skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, that would have been a good source, in particular for Dr. Halpern's comment that she believed all psychological differences were due to societal influence but changed her mind based on the strength of the evidence.

But it's too late now. I don't know if there's any way he could have expressed his views without being crucified. But he definitely should have done a better job of reviewing it with the mindset of an ideological opponent determined to interpret everything in the worst possible light. (As another example, phrases like "PC authoritarians" and the bit about coal miner deaths are applause lights to the right, but aren't relevant to the core arguments and just serve to alienate the actual audience).
Well said. The challenge is that good politics is not always nice.

As a general principle, much of modern Western thought seems to be obsessed with minimizing any sort of discomfort in the present moment, regardless of whether that discomfort is a temporary and necessary phase one must pass through in order to reach a better future.
This answer seems to be assuming the universe must be implemented on a classical computer and computed in a reasonable amount of time (that's not slowing down exponentially over time). That's not necessarily true.

I feel that assuming that the nature of how the universe is computed matches up with our first intuition feels a bit like the assumption in geocentrism that the universe matches up with our intuition of Earth being the center and the most significant body.

Even if you accept the basic premise of the universe being a simulation, there are still many ways it could work with MWI. The simulator's universe needn't have classical physics; the simulation could be running on quantum computers or something more advanced. Or the simulator's universe could be classical with a classical computer doing the simulation at exponentially-decreasing speeds as it has to simulate the increasing number of branches. It wouldn't make any difference to us how long the simulation takes to compute us, as long as the simulating machine doesn't break down and succumb to entropy. The simulator's universe could be something like Conway's game of life, and the simulation is running on a turing machine pattern which will never decay or break down. (I might be borrowing more than a few ideas from Permutation City here.)
sounds to me like you shouldnt be open sourcing your project if you are thinking like that.
Why I've Quit Twitter(2016)
> or to be free of the consequences of such.

This is false. Under the United Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." an extension of John Mill's:

"Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.

Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job, threats against the speaker, etc.

See: "The first step in assessing whether a particular measure or situation breaches the right to freedom of expression is to assess the threshold question of whether or not someone’s right to freedom of expression has been interfered with or restricted. ... The scope of what constitutes an interference with freedom of expression is very wide. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, refers to any “formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” imposed on the exercise of the right. In many cases, it is fairly obvious that there has been an interference, for example where someone has been sanctioned for making a statement or prevented from establishing a media outlet. International courts take a wide view of this. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee held that removing a teacher from the classroom for racist statements made outside of the classroom, while keeping him employed on the same conditions, was an interference with his right to freedom of expression..."[0]

[0]http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.0...
Why wouldn't you start with the cache?

Isn't the consistent database only useful if you require it to be used, and don't fall back to a less consistent alternative?
It's nice to hear that I'm not the only one with a growing sense of unease at the current trend for every disagreement turning into an 'us' versus 'them' dichotomy.
They do, but it's hit or miss when it comes to actually getting one. Personally I wish it just wasn't necessary.
> Arguing for more diversity and calling out executives that were not diverse and he was fired for that?

How on earth do you think such a thing would happen at Google? You're practically required to pray at the altar of diversity in order to secure a valley tech job.
What business does this guy have deciding what does or doesn't empower women in tech? Where is his evidence or personal experience here? I'm certainly no expert in this area, but couldn't it be better listen to the opinions of women in tech, disturbingly many of whom who have publicly shared stories of sexism or harassment directly limiting their career potential in tech, about whether they feel underrepresented because of interpersonal culture or because of their biology?
What I don't get in many of the left-leaning comments is that they're basically saying that 'patriarchy'/society is the only reason why women are underrepresented in tech.

In India/Russia, there are way more women represented in tech then in US. Do you think that these cultures are more welcoming/less sexist to women than US? It should be so in your world view.

I suspect that the companies in these countries doesn't have a diversity program, and they hire everyone for purely business reasons. Why do you think that diversity problems solve anything on the long term?

I live in Eastern EU and many people are actually sexist here ( men and women are favor of enforced gender roles ), unlike in Top 20 countries. But I suspect the gender disparity in tech is better than in the us, or largely the same. Isn't this kind of disproves the notion that gender differences are caused by sexism?
It is a slippery slope though. I wouldn't be surprised if putting "MAGA" in your email signature could be interpreted as a code of conduct violation at Google.
Generics mean the active ingredients are the same. Your sister's condition probably reacted to some inactive ingredients.

