skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
a) I'm not sure what you base your believe in. My gut feelings tells me the opposite. If you polled a representative sample of employees you'd get very different results in the 2nd chart

but that's not important because:

b) The idea that average people are good at understanding the consequences of such document is inherently flawed. It's my problem with a lot of aspects of American culture (I'm an European living in SV) - regular people are not in position to evaluate complex systems.

Every time I see an article about, say, a shooting, that ends with "Joe Black, who lives nearby, believes that police should do X and Y to stop the increase in crime", my blood boils.
Joe Black is in a terrible position to understand the crime dynamic in his city, to understand how the police operates and what does and doesn't work in the pursuit of lowering crime rate.

Now, coming back to the topic, I'd argue that 95% of Googlers are completely not qualified to respond to the second question. At all.

There's a bunch of people in the HR department, with degree in sociology, group psychology, organization behavior and design, maybe people who studied micro-discrimination, gender imbalances etc. that are qualified to answer it.
But the idea that you can poll employees to learn about whether this document is harmful is completely nuts.

Sorry for venting :)

p.s. But yeah... while writing this comment I saw an article about the poll asking Americans if the US should attack North Korea [0].
I honestly believe that the culture of doing that, while pretends to stay close to the roots of the country of freedom, where citizens decide about their country, is in fact terribly harmful because it builds conviction in people that they're in the right position to make such judgements on topics they have insanely little knowledge about.

[0] http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/cnn-poll-north-korea-...
That model is clearly not working currently.
>Men and woman ARE equal.

I used to believe so, until I discovered there were thousands of studies suggesting that statistically, men and women aren't equal.

Each one of these points is backed up by dozens of statistical studies.

Are there statistical differences between males and females in height? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in athletic ability? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in memory recall? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in visuospatial ability? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in short-term mating strategies? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in long-term mating strategies? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in partner selection? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in partner commitment? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in parental investment? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in life expectancy? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in aggression? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in neuroticism? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in suicide? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in infancy and play? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in wealth inheritance to children? Yes

I could make this list 200 items long, it's crazy how many studies there are out there. There's at least 50 years of research on this topic.
Over the last decade, and especially in the last 5 years, the world view amongst equality activism has shifted very strongly towards intersectional identity politics and its associated groupwise oppressor/victim dynamic as the root of all evil. Classism fell to the side in favor of sexism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia, transphobia, and so on.

Some attribute the downfall of Occupy Wall Street to this, where a very simple message about financial justice was replaced with a focus on the slights of its middle-to-upper class revolutionaries. This is where privilege rhetoric and the progressive stack (i.e. ranking oppression) came into full vogue.

A similar thing happened with tech. The decentralized libertarian and egalitarian culture up to the early 2000s made way for a corporatized one. Censorship and moral control came into it, first by way of copyright enforcement, then by way of a rhetoric of gentrification, civility and anti-harassment. This too was pushed as benefiting marginalized identities, despite the identity blind nature of the culture it was replacing. This was already going on in the mid 2000s, crossing a few geek subcultures, and started to become mainstream around 2012. In the subsequent years, the associated "women in tech" and racial oppression narrative skyrocketed and became a regular fixture in media.

It's not outlandish to notice both of these cases played out as a divide-and-conquer scenario that benefited the societal elite by defusing potential threats to their power. In the case of Occupy it was the financial sector and the god of money, and in the case of internet culture it was governments and the ability to control from the top down. The technology that was supposed to liberate us is now used for Orwellian purposes, controlled by an oligarchy of giants.

Directly contributing to both was the long and slow push in academia to shift from enlightenment values to postmodern values, where subjectivity and social constructionism reign supreme. We can also see the clear role of modern media culture, where entertaining is preferable to informing, and that of social media in particular, where one's personal brand and personal views reign supreme.

If you put it all together, it is anyone's guess how much of this was a purely natural evolution, and how much of it was accelerated to satisfy particular agendas. Probably an interplay between both. Egregores protect themselves and rally their self-interested members to fight for them. The fact that all of this came to a well-timed crescendo in the lead up to an American presidential election however speaks volumes IMO.
You should never say you are liberal. It's not relevant to the conversation. Let those who would refute biochem go ahead and try.
> To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK

I don't know, I read the article and it seem to me his point was pretty clear that men and women have biological differences that make them drawn to different types of work, and to find enjoyment in different things.

