skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ah, I'm with you now. And yeah, I do agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. exa would probably fail if used with a screen reader, or heck, it doesn't even work properly under Windows right now. That's a huge market I'm ignoring!

What I've seen people doing is saying that there's no line at all: every feature needs to have its cost justified, every type of user scrutinised to make sure they're not dragging the product down. This is expected behaivour for startups (launch to a limited market first) and big companies (where you need to justify every cost) so I'm not surprised to have encountered it here.

For colourblindness in particular, though, I still think there has to be a way for the default colour scheme to be colourblind-friendly without the experience for everyone else suffering as a result.
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... - this qualifies for me
This doctrine - https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-wo... ?
> Good thing the original memo author has a PhD in biology then.

Your appeal to authority is pretty transparent... While the original memo author's work with various strains of yeast is indeed interesting, I'm not sure how it's relevant to the topic at hand...

An argument should stand on its own merits, not on a piece of paper on the author's wall.
>For me it seems like a conspiracy of immigration (in different countries) where whatever rules are passed down to them, they'll going to bend them to let as much ineligible people as possible while taking pride in rejecting obvious good fits

I think you're just making things up.
The Power9 should be more performant than EPYC/ThreadRipper and CAPI gives you higher memory bandwidth to a GPU.
> The guy who was fired was way out of line, far beyond any reasonable limits to topics of discussion.

What did the author say that was "out of line"? Can you please cite a section of the essay and explain?

Note: Please see this response to the memo from four scientists who study the field of psychology: http://archive.is/z6xxP

The reason given by Google for the author's termination was "advancing harmful gender stereotypes". I didn't see any evidence in the memo of "advancing harmful gender stereotypes". Where are the stereotypes? Where's the evidence that they're harmful? Is the author really advancing them? The author appears to be referencing scientific research into the topics that he mentioned. Scientific research into sex differences is not "harmful stereotypes".

The way in which the Google CEO's reply is worded gives me the impression that they don't even understand that the author's claims are scientific ones. For example:

> Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

These terms -- agreeableness, neurotic -- are personality traits in the field of psychology. There is a significant amount of research into how men and women differ in these traits. See Wikipedia for sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Sex_differences

> This paper investigates gender differences in personality traits, both at the level of the Big Five and at the sublevel of two aspects within each Big Five domain. Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

The author's mention of terms like "neuroticism" and "agreeableness" are statements of personality trait trends established by scientific research, not personal views or stereotypes. The message from Google's CEO seems to interpret them as personal insults, thereby missing the point of the essay.

The original memo raises points like: women tend to have higher neuroticism on average (low stress tolerance) than men. If some tech jobs have high stress, then is it possible fewer women than men seek those jobs? That seems like a reasonable question to explore, to me, and a question that's grounded in existing scientific research, not the promulgation of a stereotype.

The author also cited other research such as "Women, careers, and work-life preferences": https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim...
Without wanting to particularly single you out, it does worry me that people anywhere on the political spectrum so massively misunderstand other positions, whether through wilful ignorance or otherwise.
> when Google's system seems so actively hostile to them?

The key word here is "seems" and it only "seems so actively hostile" -to them- themselves. I don't think any impartial outside observer would say your average privileged white dude had an "actively hostile" environment at Google (or, indeed, almost anywhere else.)
In my entire life I have only met 3 people who didn't believe women should be in tech. Two (one man, one woman) due to religion and one due to misogyny who was fired.

It is better to see what the opposing argument really is which is a liberalist position but in a future ideal United States free of discrimination that most everyone wants to live in. That is evaluating individuals individually based on their merit.

The question is really whether or not affirmative action is morally good, socially necessary, or practically effective.

Two thirds of that argument is possible to evaluate empirically. The other third is not which is why the topic generates so many arguments that are more heat than light like so many political views in the United States.

If you accept that is what is happening and you want to make society better and more positive, having some charity for the opposition I think would help a long way to having productive conversations.
Good luck trying to explain.

Fact of the matter is: there's a small portion of women represented in computer science than the average. Anyone whom tries to "guess" why, either based upon fact or unproven postulate, is blackballed and/or fired.

