skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah, that's why I use Math.random() * 5 and similar stuff in my scrapers.

A lot of people access the web through smartphones so only allowing people with mouse movements seems a bit overkill.
One issue is that acknowledging potential differences between the sexes can setup prejudice that acts to fulfill those prejudices. This can lead to widening gender gaps possibly more that any real gap in performance.

So many do not blindly advocate equality because they believe it completely but do so to avoid the overly negative and reinforcing effects of prejudice.

Think of this as a form of "Noble lie"
1. It's not regulated, so it's not illegal. This is not your mom's exchange.

2. So be it. This is what traders in this particular field chose. If you want boxing, go box, if you want no holds barred, go do that.

3. To the detriment of that particular exchange. So be it.

4. Dubious, but still, if you want centrally regulated assets, there are plenty of opportunities. Cryptocoin exchanges are what they are. The response to shenanigans is not "This is unfair. The government should step in!" but "We need a bigger bot."
It's a pity isn't it? I hoped the HN community would still see the value in "diversity of opinion" - even if said notion was uttered by a "haram" individual.

The leftist, tribal mindset is clearly a powerful and poisonous thing for all sorts of communities. Let me know if you find a better one for discussing new tech.
Snap Judgement did a nice podcast version of this story. http://snapjudgment.org/north-pond-hermit

The letters Knight & Finkel exchanged add an interesting angle.

Can't say I'm a fan of the author's choice for title of this post. It's Chris Knight's story, and nothing in this post presents any evidence for anyone else at any other time, aside from this single sentence "Think of Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha: they all spent very long periods of time alone before introducing their religions." I totally believe there have always been people who want to be alone sometimes. Pretty much everyone wants to be alone sometimes. But ugh, this sentence & title seem to strain credulity and are so completely unnecessary and tangential to this story.
In this case, perhaps, but that's not a general argument though.

Ever had to pay through the roof because there was a single vendor for something, like the single supermarket in town or the only coffee vendor onboard a train?

Sure, you get "value for money" as opposed to not having the thing at all. Just that value is not a binary, it's a spectrum, and you might get too little value for too much money.
Here's a wikipedia article titled "Sex differences in psychology" [1] that might have some of what you're looking for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology
"Bokononism is based on the concept of foma, which are defined as harmless untruths. A foundation of Bokononism is that the religion, including its texts, is formed entirely of lies; however, one who believes and adheres to these lies will have peace of mind, and perhaps live a good life. The primary tenet of Bokononism is to "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokononism
I think the Left now does. I'm not trying to troll, but this new trend of pretending there isn't a difference has started to really bother me. Jordan Peterson attributes it to the influx of Postmodernism to Leftist ideologies. I don't know if I totally agree with him there but it's at least a starting point.
What competitors are there? Their hardware is getting more and more specific, looking at e. g. their four-socket systems or their 2U quad-systems. Nothing that doesn't handle like any other computer, but hard to cross-shop for.
Anyone else addicted to acquiring servers and high bandwidth connections ? Any ideas on what to do with the over capacity ?
As a former Googler: dude is _so_ getting fired and blacklisted. I've seen people driven out just for saying someone else looks good in a bathing suit. Not a direct or indirect report, mind you, a person completely outside the chain of command, at a team event in (IIRC) Hawaii. A small minority of people takes victim mentality and makes it near religious internal dogma. The rest just go along with it due to fat paychecks and the lack of desire to get fired for not being PC enough.
You may be interested in looking over the Society Of Women Engineers for some of your questions.
It's hardly a 'simplification' when people on the left regularly use the kind of speech I described to attack people who disagree with them. The right is just as guilty, but the comment I responded to was giving the left a pass on it, which is what I object to.
Right now Wikipedia says:

One in four (26%) Iranian researchers is a woman, which is close to the world average (28%). In 2008, half of researchers were employed in academia (51.5%), one-third in the government sector (33.6%) and just under one in seven in the business sector (15.0%). Within the business sector, 22% of researchers were women in 2013, the same proportion as in Ireland, Israel, Italy and Norway.

Quoting this UNESCO report: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf

Looks like Forbes preferred to quote anonymous response on Quora instead, clearly considering it more authoritative source. After all, this is what distinguishes established press from amateurish projects like Wikipedia - they do thorough research and rigorous fact-checking before publishing something. Don't they?
Well, "pushed" and "forced" aren't exact synonyms. I assume he meant internally pushed by some kind of innate force.

Anyway, there were things I disliked about this document, but on this point you could just as easily turn that on its head. He could be saying that women are less likely to be sucked in by the dubious value proposition of becoming an unhappy workaholic in order to upgrade an already very high tech salary to an even higher salary.

