hope to become an awesome painter and a guitar player too.

I just want to have enough to survive and focus my energy on these things. I don't care if I have successful kids or fancy cars.
Duly noted. Thank you for the feedback:)
> 99% of the time men commenting on women's bodies is sexual or has sexual undertones

Stereotyping is ok, as long as we do it for the right reasons!

> 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.

The same time the same straight men wasn't called sexual harasser for such comment. So you basically say "men complimenting women coworkers are sexual harassers" and then ask "why don't men compliment women coworkers more in non-sexual context?". I hope you can see a case of circular reasoning here.
Sure, there are differences. For men, no one ever expects those differences to limit what they can do. Men can be firefighters, loggers, hairdressers, florists, politicians, engineers, interior designers, party planners, chefs, teachers. There aren't many professions where people would question why a man was doing the job instead of a woman.

What the left and feminism wants is for the same consideration to be given to women. That despite gender differences, if a woman can do the job, then there are no second guesses or carping about gender. That she's allowed to just be, just like men are. That there's a recognition that while gender differences exist, men can do jobs once considered traditionally feminine, and can do them well. And that we can recognize women can do jobs once considered tradtionally masculine, and can do them well.
Usually if it takes work to distinguish it's not worth it within a work environment. That's why professional environments are effective and make a pleasant place to work for all.
Well obviously Linux devs would love having ZFS in the kernel, Linus even half joked that he'd consider trying to relicense Linux to GPLv3 if it meant he could use ZFS and DTrace (this was back when Sun was considering GPLv3 as the license to use when going open source).

But the problem remains, CDDL and GPL are likely incompatible, and Linus has said that no CDDL licensed code will be merged, most likely per advice from lawyers.

So unless something drastically changes, ZFS is off the table, and thus work will continue on with alternatives, Stratis is one such alternative, bcachefs is another, and of course btrfs will not die just because Red Hat isn't supporting it anymore, as they barely did to begin with.
As far as I can see, those statistics are from the US. Which means there might be more to this INTJ-engineer relationship beyond sex. Such as cultural expectations that an engineer is an introvert, which may not be true.

I don't remember the study, but apparently in former communist countries, while gender roles are very strong, women were expected to work in factories along side men for a very long time.

Which is probably why you have a relatively more balanced tech workforce there today vs the West.
Exactly this. And if I might nitpick a bit, I'd say "the amount of time people WANT to spend in social settings". Which would probably correlate well to the actual time spent in such settings, but to me the heart of the matter is that some people just aren't look for it, while others are.
> CS is somehow fundamentally different from every other hard science,

Well the obvious difference is that CS is not a science at all. It's really more akin to engineering, which AFAIK has a similar gender imbalance.
>Because you can't make any guarantees about state in a language that wasn't intended for FP because how do you know what side effects the built-in functions are having

This is your original argument. I said that FP programs offer none of the said guarantees because they are at it's core compiled into imperative programs... You responded with a statement about a stack machine being an abstraction over a "register machine." How does the stack machine statement move your original argument forward...? We're getting side tracked here...
I think he's suggesting that the removed charts and links were the evidence in question, and that the author purposely removed them to make the documents arguments look weaker/less supported.
These are the world’s best ‘new’ universities under 50 years old
I sat down a considered that for a bit, and i think it was a few things that Facebook did right.

First of all the focus on sharing/timeline, and how we subscribe to those we befriend. Earlier networks seems to have more of a focus on "profile" creation and curation.

Then there was the inclusion of casual gaming. Farmville and whatsnot.

In addition to that they seemed to have been quick to translate their base timeline experience into mobile apps.

And then they introduced an IM system that was mobile friendly just as the big name ones like MSN messenger and AIM struggled, because they were desktop first and expected an always on connection between client and server.

And presto changeo you have a service where people share images, play games with each other over great distance, and stay in touch even while one or both only have a phone handy.

Honestly these days it seems Facebook is more popular via phone than web.
> believe that they are being demonized for a political opinion

I have an acquaintance who occasionally reacts with outrage, shouting and questioning my human decency when I voice conservative points of view. Even mentioning biological differences between sexes is anathema to him and bringing up IQ makes him uncomfortable because it shows that not all people are born equal.

I have explicitly told him that at times I may argue points that I do not agree with for the sake of debate and yet he still shakes his head and complains how I can even say such bad things that only "they" would say.