I actually found his point in saying we should increase cooperative work (such as pair programming) to make it more desirable rather refreshing. I also am drawn to people and would find more enjoyment in more cooperative work.
You can do that for practically any API you can imagine if you are creative enough.
I think this ESPN story is overblown. ESPN is itself printing money, it's just been in decline because of cord-cutting.

But that's just recent history. Everyone can see that the cable tv industry is going to be replaced by streaming. When that happens, content owners like Disney will be able to sell directly to the consumer without the middleman. I actually think ESPN viewership will increase as more people are liberated to sign up for just ESPN and not NBCSN, Fox Sports Regional, and every other sports channel you're forced to pay for with cable.
Most directly, Ed. But now that you mention it, Justice is a close second.
My 2011 MacBook Air 4Gb ram, i5 could not run it :(
In this context it's clearly a prejudicial belief that he is promoting that can have negative consequences for women.

Go ahead and bury my comments. Judges will eventually explain the laws to you people.
previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14947330
If someone is studying computability or formal languages or algorithms or ML in a CS department, they don't really need to be programmers.
Or just not watch. It's just TV. If it's too hard I'll go and do something else and not even miss it. That doesn't help the content creators long term if I'm no longer even interested in their product.
> Another problem GraphQL hasn't tackled (afaik) is polymorphism. You can say "hey give me this person" or "give me this company", but what if you want a customer that can be either a person or a company?

http://graphql.org/learn/schema/#interfaces

searchPersonOrCompany(name: "abc") {
... on User {
first_name
last_name
}
... on Company {
business_name
}
}

As for the undetermined depths problem -- I agree to an extent.

GraphQL can't return depths without you querying for it unless one of the field is a JSON blob.. but at the same time, I like that it does that.

In your example of menu w/ submenus, I think I would prefer to load the first 2 level, then preload level 3 when level 2 is activated, and preload level 5 when level 4 is activated, and so on.

Apollo makes this quite easy.
Yeah its really ridiculous how quickly people focus on gamification, like if you have a marginally functional product just gamify it as much as possible and people are into that.

I remember seeing this guy playing "point and click" games, and they looked so pointless...
Used to work in a café. It's not the coffee people are paying for, it's all the milk and sugar added on top. Unless you go to Philz*. Sometimes you're also paying for quality, but even then that only comes out to about a dollar premium, but a latte is literally just a crapton of steamed milk poured over some coffee, plus whatever syrups and other crap (chocolate and maybe whipped cream if you want a mocha) thrown in.

Then it's the labor and time you're paying for because a pour-over takes 4 minutes per cup if you do it right, and each employee can only do so many of those at one station. 4 minutes of an employee's time at minimum wage in San Francisco is almost a dollar, about 93.33¢ give or take, and that's assuming the employee is being paid minimum wage and not more.
I'll make an argument that has nothing to do with the quality of disney's entertainment or disney's ability to give value to your child in the form of happiness/lessons.

Being a human being is a social experience. If all of a kid's friends watch disney movies and have disney toys, there is an opportunity to connect with his friends. There is also the opportunity to feel excluded, to miss out on experiences and discussions with his friends. I remember quite fondly how excited me and my friends would get talking and arguing about Star Wars and Indiana Jones in the sandbox.
Google Memo: Fired Employee Speaks Out [video]
BTC is susceptible to ASIC attacks which has inevitably lead to the network being taken over by custom hardware producers.

LTC and other coins use more resilient algos like script to prevent that type of network compromise.
They fired him for making women and minorities at google feel unwelcome due to their gender and ethnicity respectively. That's a violation of the company code of conduct and kind of a dick move. People who work hard to become experts in their fields should not have to continually prove that they are in fact good enough and smart enough for the positions they have earned.
When you say "market forces", it is important to understand we are operating within the confines of the completely arbitrary market dictated by copyright law. The natural market for "intellectual goods" like music, movies, and TV is very weak (which is why copyright was created in the first place).

Cable companies and centralized distributors are the natural conclusion of our copyright mechanisms. Online video has already been coalescing on Netflix and Amazon as the next-gen cable cos instead of Comcast and AT&T.

If we don't want to be stuck with the same thing over and over again, we need to change the way that we've constructed the artificial market for intellectual goods, so that subscription bundles a la cable is no longer the only feasible economic model.
And how soon do you think that'll be?
Actually it's relevant. There is a fair bit of research about people being unconsciously biassed against short leaders.
:) You get it
I recently interviewed a master's CS student at a decent state school looking for a part-time job. She had barely programmed before the master's CS (undergrad was in MIS). Did not know what a hash table / dictionary / etc. was. So troubling for someone soon to graduate with a master's in CS.
@adamwathan thoughts on so-called 'silent' extends in scss, ie, the whole '%class-name' thing? Could that work as a sufficient substitute for the LESS class mixins?
>Try to limit all discussions at the desk area to 5 people or less.