As per "diversity hire" or many other mealy-mouth ways of saying it, comes back to political correctness and affirmative action.

Affirmative action means, for a decision right now, to use attributes you cannot change (sex, skin color, race, age, height) as an equal or primary stat in deciding policy - whether to give you money, whether to hire you, whether to rent to you. It also is an (sex/rac/age)-ism. That's because of X events in the past, and collective guilt or something tries to overcompensate.

The insulting part of this, is that if you, well, aren't a white male, then you might have been hired because of unchangeable attributes, and not because of your skill. Doubly so if you work in a position that entails "diversity" in its title. In those cases, the job was created for your attributes, and not intelligence.

The other half, is that you're not allowed to talk about it. Full stop. End of story. Do not mention the elephant. There is no elephant. Anyone who mentions the unmentionable is summarily disposed.

Tl;Dr. We need a hiring test equivalent to a Turing test. No race, no sex, no body-type, no nothing other than "Can you type the language we're using, and can you answer questions pertaining to the job at hand?"
> Make it work like expected.

Expected by code or by the progammer(s)?

That said, strong API guarantees are the way, documentation should note the bug, introduce a fixed version for the API, maybe schedule deprecation in 10-15 years, and carry on with life.

It's not worth it to hunt down every client and make them fix your honest mistake.
> For the speaking part it's humans evaluating the results

That's not what I understood from the article, which says

"uses voice recognition technology to test speaking ability, with audio recordings then marked by a “scoring engine”"

"Other test providers have said they use human assessors to determine if people are competent speakers of English"

Both of those imply there aren't humans evaluating the results at this test provider.

That's the entire point of the article.
Absolutely. Pichai had an opportunity to make Google stand out of the current insane PC mindset, as perhaps the Google of 15 years ago would, and instead chose to collaborate with the orthodoxy. So much for using data to evaluate ideas. What a disgraceful age we live in.
Totally off base, on several points. Any kind of checksum on the disk only protects what gets to the disk. Filesystem-level CRCs can protect the entire data path. If you have a defect in your RAID card or HBA, or anywhere in the software stack below the filesystem, on-disk CRCs will happily "validate" the already-corrupted data while filesystem-level CRCs are likely to detect the corruption. The author dismisses it as a "remotely likely scenario" but I've seen it happen for real many times. Maybe that's because I have about 3.5x as many years of experience as the author, across what's probably thousands of times as many machines or drives (I've worked on some big system).

The same "I've never seen it so it's not real" fallacy appears again in the discussion of RAID 5. He says that losing a second drive during a rebuild is "statistically very unlikely" but that's not so. Not only have I seen it many times, but the simple math of disk capacities and interface speeds shows that it's not really all that unlikely. I've seen RAID 6 fail because of overlapping rebuild times, leading people to push for more powerful erasure-coding schemes. Over the lifetime of even a medium-sized system, concurrent failures on RAID 5 are likely enough to justify using something stronger.

I was one of the earliest and most outspoken critics of ZFS hype and FUD when it came out. It was and is no panacea, but that doesn't justify more FUD in the other direction to sell backup products or services.
I realize you're very busy and can't be bothered to support your claims, but you should actually try to demonstrate some knowledge rather than countering with the equivalent of, "but I'm really really certain."
> it is the only one that uses voice recognition technology to test speaking ability

> Other test providers have said they use human assessors

No, the article clearly states that the test in question used voice recognition on a computer. Other companies use human evaluations, however this one didn't.
a persons humanity should not be in question. you can discuss the merits of a specific persons qualifications but to argue "women, as an aggregate, are poor coders because they care about people and not things like dudes do" isn't a discussion. it's just grade-school level sexism.

for someone with a PhD in biological systems, you'd expect a person to be a little more developed in their thinking...
It's a memo, for crying out loud, not a scientific paper. That's why he cites the scientific papers! A full review would require a book-length response.
Apparently the matter came when some women started to complain that they had been pressured into accepting management positions, didn't like the added stress, but had no possibility to move to other positions due to manager shortages.

And yes it is an anecdote, so no there's no citations, but most posts in this discussion don't cite citations either.
The "social justice warriors" coined the term. Now it is "meant to be insulting"?
Quotes below are from your link:

> But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm.