It feels quite quite demonizing in ways when just debating a topic is treated as an unspeakable act. But to give him credit, he's generally a decent guy and does not act like a SJW stereotype, there are just some short outbursts.
On the desire of tooling automation
The personality trait section appears to at least be consistent with current findings[1]. I see a lot of comments on the article berating the "De-emphasize empathy" section as well, but it's starting to become clear empathy has a lot of bugs in it. Paul Bloom advocates for compassion instead of empathy[2].

There's definitely assumptions in the article e.g. Men (may) prefer coding due to the average innate preference of things vs people (and then vice versa for women)and the belief programs exclusive to minorities due more harm than good, but outside of those this seems like a fairly well researched document that, for better or worse, has a dissenting opinion from the group.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3826203/
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compass...
> Years ago, I went to India for a ten-day, silent retreat. I wanted to make myself go where I was afraid to go—deep down, inside my own head. I found it terrifying. Why don’t we want to be alone? Because the stuff that’s down there is stuff you don’t want to see.

We live in a world in which who we are is defined by what we do. We are a role - parent, engineer, carer. Strip that away and all that remains is a who. That's the reward of solitude: a situation wherein you have nobody to bounce your 'self' off, nobody to define yourself in relation to, allowing you to surface.

Turns out that who you are is simply a sequence of reactions to experience - the external kind as well as that which bubbles up internally. Rather than terrifying, this should be seen as profoundly liberating.
I constantly see people discuss Haskell as if it prevented you from writing incorrect programs. But in fact static typing as it’s usually implemented does nothing for numeric programs/math errors. It won’t even catch dividing by 0.

Related: saying a program is correct because it’s been “security audited” (someone read the source once) or “formally verified” (someone wrote the program twice and didn’t make any typos).
> It's not that people are angry about the article's conclusion

Yes, that's why all the journalists and self-proclaimed thought leaders are screaming for the author to be tracked down, fired, and made unemployable forever. Because they're not angry.
both "myths of gender" and "delusions of gender" were written by scientists.

the fact that you still think of sex as a binary difference between xx and xy shows how far outdated your ideas about the science of sex differences are. even "biological sex" (not even gender) is a spectrum influenced by a variety of different factors
I think you're looking at this oddly. Lot's of kids cycle, but how many cycle to school? In Bath UK, a city that can be cycled end to end in 25 minutes, it's 1%.

What this is about is giving people travel choices. You should have good options to walk/cycle/drive/use public transport to get to school/work/shops.

I note much of the rhetoric around "war on cars" is done within the context to have the freedom to choose to use your car as you wish. The problem with that argument is that it stands to reason that people should have the freedom to choose to walk and cycle safely but that really is never recognised as equally important as driving.

More interesting is the call for a paradigm shift within urban transport policies to recognise the need for healthy efficient roads and to provide good space for walking, cycling, and driving.

At the end of the day, the private vehicle is hugely inefficient use of space. That's not to say it should be banned, but people should be able to have the choice not to drive. That is what is lacking.
Yes but that's still the soft science of sociology and the author of the OP should tread carefully before asserting this as literal fact. It remains a conclusion of incomplete results. Obviously better than complete speculation but still no stronger than the technology used by the culture this OP is rallying against.
But how else would we know who the prosecutor voted for in the last election?
If you're saying claiming "CS is special and current gender balance is 100% explained by that" is unsatisfactory, I agree with you. But retorting along the lines "CS is especially uniquely sexist and current gender balance is 100% explained by that" is equally unsatisfactory, and double so when it's served with the side of "and if you disagree you're a bigot and you're fired".
Don't look at me when you say that. I have no problem with anecdotes; the problem I have is that some anecdotes are so readily considered more equal than others. We need not sidetrack ourselves into discussion of any direction we may observe this tropism to take, in order to recognize that no field may be reasonably regarded as rigorous which is so happy to discard those anecdotes which fail to conform with some apparently predetermined preference of narrative, and place value only on those anecdotes which support it.
Table 2: Mean percent looking times (and standard deviation) for each stimulus.

Face Mobile
Males (n = 44) 45.6 (23.5) 51.9 (23.3)
Females (n = 58) 49.4 (20.8) 40.6 (25.0)

That's quite a difference to be hanging the nature of society on.
The source is open for you to look at, I haven't decided on further permissions. That's why I felt comfortable using the phrase "open source" :)

Plus it's not a very complicated website. Took me like a day to make. So there's really hardly any use in having it open sourced in the sense that people can use my code. It's probably easier to just write it yourself :D
> we can't understand

Understanding is just a psychological phenomena. Its your brains who choose what ideas they mark as 'understood'. Thus its under your control what you understand and what you are not.

