skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Or perhaps bigger companies that have better financial results simply get extra cash to spend on hiring people that they don't need in terms of directly solving business problems, but that improve the company's public image.
Genuine question: is is possible some selection bias is at play if only people interested in that given career will undergo this testing?
When I was growing up, things seemed pretty much settled. We knew where the first humans came from, we knew when and where agriculture started, we even had 9 planets in our solar system.

This was the truths scientists had discovered and it was unquestionable. It was printed in books to last forever.

But you grow up, and you realize that these things are malleable. It's more like as of 1998, Lucy is the oldest human remains we discovered, using x method.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything, but I think we should leave a little wiggle room in the way we make these statements from now on.

Though I haven't read a history or science book from a school curriculum in years so I can't say if that's already what is being done.
Are you asserting that height and muscle mass are significant determiners of success in technological careers?

We are discussing mental and psychological variables about which essentially all of the opinions presented in the history of humanity have been unadulterated crap. So, yes, I want scientific sources.
I'm assuming it's satire referring to those required job postings that are intended to single out a specific H1-B candidate but need to be posted anyways to satisfy the "we looked for an American and couldn't find one" requirement. They typically have very specific requirements that match the exact skillset of the intended hire to ensure that any American applying will be lacking in some required "qualification," even if it's "only has experience with software w.x.y and we require w.x.z."

Note: I'm not saying all or even most H1-Bs are hired this way, just that the scummy companies that abuse the program tend to post these kinds of job ads.
The change from /System/Links to /System/Index was done in part because of the issues with packaging.

While Links used a gobo unique set of directory names to house the symlinks, Index basically acts like /usr/local.

meaning that these days a compile is done pretty much as if one would do ./configure --prefix=/usr/local. But the install stage is captured by a union mount and the files transferred to their designated location in /Programs.

Sadly this change makes it that much harder to run Gobolinux in Rootless form out of a home dir or similar.
I am afraid, that software development is harder and harder to get into without college degree, though it's definitely still possible.
You can't put more tenants in it and charge them rent.
Would recommend very highly:

(1) Andrew Grove's "High Output Management", it's easy to read: https://www.amazon.co.uk/High-Output-Management-Andrew-Grove...
(2) Manager Tools "Basics" podcasts, especially on 1x1s and feedback: https://www.manager-tools.com/manager-tools-basics

There's a hell of a lot to learn outside of these things, but I think they're a good start.
The GPL applies to other users. There's no such thing as a license that applies to the person that wrote the code (that would imply that you could sue yourself for violations). They'd only be required to make the source available if they were using someone else's GPL code.
May or may not be completely relevant, but seems like it's in the ballpark: a couple of months ago, a conference sponsored by GitHub was postponed because the authors of all the (blind) selected papers were male.

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480868

Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/6f8u2s/githubs_...
Wow, just more over-engineered mechanical shit that will break down in spectacular ways.
I was wondering that as well, then I realized that I am mildly more interested in the letter 'Q' than other letters. And yes, there is a 'Q' in my name.
Whether they should. I'm absolutely sure there exist organizations that break the law exist (sidestepping the issue of whether or not this does break the law).
Quick question: is it enough to create guards/checks in languages like Ruby or Javascript to make sure that a parameter that is passed in is the type you expect? I try to set default values in the method/function declarations to at least return an empty set if I can live with it.

Only time I have had a dynamic language do weird things is with PHP, but that was due to my lack of understanding of how PHP handles empty strings.
Here's one: https://github.com/ponylang/ponyc/blob/master/packages/colle...
The fact that you assume my comment was cynical proves I've made my point perfectly well.
> and the only Captcha that can't be bypassed is Google's most recent version

That can also be easily bypassed (I’ve done that, without actually planning to do so) if you can make your behaviour seem completely human.

So if you have a bot that can browse in a way that seems statistically human you can actually get around that. You can still scrape the same datasets – you just need to keep instances of bots, with all cookies around, and have them browse in certain ways. Classify what category a site might likely belong to, put them into buckets of queues, and have bots pull from queues they’re likely to browse, or search for certain terms they’re likely to search for.

In my case, this all happened by accidents – I had IRC bots for a few channels, each kept a perpetual session and would visit every site that was linked (to get the title) and would be able to search Google by scraping. One day I was accessing a bot remotely, and told it to access a page that was NoCaptcha protected (because the site wasn’t working on my home system), yet it passed the captchas perfectly fine. Tried a few more times, always worked. So I tried figuring out why it worked.
Wasn't there a period where "programmer" was the job of turning a flowchart from a "system analyst" into machine code? Basically a living compiler that didn't require a formally specified high-level language?
He, and it is a 'he' has missed the point entirely. It is not that we do not recognize that people are different, it is that we value that diversity and therefore endeavor to remove from our community such impediments to achieving a balanced social group. It is a classic dominant social group position that the incomers fit in rather than the group dynamic have to change to accommodate. It is surprising to have a Google thought-leader with such low-brow views. If you think you are in an echo-chamber or bubble perhaps it is simply because nobody agrees with you.
> I wonder when we got unquote.