How about zero or less?
I believe the big win here is that ESPN currently pays a lot of money for broadcast rights of various major league and college sports; those same leagues are paying BAMTech for end-to-end digital "over-the-top" streaming services. Pretty sure this is a sweet reversal on Disney/ESPN's part to own their digital asset management and content delivery systems and even sell them back to sports leagues.
I'd agree with your opinion if Google wasn't a place where political discussion is seemingly "welcomed" (eng-misc, Memegen, TGIFs).

It's okay to express an opinion that is targeting a group of people (conservatives/Republicans/Trump supporters/etc.) if you belong to the right ideological group (progressives).

Don't think for an instance that this is the first case of controversial content posted internally. It happened all the time when I worked there, just that the group getting targeted wasn't in the majority in the social dominance and power hierarchy.
>I think a better option would be to do what Amazon is doing for HBO - offer a small portion of the studio (in this case Disney) included with the platform (Netflix) with the option to pay additional fees for the entire catalog.

Just a heads up - HBO is pulling their shows from Amazon in mid-2018[1]. They essentially view it as competition with HBO Now.

[1]http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/hbo-amazon-shows-leaving-str...
Gotta keep that student loan cash flowing.
AFAICT, no; the requirement that passing on the right, where allowed, only be done when the maneuver can be executed safely would seem to require yielding to other traffic (CVC Sec 21755(a).)
I'm in physics/chemistry/materials fields. I've been around several 'world-class' institutions in the UK and USA, and had mixed experiences -- far more mixed than you'd think looking at simple rankings. I wouldn't like to draw any hard conclusions though, because I only have anecdotes, but perhaps others can comment.
> However, look at it this way: which is easier to replace, the entire fleet, or centralized power plants?

The entire fleet I'd think. It's certainly much more likely to happen first.

(Cars have a much shorter average lifespan than power plants; the natural gas power plants we're building right now have a designed lifespan of up to 50 years. Very few cars coming of the production line today will be on the road in 50 years.)
> The document is the definition of sexism

I would love some examples of your accusation. You say it's the "definition of sexism". So you must have plenty of examples from his writing.

> and a perfect example of why we still need diversity laws and programs.

Yes. The fact the guy got fired for having his own opinions proves that we are in a dire need for diversity of thought and ideas.

> For example the belief that women do not have as high as drive for status can (and previously has been) used as an excuse for promoting men instead of women or a particular man instead of a particular woman.

But that's societal/evolutionary theory proposed by some scientists/thinkers? Also, the belief that women can't compete with men physically is used as an excuse to created women's tennis assocation, WNBA, women's hockey, women's soccer, etc? Is that sexist? There is sexism and there is biological facts/inquiry/etc.

He was just offering a possible explanation for why more men are in leadership roles.

"The greater tendency for men to be interested in having a higher status fits with a long line of biological research dating back to Darwin. It seems men believe that higher status brings the mating opportunities that come with being top dog."

https://phys.org/news/2012-12-women-money-men-status.html

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/12...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/evolution/9005552/Me...

It's almost as if humans were evolutionarily driven to be this way. Is science and discussing scientific topics now bigotry?

If that's why people are upset and if that's why he got fired, then google is going to lose and he's going to be wealthy.
This does not take into account the vastly greater proportion of habitable or treed land in the US than in Australia
It's not really fun to be down voted constantly but I guess I can't help but share my beliefs.

What we need more than a 0% trust and 100% anonymity is just a decentralized internet where so many nodes are not controlled by centralized organizations.

So while I2P and Monero etc are great, I think we can replace banks and credit card payments for most things with less stringent requirements.
My sister is a graduate student in Neuropsychology. As part of her graduate program, she was required to take a programming class; because programming is an important tool that she needs to be able to use to do her research.