Once beeing a drunk teenager I felt myself understaning all the things in the whole Universe. Its pretty hard I'd say, because I never felt like this thereafter. Though I didn't tried to repeat it. Probably alcohol is not the best fit for it, maybe there are some drugs that can make you to understand.

I believe that somewhere in the brain there is some special spot, and all you need to understand everything is to thrust an electrode in that spot.

If you live your brain as I do and prefer not to control your brains in possible harmful way, than (I'm pretty sure) if one get some special training on this he could come eventually to everything-understanding state of mind. Maybe it even allow to switch by volition between that state of mind and state of mind of Socrates, who used to claim that he understands nothing. I didn't try it myself because I'm not sure about arbitrarily control option, and generally prefer Socrates' way of thinking.

But if you don't like to cheat, there is honest way to start understanding a very large distances. In general mind mark as understood all the things it is used to. You may train yourself at imagining large objects through some sort of succession. You should do all sorts of mental work with those objects in your imagination -- moving them, rotating, colliding, flying by or through them... Try to use different and constant kind of objects for every order of magnitude -- it might be really helpful. It will take time, but its still possible.
Sure, I can see your point. It's a problem for computer scientists, and good to know as an anecdote. I'm talking about it in practice - when using TypeScript the 'halting problem' has never been an issue. I was joking about the 'kill -9' but also meant it in a half-hearted way!

So, if not turing complete, what kind of automata would you use to accept your language, say if you were designing your own language?
> ...other fields, in particular medicine and law

Women were literally not allowed to be doctors or lawyers, either by law or by certification boards. Programming has never been a field requiring certification.
The only part of the flesh which is "you" is the nervous system. Everything else can be hacked off or replaced without a loss of identity.
I don't. My point is, it's all sugar, so in a sense it's the same thing when you're doing imperative programming. Whether you use a map or a for loop in your imperative code the structure of your program remains the same, the only difference is sugar... This is my point.

Why are maps and folds so prevalent in functional programming? Because immutability and imperativeness render the concept of a for loop to be non-existent.

Try to use a for loop with all const variables and no IO... your for loop will not be able to do any meaningful change to the state of your program.
I'm not sure what the whole deal is about "STEM majors" and "computer science majors", but can it maybe not be such a thing? I don't see why it matters one way or another, and having never gone to school, I can't imagine how whatever intellectual canalization you seem to be hinting at would be applicable here in any case. It just seems to be adding a lot more heat than light, and I'm really not seeing what it brings to the conversation that makes that in any way worthwhile.
But how does algolia do that?
Returning a result and modifying a data structure you've decided to use as an accumulator are two different things. Modifying the original structure is even more different.

Most of the traditionally non-functional languages don't support loops as expressions.
In my experience, this is standard "training" almost everywhere.
What kind of teacher? What did you teach?
> A zoo is still a zoo if there aren't any animals in it

Is it? Identity is an interesting thing. To use a commonly-cited example-- if I swap out the muffler of my car and toss the original in the backyard, I think most would say I am still driving the same car. If I do the same with the front left tire, it's still essentially my car. Even if replace all four tires, same. But what if I swap one part a day with a replacement, after a while I'll have all my original car parts in the backyard-- and am in effect driving a car made of totally new parts, but is this still the same car? If not, when would you no longer say it's the same car? And, if I assemble the collection of gradually discarded parts sitting in the back yard into another car-- now what? Which is my car? The thing I'm driving or the car made of the old parts? Or are they both the same car?

Am I really the same person I was when I was 10 ...or 10 months? What is the "me"-ness, or are we talking about a different person? Where's the line...

Or... when Captain Kirk uses the transporter-- his molecules are disintegrated, and then a copy of him gets assembled on some planet (using local materials I believe)... So is "he" transported, or is he being killed and replaced with an exact copy? (I think this question made its way to a Breaking Bad episode)

Anyhoo. Is a zoo without animals in it still a zoo? I dunno.
I remember reading this similar (though not as polite) criticism in 2010: https://ryanholiday.net/this-is-what-real-analysis-looks-lik...
Ok, we're in presence of solid research finding a) similar sex differences in toy preferences in monkeys as in human children, and b) sex differences visible within 2 days after birth (references here : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...)