This subject has some coverage in P. Gabriel's and Guy L. Steele's Evolution of Lisp:

https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf

Search for "backquote".
Private spaceflight startup Vector pulls off second test of its micro-rocket
This is an increasingly outdated view.

http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2015/02/24/sex-biology-redefin...
Who says we need 50% women in tech? Has Google released a statement on this? While I have seen some inflammatory articles on the subject I don't know that many woman care if there are 50% woman in tech. I can tell you as a female engineer, I just hope that women know it's open to them and feel comfortable joining the field. I don't care about convincing uninterested people.

Instead here are some of the issues Google seeks to address which seem plenty reasonable to me.

"Our goal is to create an environment in which every Googler can thrive. We check and recheck our people processes (including promotions, compensation, and more) to ensure fairness and equity in all things that impact Googlers. For example, we took action when we saw that women in tech were less likely to self-nominate for promotions. We’ve also long had gender pay equity in our workforce and we recently shared our approach to compensation with the hope that other organizations will adopt similar fair pay practices." https://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html
How many people in SV join Google and spend time thinking about why those policies are in place, what underlying principle and reasoning has warranted them? How many explanation is there for why the current Google status quo leans left or appears to do so? Is that open for discussion too? I don't think so.

Now, I also find it ironic that status quo is considered progressive. The underlying principle of progressivism is change, continuous improvement through conscious change, measured by the impact on the lowest common denominator and the sum of all value. That is, you want to make the pie bigger and the smallest piece of pie bigger too.

I'm open for conversation, but you need to hear all data points to make an informed decision, one way discourse is possibly worse then no discourse.
So you reasoning is going like this:

1. There is problem X

2. Possible cause of problem X is the reason Y

3. In fields where we are sure reason Y is rampant, we have successfully solved problem X by attacking instances of Y

4. In the field F, we have had no comparable success doing the same, despite all efforts.

5. Therefore, it is obvious that reason Y is much worse in F than everywhere and we should double and triple and quintuple our efforts there, until there is success. Since we reached success in other fields, it is stupid to assume we can't do the same here.

Do you see a problem with this chain of thought? If not, let me apply this logic to another model:

1. Cough is frequently caused by bacterial infections.

2. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections with much success in many cases

3. In patient P, antibiotics did not lead to any improvement of his cough.

4. Obviously, we need to double, triple and quintuple antibiotics doses until P is finally healed.

I hope you realize here that maybe P has a viral infection instead, or maybe he needs to stop smoking, or maybe he has another one of the hundred of causes of cough there could be.

>you'll need to demonstrate either that it's somehow harder to write the 900th instance of the same SQL query than it is to understand supersingular curve isogenies,

What you mean by "harder"? Is it harder to lift 600lbs than to give birth to a baby? Why do you assume that the question is about "harder" and not, for example, "more pleasurable" or "more intellectually satisfying"? Maybe SQL queries just bore prospective biologists to tears?

BTW, among composers the gender balance is even worse. Is it harder to write a symphony than to decode human genome? What metrics would you use to compare them?

Maybe instead treating everything as a nail we should try and consider some alternative hypotheses than "CS and musicians hate women"? It might be more efficient than force-feeding antibiotics to somebody who does't have bacterial infection.
Simplicity in design should be what we celebrate, and things that actually make it into production. All this is for now is a slick video.
No, it's you who gets incorrect information from some random blogs.

The size of the observable universe: ~93 billion light-years

Time since the big bang: ~13.7 billion years.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/c...

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-fast-universe.html
I think the exact wording and context is important here.

"Hey Googlette, you look really good in a bathing suit" is a comment about how the woman's body looks in a revealing outfit. I'd say this is generally unprofessional, though in some contexts (perhaps she'd just been expressing a lack of confidence in her body), it could still be appropriate.

"Hey Googlette, that bathing suit looks really good on you" is a comment on the particular bathing suit and how the combination works well. It's potentially more of a comment on her good choice and fashion sense than on her body. If the bathing suit is particularly risqué then it might be inappropriate but if it's just a normal bathing suit I don't think it'd be any more inappropriate than "your new haircut looks really good" or "is that a new top? It looks really good".
How in the world did you determine that "on average differences" means 100% explanation? Full disclosure, I work in supply chain and statistics is part (maybe most) of what I do so maybe I'm being pedantic.
Good but old stuff. E.g.:

"If Carpenters Were Hired Like Programmers"

http://www.jasonbock.net/jb/News/Item/7c334037d1a9437d9fa650...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7819413

The first problem is having people doing the interviewing who don't know much of anything about the work.