When your salary is high enough to very comfortably meet your needs yet your free time is very scarce, the marginal utility of more money is low but the marginal cost of less time is high. So there's limited practical reason to fight for a promotion/raise, though you might still do it if there's another thing about your salary that's important to you, which is that it should be higher than others' salaries.
The argument basically proceeds as follows:

1) Gender differences exist

2) ???

3) Differences in representation are explainable by gender differences

The problem with the "???" step is that it's unrigorous handwaving. "Women prefer working with people." Okay, so that's why the majority of accountants are women? That's why STEM fields that don't involve people at all (math, biology) actually have quite a lot of women, while programming doesn't have much women despite being on the social/people-oriented end of the spectrum?

It's not that people are angry about the article's conclusions despite acknowledging the strength of the logical/factual basis. It's that people won't give sloppy reasoning the benefit of the doubt when they don't like the conclusion.
If you go up a bit in this thread you'll find other comments discussing this.
I get what you're saying, but I don't know of a better phrase. "Whatever the most studies published in reputable journals seem to suggest" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
“React Universal Component 2.0 and babel-plugin-universal-import”
“React Universal Component 2.0 & babel-plugin-universal-import” @faceyspacey https://medium.com/faceyspacey/announcing-react-universal-component-2-0-babel-plugin-universal-import-5702d59ec1f4
Brendan Eich.
Is there a test I can take online for that?
Well I'm fully on board with the notion that (workplace) diversity is overrated nonsense but this document could only be described as counter-productive at best. So things like this will only be used to justify the very thing he claims to be objecting to.
When feminists say that women should have control over their bodies, do they literally mean that women should shape their own biology by restructuring society?
read "myths of gender" or "delusions of gender" on this subject, which thoroughly debunk this essentialist nonsense about "biological" gender difference.

anyone in any sociology or anthropology department will tell you how incredibly obviously false the biological essentialist position of gender is. it's literally only white men in tech or right-wing white male biologists writing outside their field of expertise who defend that position
> men think that women aren't there because it's too hard

Who thinks that? Hard is something relative. The author says that men could be more prepared to tech because a biological predisposition that makes tech easier positions for them (better abstract thinking and more tolerance for stress, for example), while women are more prepared for other things likes taking care of others (because they are better in socializing and empathy). As tech became more competitive the women just left it for other things while men get into to get more status.
Boys are encouraged to build and to play ball. Girls are encouraged to perform and to play tea. Why would we expect the stereotypical difference to be biological at all? I'm sure there are some differences in tendencies, but I'm not at all sure they'll avoid being swamped by environmental effects, socialization, and individual variation.
The Sad State of Payment Buttons
As a woman, the way I feel is whatever the differences are - are hard to prove and isolate outside of our society. Whatever they are makes no difference to me. Every person has a right to pursue their own happiness with their choosing. But delineating or using these differences to justify behavior does not feel appropriate in a work place. If a company could not find many female engineers to hire (I am one) then ok. No need to create a table on why / why not that stands on weak ground anyway.
When you have a culture where more than 40 million people live below the poverty line and even wealthy people can be bankrupted by medical conditions, debates about workplace privilege seem like a niche form of special pleading.

The US economy is a monstrous engine powered by discrimination and inequality. Discrimination against (mostly) college educated women who might want to be developers is barely a footnote in the much wider political picture where access to high quality education, business development opportunities, housing, and health care, are so strictly rationed they might as well not exist for a depressingly large percentage of the population.

If discrimination is wrong, then it's wrong for everyone. If it's only wrong when some people are affected by it, then it's still discrimination - and the argument is really about which kinds of discrimination are socially acceptable, which aren't, and to whom.
This guy claims that women are more neurotic and talkative than men; and that they prefer thinking about aesthetics; and that women are more "cooperative."

The subtext is that this is the reason we shouldn't support women becoming software engineers.

Uggghhh.
I think that, if a random Google engineer wrote an essay about why climate change isn't real, it would be weird and inappropriate to insist something be done about it.
IQ variance might explain part of the difference in nobel prize winners, but is minuscule at average IQ in tech (~90th percentile).
Don't burn out too quickly.

Being a director means you have more responsibilities, but if you are too focused on trying to make everyone happy, you could set yourself up for a burn out.

Identify key individuals to help you (usually lead engineers), and give them your trust to do their job.

Focus on larger initiatives, give both positive and negative feedback, encourage healthy competition, and always be forgiving. Always be approachable, but never let them take your presence for granted.