Generic may work better just as brand name may work better in that case.
the fact that google even has a "vice president of diversity and governance" position is just asking for trouble and creating a hostile evniroment
> Chunks don't span files. Each file is validated by the hash of its merkle tree. This is the biggest user-visible change, since it means you can download one file without downloading others.

But can't you already download one file? I suppose if a chunk spans two files, you may get a few extra KB of another file you don't want, but it's not noticeable from a user perspective.
Diversity programs are not about lowering the bar, they are about outreach. Nobody is being insulted by this. Nobody is being illegally discriminated against.

His argument is that the under-representation of women in tech can be explained by biological differences that make them inferior candidates for technical and leadership positions rather than hundreds of years of disenfranchisement and misogyny that still echoes in work culture today.

But you are right, "The point is to treat people with respect by building an environment where they can be their best (whatever individual skillset they have), instead of insulting them", which is antithetical to what the author did by writing the pseudo scientific trash and then widely distributing it to his colleagues.

[disclaimer: I work at Google, my views are my own and not those of my employer]
Generally we talk about issues that are relevant. None of those issues are relevant to anything that's going on in the tech industry, the question of what to do about diversity is.
What if the tasks he wants done by meritorious candidates were selected by a very heteronormative, white dominated bloc of powerful people? In your view, would that call into question the propriety of asking a minority candidate to compete against a majority candidate?

Even the SATs struggles/d with making sure their tears didn't implicit strengthen the scores of any one group of students.
There has to be a more charitable explanation than your implied "four scientists don't know how to do science properly" thesis.

Is diversity honestly so narrow a field, that a social psychologist, personality psychologists, evolutionary psychology, and a sexual neuroscientist are in no position to say anything?

Gender diversity always seems to bring up two issues (1) are men and women different in mental reasoning, and if so where and how significant are these differences and (2) would differences in mental reasoning lead to different outcomes in choice of studies or employment?

Is there a specific scientific field for that?
In authoritarian governments, you're also free to speak and usually, the consequence is your death, captivity, or torture. I don't buy that argument that you are free to speak but not free of the consequences.
Google has a conceptual "bar", and sure, in theory there's a way to map every candidate onto that bar. Passing the bar isn't a lottery (it's just a deterministic mapping), but actually getting an offer is. Having gone through the interview process and received an offer recently, I'd certainly say it is.

I don't know that I'd agree with the second part; one thing you can reasonably conclude is correlated with false negatives is diversity (there are studies that people form hire/no-hire opinions within seconds of meeting a candidate, and studies that people have immediate biases when meeting people based on race/gender; there's also the simple fact that's put to good use in small companies that hiring people like yourselves, although mostly in ideological bias etc., is a good means for team cohesion). I assume Google has done more research on this than I have. Handing out "more tickets" may just be a way to cancel out the fact that so-called diversity candidates are getting worse tickets.

However, even if they were simply giving out more tickets to diversity candidates, the average level of qualification of these candidates doesn't change. You just have more of them. Maybe that's a problem because you're discriminating in their favor, but it certainly does not "effectively lower the bar" or impugn the qualifications of this over-represented group. They're all qualified. They're all on the right side of the "bar". There's no alleged increase in the false positive rate.

The fact that he chose to interpret this as "effectively lower[ing] the bar" is not just insulting to his colleagues and unprofessional, but also a sign that he doesn't understand math enough to pass a well-tuned Google interview and got one of the rare false-positive lottery tickets.
I'm not sure I understand you. He's trying to make a statement about Google's hiring practices. The obvious discussion would be about whether he's right or wrong, and I don't know if that's the case. You seem to care that he's making the claim at all. It really feels like you're ashamed that he's telling the emperor that he has no clothes.
I wish I found about this sooner...
>You're talking about taking programs that work - at least to some degree

Can you justify this with data?
> working with minorities and women at an earlier age (high schoolers, college freshmen) to groom them and steer them towards STEM careers

Working with a specific class of students (based on gender/race) is highly discriminatory, IMO. I think it is unfair to the people not included in the group you want to encourage, specially when it is children we're talking about. Why not have STEM grooming programs for any student who wants to join? Why exclude some?
I live in India. We have a history of casteism. Measures like this were instituted 70 years ago to help the downtrodden. Now it prevents people like me from getting a place in the country's most prestigious colleges while other less-deserving people are admitted because of their lower caste. I was born in the 90s. I did not even once witness an incident of casteism in my life. Except the one perpetrated against me. Your suggestion seems to me like a similar measure. It isn't much different from a quota system.
> This also means that there are more men who are above 130 IQ then women which is kind of necessary to be a programmer.