> Again, though, most of these sex differences are moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace (accounting for, perhaps, a few percentage points of the variability between men’s and women’s performances). Sex differences in occupational interests, personal values, and certain cognitive abilities are a bit larger in size (see here), but most psychological sex differences are only small to moderate in size, and rather than grouping men and women into dichotomous groups, I think sex and sex differences are best thought of scientifically as multidimensional dials, anyway

> Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.

> Sex researchers recognize that these differences are not inherently supportive of sexism or stratifying opportunities based on sex.

That the empirical claims are accurate doesn't mean that they are relevant to the (memo) author's motive for writing it, whatever that is.
The expectation is that networks will switch to IPv6 only internally, and eventually the IPv4-only remainder of the Internet decays until it's no longer an "IPv4 Internet" but just a handful of separate IPv4 networks that are connected to the (now IPv6 only) Internet by protocol converters.

Some US corporations did this already, rather than fuss with being "dual stack" and potentially introducing new IPv4-only services or systems, they switched wholesale to IPv6 and add converters at the edges. By choosing to do this they get most of the benefits of a future IPv6-only Internet today. For example, numbering internally is a breeze, they can auto-number almost everything because the address space is so vast there is no need to "plan" any of it.

Lots of other US corporations are still IPv4-only, indeed that's why the Google graph earlier has a distinct weekday vs weekends / holidays step change in it. At home a very large proportion of people in industrialised countries have IPv6, major ISPs supply it, common household routers understand how to use it, every modern OS groks it. But at work IPv6 is often disabled by policy, in favour of cumbersome IPv4 because that works and changing things at work is forbidden.
Psychiatric Treatment in Madurai,Psychiatric Treatment
Thanks for the link to the article... it'll take me a little bit of time to get into the detail. But, the second scientist in the article says the following:

>But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe.

I would argue that even if he didn't mean to, "using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality" is the message he gave to many people. I do believe his argument is more complex than that, but it's not sufficiently accounting for this impression.

I'll continue reading. In the meantime, asking if I read the memo and showing me the definition of "incoherent" ... can we please have a respectful discussion? I'm happy to explain why I find the memo, as a whole, incoherent, with examples.

(Edit: changed "first" to "second" scientist)
Don't be mistaken, Australia has the 12th highest immigration rate of all countries per capita. [1]

and the 8th highest immigration of all countries, regardless of population. (also [1]).

Australia has a massive, massive amount of immigration.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...
I've seen the digital equivalent of this. It would be hard not to carry a phone (or accept cash), but traveling around the world while you're young sounds great.
I see arguments here that people can readily feel a change.

I have to admit, I don't see it. It's been an unusually calm summer where I'm at. We haven't had a summer with several days over 100F in quite a few years. If anything, it's been less hot.

But I'll surely give the report a read. It is an important topic.
> 10 page pseudo-intellectual manifestos about your inherent inferiority at performing in technical and leadership roles

Is there any way to discuss generalized differences that won't be perceived as absolute and insulting?

The memo clearly did not make any claims about all women, and the topic at hand (gender representation in roles) is a general one. If there are general differences between men and women, we could expect general differences in their representation in various roles. That doesn't mean any individual woman is inferior, or even different relative to men.

It's really confusing why so many media stories and comments race to phrase this as claiming women are worse at their job, or can't code as well. Did they read it?
> If Tesla can continue to sidestep the traditional dealer franchise network

The problem is: a Tesla is radically different from any other car. You need specialized knowledge (especially in HV distribution) to properly repair it, and most likely also ultra-special tools, and from what I've heard (eg https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/replacement-parts-why-...) spare parts are extremely hard to come by, even for official Tesla shops.

So basically you need a massive network of official shops and dealers in order to assure the customers that their damaged/broken car is going to get fixed... and that's where BigCar has an advantage: all they need to do is to train one or two employees at each existing shop/dealer in how to service/repair an electric car, and they have the entire country serviced. Tesla on the other hand has to build the stores, hire and train personnel on their own... and that's a significant hit on capex.
I thought many here were contrarians - and the positive side of a contrarian is that they can see both sides of the issue and the negative side is that they tend to be prone to trolling.