The second problem is from organizations so dysfunctional with everyone so irrational and afraid of nonsense criticism that they spend most of their effort covering their asses.

A third problem is an economy that is far too slow with far too many people looking for jobs.

A fourth problem is just a generally sick organization.

In a sense, these problems are good news because they give an example of an industry where even a sick-o company can still survive and even hold job interviews.

Sure, you don't want to work for such a sick organization, but, if you can, maybe you should get into that industry as a competitor!

More generally, when you see an organization that sick, and the OP was a joke but not very far from the truth, the flip side may be an opportunity!
You are referring to the US situation. As a dutchie, I wouldn't even want to bike with a helmet in the US. Of course, helmets work to an extent when the conditions are extremely hostile. They have (limited) value. True.

The solution isn't to leave the unsafe conditions untouched and protect just a part of the body by means of a helmet, rather it is making the driving conditions for bikers safe.

As it turns out, those safe conditions render the helmet as unnecesary. As pointed out, helmets could be a net loss in safety in a safe biker environment.

Biker helmets are a sign of bad road safety.
How does one do "real OOP"? Or "real FP"?
> You read the paragraph in that article you linked that ends with "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."?

Yes, but if helmets raise your risk of having a crash to begin with (due to cars driving closer to you or otherwise), it's unclear whether it's better to wear one or not. (Higher risk of less destructive crashes vs. lower risk of more destructive crashes.)

> 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.

I disagree -- that's correlation, not causation. Perhaps people who wear helmets are just more careful in general. (That seems pretty likely to me.)
I get a little annoyed with this line of reasoning though.

"Anyone can learn anything" doesn't help me if I need an expert now. And it doesn't magically jump the gap between "functional" (I can make a thing work in an ugly and naive way) and "good" (I can weigh the trade-offs behind the scenes and choose the optimal from multiple alternatives).

Unless the assertion is that FreeBSD / Go is easy, logical, and/or obvious enough that a master Linux / C++ programmer will be productive and community standard-compliant without any effective lag time.

And I'm not trying to be obtuse. I honestly see it a lot and think it's a blind spot: reverse Pareto principle if you will. "Getting up to 80% proficiency is easy, so let's ignore the last 20% because it must also be easy."
Not OP, but here's how I think it worked:

There are effectively two vertical shafts, and the elevator car goes up one and down the other. If the car flipped over as it goes over the top to the other shaft, then what was the floor would become the ceiling. So, tape something to the floor to identify it as it's going up, then wait for that car to come down the other shaft and look at where your identifying paper is.

It does seem pretty obvious that it wouldn't flip over - that seems like an insanely dangerous design.
Your sample size is one. Let me double it for you, I highly recommend Dick Proenneke's story, Alone in the Wilderness.

https://youtu.be/iYJKd0rkKss
I didn't say anything about freedom or choices. I only suggest that the lack of dedicated roadway isn't a very interesting or significant factor holding back bicycling. Particularly, if cycling on shared streets is so dangerous, then why do we accept that risk for our kids but not ourselves? (And we absolutely do accept it for our kids). I reject your implicit claim that a lack of green paint on the road inhibits anyone's freedom to ride a bike. Do it anyway! I certainly do.

I think the factors holding people back from cycling are time efficiency, physical exertion, and weather exposure. The preponderance of children bicycling makes the safety argument not very credible, to me anyway.

Naturally worsening traffic is tipping the balance in favor of bicycling for time efficiency, at least during peak hours. Also the ability to use trains as "bicycle freeways." If the average speed for cars on a road is <15mph, then a rational person will bike. If it's >25mph, the road might be highly frustrating as a driver, but it's still adding value relative to biking.

Electric bikes are cutting down the physical exertion required, which is exciting. On the other hand, electric bikes are just slow motorcycles, so it's not clear why the pent-up demand for ebikes hasn't picked up Vespas.

Weather exposure is a matter of wearing the right gear. Cold cities might get more new cyclists by handing out Under Armor than by painting more bike lanes.

I don't know anything about Baath. I do know that in my childhood suburb, at least half of students would ride their bikes to school on any day with decent weather. It was a relatively compact suburb, though; bicycling was just a faster alternative to walking and distances were 2-3 miles at worst. No buses.