Wait, what? What exactly do you think the IQ of the average programmer is?
I don't agree with Damore about his views on woman vs man. However, there are three points that the author raised that are on point:

1) Bad to have programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race

2) Bad that there is a high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

3) Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs
I don't think it has to be an either-or. In fact, because of this imperfect world, these programs are likely to be imperfect. But if I wanted to discuss that, I wouldn't do so using the argument that women/minorities are biologically-less suited for Google's leadership/engineering roles.
Even child labor is a topic open for debate. For example should children be required to perform chores on the Family farm?

Farm work is explicitly excluded from child labor laws for this purpose.
> When has this happened?

Happened to me a few months back.

> Actually, it was a term first popularized by the socialists, to attack the communists.

I'm talking about it becoming popularised in contemporary politics. We can all google that it was rebirthed in 87. The reason I know this though is that I remember seeing it coming into common currency after it was repeatedly being used as a hot button term by the GH Bush election campaign team in 88. This was talked about in the broadsheets at the time.
> A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion

I think you mean "illiberalism".

> This is the closing of the American mind.

I've just switched to Duck Duck Go. Others, I have no doubt, will also be making decisions on which technology companies they wish to support.
Oh, you have the right to hold opinions. You just don't have the right to hold opinions WHERE you want.

And no, being fired is not a societal sanction, just as someone asking you to leave their house isn't. A private company, just like a private house, is not "society".
I have to take levothyroxine and my endocrinologist insists that I take a particular name brand. The amounts are in micrograms and the dosage varies across brands, and since various pharmacies use different generics, the only way to get consistency is through sticking with a particular brand.
There are actually several US states that have political activities as a protected class. But you are correct for most US states, that is, employers in those states are free to say "All Democrats - you're fired!" and it would be legal.
I'm glad you feel uncomfortable being called racist and sexist given that you are saying things that are racist and sexist. Maybe one day the cognitive dissonance will prompt some introspection.

On a totally separate note, thanks for assuming my gender, race and minority status. Also that of whomever wrote the Google piece. You are doing a really great job making yourself seem like less of a bigot.
Not all diversity program are created equal, heh.

Diversity through quotas or hiring preferences to X, Y, Z classes of people are bound to make people angry.

Diversity though increased access to education, recruitment efforts, and accommodation of different strengths and weaknesses, personalities, work styles, management styles, etc. would make people much happier.
There cannot be a division between the exercise of a right and the protection of repercussion of exercising said right. To not afford protection to those who exercise a constitutional right is to strip all practical effect of those rights

It is illogical to conclude that we give people certain rights if we were simply to abandon them to their persecutors when they choose to exercise their rights. What was theoretically protected becomes merely a facade and an illusion that people have rights when in fact they are at the mercy of those who would attempt to subvert their rights

The practical effect of legislation is at the core of even the most introductory and basic courses of any law degree whether it is from an Ivy League University or the most rundown backwater campus

The general statement that you don't benefit from a certain degree of protection when exercising a constitutional right without any sort of mention of what a reasonable limit on those rights would be completely ignores the fact that constitutions were drafted PRECISELY to protect individuals who wished to exercise those rights
You might be interested in this debate:

Steven Pinker & Elizabeth Spelke | The Science of Gender & Science | Mind Brain Behavior Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8
You don't think Trump supporters wouldn't scratch up a Hillary sticker or religious people wouldn't scratch up an atheist fish on a car?
Why is trolling not civil or substantive?
OP is understandably frustrated since he believes a commercial project was created using ideas from his plans.

Not all open source software is permissive licensed (e.g. MIT). I personally attach copyleft licenses (e.g. GPL) to my open source works because if someone really needs to include my code in their proprietary software, they should be willing to pay me for a permissive license.
It's not about the memory capacity ..
...because the 'VP of Inclusion' came up with the current plan, that you don't like.

So how do you propose to move forward?

If you leave to them, they're going to do nothing, and leave it as is, because objectively, by the metric, it's working, and increasing the relevant ratios.

So you're basically advocating to someone that a) does not agree with you, and b) can demonstrate that their KPIs are excellent, to change their behaviour.

Why would they?

The only meaningful way to move forward to come up with a different solution, if you feel this one isn't working, because if since it seems to be working, just complaining won't change anything.