As you justly said, we're in Occam's razor country. So, do you think the 2 observations above are more easily explained by socialization, or biology ?
Is it? I was talking about it being more in a collective fashion and pushed into the code or done in a way where it would be easier to integrate it into Chrome headless.

I personally already do a lot of Chrome and Firefox in real desktop environment. I love doing it this way. I know I can mimic a real user. It gives me great comfort.

Still, it's only cheaper if you're doing all the tracking down yourself. And I never meant for that to be my point.
> I used to jokingly say that "supermicro is the rsync.net of hardware".

a) I have never heard of rsync.net, and I doubt that many people have here

b) That sounds like a joke that is really funny at work, but really not funny on the internet at large

Just sayin'...
You read the paragraph in that article you linked that ends with "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."?

All you have to do to know for sure whether helmets result in more or less net risk of injury is look at the statistics for the people who've been killed wearing helmets vs not wearing helmets.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists...

Walker's research didn't show an increase in accidents or injuries, it showed drivers who are 3 feet away getting a little over 3 inches closer. I'm not personally more afraid of cars getting a little closer according to one guy than I am of the direct and overwhelming evidence supported by multiple studies of reduced risk of death when wearing a helmet.

"The cars were giving him, on average, a very wide passing clearance already," he explains, noting that most vehicles typically stayed well over three feet from the bikes, rendering the 3.35-inch discrepancy to be insignificant."

Also, my personal anecdata of getting buzzed by cars in the US is that it's happening less often as bike awareness goes up. In direct support of the article at the top, I suppose. I feel like cars are giving me more room now than they used to. Walker's study was 10 years ago, maybe we've already made up for the 3.4 inches already.

So if you ride, for the sake of you and your family and friends, I hope you find confidence and pride in wearing your brain bucket.
While I agree with you, the article did not mention that any unfair advantage was being given to women yet I've seen so many claim this.

Instead it says "the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women. "

So instead it just seems to be arguing that there is no disadvantage in what may appear to be unfair.

It also says "Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety."

That seems super subjective unless the author has some concrete examples. While they may be right, if we policied everything other people said so that any one person would feel comfortable expressing an unpopular opinion... I don't think the author wants to open that can of worms?
Invested Bitcoin in what?
Could you have the content of the page explain that its a bot trap (so screen reader users know its not worth visiting) and only block if, say, an IP visits it multiple times in a short window?

Wouldn't block specialised scrapers as they would know to avoid that URL/link (though they'd probably work it out anyway), but would still limit more broad crawlers.
I have one simple ask here. To those who agree with any of this article beyond "we should be able to discuss this openly", please read this. People have all read this document, and if you agree with it, you value diversity of opinion. I'm not asking anyone to debate it - there's plenty of that here which doesn't seem to be going anywhere, as usual, which you can and should join into to try to reverse that. But read this first.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-...
Not sure what this is but I love it.

However, while I do sometimes feel this way, the article went on for a little while. I was sort of expecting an explanation or a twist at the end. Oh well, still good.
I guess everybody is too astounded to comment. Me too, I have nothing worthwhile to say about this weird artifact, which seems almost to have dropped in from an alternate reality. But I have to say that I love that it is out there, for the presumably small band of people that want and/or need it. Just don't try to use it to build the next Rails.
Google is doing a lot of this stuff, filing patents on machine learning techniques from decades ago and loads of other things, and often getting the patents granted. It's pretty infuriating.
Thanks, I really appreciate this distillation. If we've learned anything, it's that trying to write stream of consciousness screedy manifestos like this is super hard and people should probably just stop trying. Still though, despite some of the questionable logic and missing evidence (which I'm surprised it's not a lot worse given the way these kinds of things get written -- middle of the night after some last straw), this person seems to be sincerely trying to spark a dialogue of mutual benefit to both sides of the debate and the company as a whole. Yet so many of the comments in this thread are just intensely dismissive and uncharitable. They aren't like, "ok so he fucked up here and here for this reason, I can see where he was going with this point and that point and there are some kernals of truth there, let's engage with this, etc." No, they are more like "this guy got this and this wrong, therefore it's all wrong, and therefore he should just stop now and recognize what a piece of shit he is." It really does feel sometimes like the chilling effect tactics of past rightist regimes has now been weaponized by us on the left out of some sort of unconscious spirit of payback or settling past debts of oppression. It's not a good look.
That's a rather ad-hominem response/dismissal. Care to address the blog post's arguments?