Simmilarly, most research in CS will involve using programming as a tool, even if it is not the final product. The problem is that in CS, no one thinks to require the graduate students to take basic programming classes.
This only affected guests not hosts. So they are like a hotel saying you can't stay here if you are racist.
Grabbed Firefox 55 just for the grid tool in the inspector as I just got into CSS grids and their awesomeness.
Perhaps the US wouldn't have this issue if we had a strong vocational program culture.
LOC /s
I have a theory that facts don’t matter
You make a good point that socioeconomic factors are a big factor in all this, but I disagree that race is merely a symptom and not its own problem. There are hiring biases that are almost completely based on race, as demonstrated by one study on employee response to resume names:

> In response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers, they sent resumes with either African-American- or white-sounding names and then measured the number of callbacks each resume received for interviews. Thus, they experimentally manipulated perception of race via the name on the resume. Half of the applicants were assigned African-American names that are "remarkably common" in the black population, the other half white sounding names, such as Emily Walsh or Greg Baker.

> The results indicate large racial differences in callback rates to a phone line with a voice mailbox attached and a message recorded by someone of the appropriate race and gender. Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback.

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

This isn't just a poverty or education problem. This study suggests that even a well-educated, affluent black American would face discrimination simply because of his/her ethnic name.
There's just no reason to get a degree from any but a few schools anymore. Employers have already caught on, and this is a move in the wrong direction. If they'll give you a degree for free, fine, but no one should be taking out loans or paying a dime for a school without making sure diplomas from that schools are still worth anything to employers. There are schools where a CS degree from them makes you look worse than having no degree at all.
You're not parsing the difference between "equality" and "identicality".

Equality is about the rights one has, and how one should be treated as an individual — equality before the law, and before society. We strive for a society where men and woman are equal, blacks and whites are equal, straights and gays are equal.

Universal equality, however, does NOT require us to believe that people are identical in personality, in intelligence, or in any of the other dimensions you've listed above. We don't even have to believe that specific groups, taken together, are identical to all other groups in mean, median, and standard deviation on these attributes.

People can be EQUAL without being THE SAME.

Edit: really bummed I missed the opportunity to make a JavaScript joke about == vs ===.
Can't you take it as an axiom that if someone can build something that can do Y, that you should assume its construction is inevitable? And isn't it always better to be the one building it first than to be the one building it second?
No. Grown ups are supposed to solve their problems. Solving the problems of sexual harassment and discrimination is exactly what the industry is trying to do.

If you disagree with the approach, fine. Please suggest a better way to handle the situation. If telling women to cope with it is your sole suggestion, then don't expect very many people to agree with you since women with a passion for engineering should not be driven out simply on the merit of how they were born.
This feels like the balkanization of the content industry. The same thing we have seen so many times before in other industries.
And this hurts the people they're trying to help. If you devalue highschool to the point you need another 4 years to prove you have the basics, anyone who's doesn't the privileged to wait that extra 4 years is that much more screwed.
That school may have once been decent, but is no longer. Employers are gonna have to start looking at degree award dates very closely. They don't have time for that, though, so maybe that's a good idea for a website.
HBO is in an interesting place. I actually did sign up just to watch Game of Thrones, and also to finally watch Westworld and maybe they're betting that they have enough for people to watch to actually continue their subscriptions. I mean, I decided to keep the service for about 3 or 4 months including the 2 that it'll take for Game of Thrones to finish up, but there's not denying that HBO actually does have quite a catalog.

That said, after 4 months, I doubt there will be much to interest me anymore, and even if there were, I could always just watch it next year when the next season of Game of Thrones comes out.

That said, if they offered $60/year, I would probably keep it around for a few years rather than paying between $20-$40 once a year.
Sure, it's not as convenient as instant streaming, but the Netflix DVD shipping catalog is unparalleled. Every old movie you can think of plus new releases as soon as they release on DVD. Well worth what I pay since I'm patient enough to wait a couple days for the disk. Plus, if you pay a little extra for the blu-ray service the quality is way better than streaming "HD".
There have been reports of drivers changing ratings retroactively after seeing their own rating drop, or if a customer doesn't tip.
My family members who teach at Berkeley indicate it is not much better there and they've been complaining about it more and more for a decade now.
> Companies that are too political can't scale at all

If being against white supremacy is "too political", then what you're really saying is that companies shouldn't be political at all—which is a reasonable viewpoint, but I think the phrasing "too political" is a bit misleading.
I'm willing to bet Damore would win his case with the NLRB if not for the new Trump members that will be on the board by the time he gets there. Eager to see some deal with their simultaneous passion for speech freedoms and disdain for the only remedy here—strengthening labor protections.
> They fired him for making women and minorities at google feel unwelcome due to their gender and ethnicity respectively.

What did he say that made women feel unwelcome? What did he say about minorities?
Leawo Prof. Media 7.7.0.0 Crack Plus Registration Key Free Get Here