It appears there is a lack of seeing both sides on this issue - which, to me, means there is something else going on.

It's a kind of philosophy. It's more than politics. I think it may be about what Truth actually is.

For example (and I'm feeling my way here, forgive me my more philosophically minded friends) that what we are people are clashing about is what is true, useful and socially agreed upon to believe in. It's like the social contract - if we somehow all accepted that behaving in society was untrue and so stopped operating in society, it would collapse. So there is an accepted truth that living in a society is a useful and helpful thing.

The same with sexual stereotypes. There may be some data here on both sides (The Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and Surgery ones come to mind), but it's neither useful nor helpful to society, and so if someone says X is untrue then society will emphatically say it is true. You, a human living in society, will defend where and who you live with.

Politics is somewhat about the organisation of society. What most people on both sides of this debate cannot see is that they are arguing about something more fundamental.

Now - with a cheery hello to my future employers who will hopefully (I'm a data scientist) be using some advanced data software to tie up my contrarian HN posts with my actual identity, I'm not at all surprised the employee was fired. It goes against the culture that he is in. I do believe the discussion should be had, and repeated, debunked and defended like you imagine a real debate to work like.
>> That's 'privilege', and is something to feel guilty about. It's not something to be grateful to your ancestors for providing, but something you get unfairly by 'accident of birth'. Only when it comes to guilt is your connection to your ancestors and ethnicity more than an accident.

Oh wow.

I mean, I know that compared to many others (the vast majority) in the world I am exceedingly privileged. And seeking to help others overcome the barriers they face (that you do not) is a good thing. Even understanding that these barriers are there is something a lot of folks don't really get.

But I'm sure as hell not going to feel guilt over being brought up with a good education, enough money in the house and being born with light, pinkish skin.
I won't debate this further with you.

In India the reservation debate has reached a point where things like 'citation needed' and 'provide proof' are now largely excuses to cover for pointless spending towards socialist 'rob peter to pay paul' schemes. Some people find reservation apologists so absurd that a debate isn't relevant any more. The problem and pains faced by hardworking kids from middle class families are now beyond complaints. Most people know by now, nobody cares for them and they have to work far more harder than kids who get reservations.

The net result is general merit kids are far more competitive and do well on the longer run.

Either way I know nothing will change on the ground, because this is large a political issue. And politicians let the system continue because they get votes in return.

For merit people the path is very simple, move out as the system doesn't reward you. There are better places on earth to contribute and build your career.
He might have planned all this. He was apparently chess champion as a child.

* Mentioning of left echo chamber was pandering to the right. And he got huge support form right leaning and centrist media and personalities.

* Biological differences he mentioned were sourced, so not his personal opinions. He knew this will trigger outrage from pro feminist camp that will start witch hunt against him, based on unproven accusations that he holds misogynistic beliefs.

* Emphasize on the benefices diversity initiatives have on diverse candidates, was another passive aggressive attack on one of SJW/PC/regressive-left sacred cows.

I dont really know if he planned this, but if you spend any time following anti-SJW sphere, then you should agree that reaction was totally predictable.

Basically he just said that google created environment where people who dont perfectly align with left leaning echo chamber agenda (here he was pandering to anti-SJW anti-PC / centrists, conservatives...) cant safely express their opinions anymore. And he was fired for doing exactly this. Proving his point on himself. Google HR had two bad choices, not fire him and cause outrage among many of their left leaning (snowflakes); or fire him and prove his point that they re indeed left leaning echo chamber.

I base my speculation on fact that he put his full name on memo, instead of pseudonym and this quote:

> Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters.
People who will be disadvantaged by efforts to reduce climate change (by driving less/walking more, eating less red meat, etc.).
Really? Why is it, then, that the identity politics was dominating the discourse in the USA during the last election, and likely still is? Why do those who question the ethnic discrimination disguised as "Affirmative Action" get slammed by the leftist media, such as Rand Paul by The Guardian (and others) a few years ago?
> South Africa? South America? Australia?

While as a Belgian you'd be able to enter there and stay for a short while, you'd still have to comply with their residence visa process or hope that their refugee provision is generous.
What kind of business do you have?