You don't get change by just complaining and making sad faces; change happens by meaningful engagement with the problem; if you're not prepared to do that, face the facts; there won't be any change.

(...and meaningful engagement obviously does not include distributing internal manifestos)
The relationship with Java is both a benefit and a disadvantage of Clojure.

> Why not Racket or Common Lisp etc?

These already have solutions in the compilation space.

Kyoto Common Lisp (KCL), a fairly old implementation tracing back to the 1980's, and its descendant GNU Common Lisp (GCL) compile to C.

Embeddable Common Lisp (ECL) also contains a Lisp to C compiler.

Of course, numerous CL implementations compile to native code without the C route.
We all know that men and women are different but under no circumstances can you club a large section of population and say they are inferior in some respect ... hitler did it with the Jews, whites did it to the blacks , Japanese did it to the Chinese and history is rife with extreme examples of the Dangers of generalization of a large section of population. Our job as human civilization is to evolve positively and to survive by dispersion of empathy - not by corroding it every day and making a certain section feel weak and vulnerable. No matter what your point of view is there is no doubt the author of the article had touched a raw nerve deliberately which he could have easily avoided. Therefor Google is right to fire him and the majority is absolutely within their rights to condemn him.
>The key question is whether companies are hiring more white men than they should, given the candidates available for hire.

There's another question then of why are there only white men available for hire?
That's not the argument made by the author, however, his argument is the gender imbalance is not concerning because women have, on average, smaller brains and lower IQ's.
Sure, so it becomes ~$2 million for an imagenet scale dataset with TPUs and ~$200K with our chips. Still pretty expensive :)
Paul Buchheit at Startup School 08 (2008)
I didn't suffer some gun nuts gladly, what can I say. I think I may have committed the offence of calling them aspergic after they were repeatedly and passively aggressively obtuse lol
We already essentially have a tiny bit of that in the form of the capital gains tax. Raise that a bit to fund public sector investment (but maybe not now because interest rates on borrowing are so low) and set a steep inheritance tax and you've gotten much closer. As for distribution of the money afterwards, doing everything at the federal level isn't desirable for a lot of things, so transfer that to state and local governments in those cases. Although a prerequisite to any of this being a good idea is making our democracy a lot more functional.
Some forms of affirmative action are legal in the US. Others have been struck down by the courts or have been made illegal by referendum.

I work at a large SV tech company and was recently privy to an affirmative action policy that was almost certainly illegal. The wording of the policy was quickly changed after a couple folks spoke up so as to make it conform with the law. If the policy had made it to a news outlet, I guarantee you it would have been on the front page of the NYT the next day.

In short, quotas are illegal. With some exceptions, hiring based on race is illegal. However, taking race into account among many factors is legal. The on-the-ground reality of these policies is exceedingly grey.
> around it being a mental delusion

But those people aren't Fortune 500 material so not pertinent to the discussion. Those people are on the extreme side of the right. It wouldn't be fair if I started to draw conclusions about the left from what you hear people say on /r/latestagecapitalism either.
Wouldn't it be great if the listeners who donated to Adam Carolla's fund got their collective $500,000 back?
Google "multiverse". OP isn't making up this idea.
You don't need personal experience to have an opinion, if you are capable of reading what other people have written and bringing to bear your own experiences.

It does not mean you get to decide anything for others, but it is a basic sign of respect to listen to what people say, and it is an even more basic sign of respect to not attempt to defame them.

This guy clearly isn't perfect. He was naive about what the effect of releasing his memo would be. However he was respectful and seemed to be trying to temper his perspective. He doesn't deserve the raw hatred and condemnation he is receiving. I think we should be compassionate and try our best to tolerate our differences.
The book is about being "the new rich". The new rich is not about having a billion dollars in your bank. Its about having enough money and most importantly the time and brain space to enjoy your time.

In the book Tim, emphasises that burning through 90 hour work weeks are pointless if you are not able to enjoy the $$$ it will bring in. Rather spend some money to reduce your workload and focus on things that excite you.

While most the examples he cites are not very useful for me. (I am from India and outsourcing the boring jobs to India isn't very effective ). It helped me focus on what I want in my life. And what is the $$$ amount which will help me achieve that. Its a hard conversation which most of us don't have with ourselves.

I sum up the book as; "There is no point in feeling like shit in your 20s and your 30s for a great life in your 40s which might not even come." Its not exactly YOLO as it emphasises to have a great time and not just let life happen.
Also, transducers and STM?