Ultimately, you will find a larger reward when you take time developing individual relationships. They will appreciate your attention, and in turn, you will have direct influence over them.
Could you provide some examples of these weasel words?
> but the rules here expressly place political discussions as off-topic

This is absolutely untrue. How many times (and how many ways) does dang have to clarify this? Here's the guideline in question:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

I'm prepared to argue that a comparison of the aging process of HN comments to tweets from a current US President about a former one is an interesting and novel set of phenomena. And even if it weren't, I think that it's well outside the kinds of stories that are identified by the guideline as off-topic.
"... a headless browser can also be used to automate malicious tasks. The most common cases are web scraping... "

Since when web scraping considered malicious? Companies like Google are doing billions because they use web scraping.
Basically every middle-class American child grew up riding a bicycle while sharing space with cars on his suburban streets.

Bike lanes may be a hard requirement for you, but the quintessential American childhood experience says that's not exactly widespread.

We go through the rite of passage of transitioning from bikes to cars at age 16 because they increase our time-efficiency and decrease physical exertion.

EDIT: A cursory Google puts the rate of cycling among children at 70%. Would you care to explain your disagreement?
> I have to say, as an INTJ female, this biology crap is ridiculous.

That's an interesting way to put it. The estimates I've seen (e.g. [1], [2]) have the frequency of INTJs among men significantly higher than the frequency of INTJs among women. If INTJs are more likely to become engineers, then those frequencies predict that there will be more male engineers than female engineers.

[1] https://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/estimated-frequencies.h...

[2] https://mypersonality.info/personality-types/population-gend...
I notice a lot of misrepresentation of views on both sides, almost to the point of strawmanning. I think a charitable interpretation of the author's best points can be summarized as follows:

- Racism & sexism still exist, even at Google. This is bad. (On the bright side, the problem seems to be getting better over time.)

- It's good (and good for business) to eliminate discrimination based on gender, race, sexual preference, etc.

- There are many benign reasons why a completely unbiased company can still have skewed demographics. One possible reason is that women & men tend to differ in psychological makeup. (Unfortunately, it looks like links to some studies supporting this claim were removed from the post, along with some charts.)

- Therefore, Google should focus on eliminating bias & discrimination, not on getting employee demographics to match the nation as a whole. In short: focus on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If sex-specific psychological differences exist, the only way to get equal outcomes would be to lower the hiring bar for women or raise the bar for men.

- If men & women tend to be psychologically different, Google should be aware of that and change work practices to better accommodate women. For example: More pair programming, as (to use the language of the author) that allows more working with people rather than things. Though for competitive positions requiring long hours (usually management), such changes may not be possible.

These points seem to be put forth in good faith by a frustrated employee who lacks tact. Moreover, I don't think these topics should lie outside the realm of debate. Either they're not true, in which case they can be dismissed with counter-evidence. Or they are true, and Google is wasting tremendous resources trying to solve these problems in the wrong way.
My anecdotal experience is that I can get better uptime using Windows rather than Linux in consumer computers. The i915 bug made me end up using a Windows host with Debian in a virtual machine, just so I could trust that my computer would not freeze every few weeks.

With older computers (T420, X201) and Xeon servers I got months and even years uptime. Maybe I just got unlucky with my recent acquisitions or maybe the complexity of the new hardware together with the lack of support for Linux means that these kind of bugs are and will become more prevalent in consumer hardware.
I'm missing something, but how are those two statements different. I read the first sentence "gizmodo omitted two charts and hyperlinks" my assumption was the charts and hyperlinks held company data or pointed to company websites.
But how does changing the sentence to "I omitted..." Change anything? It did you assume the omission was done by someone outside of gizmodo?
are you really going to defend the vile shit james watson says as part of 'academic freedom' or whatever
I've heard from several people who knew James Watson personally that he was completely off his rocker. He lost his position because he was a total embarrassment, this wasn't the PC police at work. No opinion about the other names.
Sociology and anthropology being, of course, fields particularly noted for their peerless objectivity and rigor...
I personally believe a lot of this can be learned like any other skill. You just need to approach it differently and actively, not passively.

That said, I think it's slightly overrated, because most people don't even understand their own emotions, and some don't even allow themselves to talk about emotions/cry in presence of friends/other's.

So if one doesn't even understand, allow or acknowledge his/her own feelings, how could one possibly begin to understand, observe or manipulate that in other's with accuracy.

And actually that's not even fully true.. (this is why I think it can also be learned) Someone with anti-social disorder (sociopath), contrary to popular believe has the same emotions as everyone else. It's their empathy which is less/nonexistent. Yet they tend to be very good in picking up nuances in social settings and perform on them.