Getting people where they're going without wasting too much of their time or making them too uncomfortable is an entirely appropriate use of space. A great public transit system could do it with less, and I'll happily vote for one. What I won't support is lowering overall utility by i.e. torpedoing driving without building a credible alternative. I don't think dedicated lanes will make that credible alternative materialize. Ebikes might.
Manager Tool podcasts are really incredibly good. Thanks for reminding me of them!
>The problem with the "???" step is that it's unrigorous handwaving.

The problem with the "???" is it's not in its proper place in the chain of logic. The syllogism instead goes:

1) Do we observe certain traits cause individuals to tend toward science, while others cause them to trend toward the humanities?

Yes. Whether or not you will enter the humanities or the sciences is correlated with whether you display a higher empathizing quotient ("preferring to work with people") vs. systematizing quotient ("preferring to work with things/numbers"), regardless of your gender.

2) Do we observe these traits vary by gender?

Also yes. Men generally have higher systematizing quotients, while women have higher empathizing quotients.

[source for both points:
http://www.somersetcanyons.com/ourpages/auto/2016/3/11/48638...]

3) Therefore, some amount of difference in representation logically comes from differences in these gendered traits - whatever might have caused them to become gendered in the first place.

>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?

Women represent over 60% of all undergrad university students, so we should expect fields that require an undergrad university degree to be a majority women barring other factors. Yet math, physics, chemistry, earth science, statistics, engineering - every one of them has fewer women than it should proportionately. Even biology, which for a brief time had a higher proportion of women than 60%, recently dipped back below that point. [graph: https://www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/upload/Deg...]

Conversely, here is a list of majors that have consistently had above 80% female proportions:

Fashion Design, Interior Design, Education, Social Work, Nursing, Occupational Therapy, Art History

The specifics of why one given STEM major is more under-represented than another is an interesting question, but it shouldn't obscure the overarching trend - whether by a little or a lot, all the STEM majors have fewer women than they should. The data does indeed support the idea women prefer people-oriented professions over thing oriented professions on average.
If you do some mountaineering, you'll notice that the elevation temperature difference is persistent day and night. It is always cooler higher up at the desert latitudes described. If the sun stopped shining for a few days, then yes, the surface temperature differential would produce less and less potential.

This idea requires some creativity, but it's among the most interesting I've heard. And the science that you question is definitely sound -- the only real issue I see is finding a material to handle the stresses.
> Map and reduce achieve the same result as a for loop so why not use a for loop?

For one thing, because it's more work to convince ourselves that a loop is correct, than that a couple of canned list processing functions are used correctly.
There is that study that indicates that facts don't change opinion.

(There is a scene in BSG where Six tells Guys that maybe Boomer doesn't know she is a cyclon; what will happen (to you) when she finds out? I've tried and boy it can get seriously painful very quickly. Sometimes it is better to leave the fixing to the professionals. The other name for freedom fighter is terrorist.)
Indeed, wasn't easy to track down:

https://github.com/msteindorfer/oopsla15-artifact

Still trying to find out if there's a video of the OOPSLA15 presentation.
>The idea of introverts and extraverts being distinct groups of people with completely different neurological responses to social situations is a largely false one

Are you saying it is possible there are neurological differences, but it hasn't been proven?

Or are you saying it has been proven that there are no neurological differences?

I could be wrong, but my best guess is that you are not familiar with this area of science, much less science in general, and made that claim for reasons having more to do with your personal philosophy. Am I right?
You say you're surprised, and then confirm my opinion almost to the letter. Truth is, it's dangerous to not "keep it to yourself", so people don't talk about it.
This is amazing! I wish I could use this in a project, the API looks pretty straight forward and the SVG's are crisp on mobile. Very well done!
Less than you'd think, if you design it right. You only need to gimbal the car and make it bottom-heavy. Still more complex and expensive than not doing it, but no computers or actuators are required.
Manifold Garden (Escheresque Puzzle Game) Teaser
This must be part of that "Don't be evil" mantra I keep hearing about.
> The idea that you can increase your emotional intelligence by broadening your emotion vocabulary is solid neuroscience. Your brain is not static; it rewires itself with experience. When you force yourself to learn new words—emotion-related or otherwise—you sculpt your brain’s microwiring, giving it the means to construct those emotional experiences, as well as your perceptions of others’ emotions, more effortlessly in the future.

This part makes me very leery of the strength of any claims in the article. The general phenomenon of neuroplasticity is not evidence that any particular intervention will do what somebody claims or expects. Quietly jumping that gap is a favorite method of peddlers of neurobullshit. Dr. Barrett has certainly earned a bit more benefit of the doubt than, say, Lumosity, but that doesn't make this particular line of argument any less grating.