A lot of it also depends on personality/upbringing. Parents who lie a lot to their children, potentially makes these children more apt in lying/bluffing and giving false trust themselves when they grow up, which is still a form off emotional intelligence, morality is a different aspect.

Another example; One with social anxiety could very well have a high emotional intelligence. They naturally spend way more time focusing on nuances of themselves as well as other's, as the innate fear will push their thoughts constantly (with all due respect to people who experience this)

So almost ironically they might be socially less present, but probably spot true feelings far faster and more precise than people who are more "in the moment".

* a small anecdote*

I spend a few years giving music lessons, and I told a student I could teach him to just hear the music then be able to play it by ear. They almost all said "I am not born with good ears".

I began to pick a guitar and play a few notes off a famous song. They recognized it as anyone would.

Then I played a song but played wrong notes randomly. He didn't spot the first one, but then he noticed.

I asked him, how did u know the song and recognize the wrong notes if your ears are shit? he laughed.

Thing is, our senses are all very good, everyone can hear when singers are out off tune, anyone can recognize a person by a voice or most songs by melody.

You just need to learn which sound fits which spot on the guitar, like pictures to words.

The hearing, just like empathy, or sight and smell for that matter is there, or will naturally develop if actively used, and more efficient with added knowledge and guidance.
Crap article, not sure what it's doing in HN?
I'm amazed that people are seriously upset by someone publishing that.

Somehow, most of the women I know don't complain about harassment much. The one who does complain mostly gets it from her female boss. The one in SF tech says that Uber people tend to be jerks but the rest of the industry there isn't bad.
The one from France has more problems with age than with sex. The lawyer has had some annoyances, but finds it useful to be underestimated by the other side. The ocean lifeguard fought her way onto the L.A. County lifeguards (competitive with no special allowances for women, and few women make it; this is the real-world Baywatch) and is proud that some macho guys apologized to her.

This probably reflects that they're all horse people. Once you're used to dealing with somewhat pushy half-ton animals, microaggressions aren't a big deal.
I can understand your reaction, but I will say that it provoked an interesting thought in me. I think that the matter of how well material ages is an interesting and difficult-to-predict metric, and that it is quite interesting that we are now measuring this metric using the unit of tweets from one head-of-state about a former one.
True story: in the early 90's, I walked up to and witnessed this: There was a young woman running a "Museum of Elvis" in a storefront in Portland. She wasn't making it financially, so unable to pay off her student loans, she took to sitting in the storefront in a chair, with a sign and a donation box saying, "I just want to be left a loan."
I don't think that's completely fair.

Before the list of software contractor was smaller, so the few places you could work in was NASA and Military.

Now the variance of jobs is much greater, so not all jobs are NASA level hard.
Women are slower and weaker then men, demanding separate sports rankings to be able to compete. Seems almost dualistic to think their minds would be 100% identical.
> The problem with the "???" step is that it's unrigorous handwaving.

Probably because nobody actually knows right now what actually causes the differences and how. The case that is caused exclusively by entrenched sexism - somehow driven by people graduating from the same institutions who have been fighting sexism for decades now, and by the same people who repudiate and denounce sexism on every corner - also does not sound very convincing. Sexists, of course, do exist, so does sexism, but presenting it as sole driver and concluding any deviation from 50% or whatever the population demographics would be is the ironclad indicator for sexism is as "unrigorous handwaving" as the opposite extreme.
> I've seen people driven out just for saying someone else looks good in a bathing suit.

understandably, as that is extremely unprofessional and sexual harassment
this is true. Source: I work at Google
Because it happens even in monkeys : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

I've posted it elsewhere in the thread already, but this article is a good recap of research on the topic : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...
...or being officially stereotyped (privileged, overrepresented). Or being explicitly excluded (mentioned several times in the article).
Thanks for checking it. Wikipedia accepts publications like Forbes as sources though, so misinformation in one can still end up in the other.
So, they have created an empty box to later put tech in? That seems like the easy part -
not that surgery like this is easy, but making AR tech that small is a much bigger order.
Not sure! It's way, way better than emitting it in a place where millions of people will breathe it, but I'm sure it's not harmless.
Good on him.

We should appreciate our differences and understand them rather than bury them under "equality".

I hope some good comes of this.
I'm curious, couldn't you pickup RF from the sun, to 'listen' to the eclipse?

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_radio_source it says there's a radio source around 300MHz.

I'm really curious about that now, what it sounds like and what kind of aerial would be best? Yagi? Or does it require a dish?