skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour.

This is obvious and not the point of contention. The crux of the other side's disagreement is in the assumption that differences in brain chemistry attributable to sex necessarily account for all or the majority of the differences we observe in career distributions. I think the insane reaction to this memo is unfortunate because the author does appear to make an earnest effort to discuss this topic, but the memo's defenders are not doing the argument any favors by arguing against the weakest version of the opposing argument.
It seems like a positive feedback loop to me. You would expect healthy people to be able and willing to keep working instead of retiring. Esp. if their work involves some physical activity it helps keeping them healthy.
Most ebikes have a pop-out battery (with lock). It's not a very attractive target of theft without the most expensive part: stolen bikes trade for peanuts. But yes, there's room for more anti-theft solutions.

Also, many/most places don't have a bad bike theft problem. Locks are no obstacles for determined house/motorbike/etc thieves either, but people still use those.
"In 2010, there were 1.1 fatal crashes per 100 million truck miles" https://www.truckdrivingjobs.com/faq/truck-driving-accidents... Truckers make ~27c/mile.

So, at similar rate to human drivers that's ~24* million dollars per fatal crash in saved wages. Plus presumably higher truck utilization and lower management costs etc. Don't forget the driver is often not at fault and automated trucks should have plenty of footage of accidents to demonstrate who was at fault. So it's a fraction of both fatal and non fatal accidents, with non fatal accidents generally having lower associated costs. Also, most importantly it's only the truck involved in many accidents associated with bad weather and more generally the driver's medical bills etc do not need to be covered if there is no driver.

Further, technology is unlikely to degrade over time so they just need a profitable starting point. Also, if the self drive button cost ~25c / mile there are plenty of times I would hit it.

*Granted, there will be labor costs linked with automated trucks, but a 95% savings seems likely.
I was going to make some comment about the corollary being that I don't care that old, B-rate, black-and-white films wouldn't be on the service, but then I remembered that there are some surprising gaps in the Google Play library. Don Henley and Bob Seeger are notably absent. As a child of the 80's, I find this sad, and I think most everyone would be disappointed to find that Hotel California is not available on the service. Thank goodness they finally added Zep.
I agree with what you are saying.

I cannot see why this chap deserved such backlash and hatred from the community, especially one that has always made a point of ensuring things are open and people have a right to a well constructed opinion.

I think he probably got sacked due to Google worrying more about backlash from its working majority, however, isn't that part of what a progressive ideology works against?
By definition, life expectancy increases with age as a trend owing to better postnatal care over the past few decades. As the infant mortality rate has gone down, the life expectancy has gone up.
What astonishes me is that Google's VP of Diversity knows so little about the underlying science of her vocation that she confused statements of clinical fact (with the science even referenced in footnotes!) with personal attacks on women.
What's the proportion of people who work their way up to management from code-monkey, versus being hired directly into a management role?

If it's highly skewed towards "promoted from code-monkey", then there's a big barrier to entry if you're the kind of person who loves managing and dislikes code-monkeying.
1. Google is not not employing an arbitrary, randomly picked group of women. Even if neuroticism in the general population were negatively correlated with engineering performance (Which he has no citations for), that would not be relevant, as the candidates are not randomly selected from the general population. What this does, is reinforce a harmful sterotype about his co-workers. (Or it is a complete non-sequitur about people who will never become co-workers. The average man can't do software engineering either. So what?)

Black people do a lot of crime[citation, citation, science, citation], but that's not relevant to why they struggle to get promoted.

2. The author asserts that women are biologically different. The author asserts that this biological difference makes them less capable of succeeding in tech [citation needed]. The author presents this as an obvious solution for why they aren't succeeding in tech!

What else could this train of reasoning possibly mean?

3. Software Engineering is already highly collaborative, but that is a non-sequitur.

The implication here is that currently, it's not for girls, because they aren't interested in things. But if we change it, we can make it for them! This means that it is currently not suited for them. Because biology.

4. Yes, there are worthwhile bits of discussion in this essay. In fact, the overwhelming majority of it, while controversial, is not espousing the inherent inability of a random subset
of women to do engineering, as currently practiced.

The small part of it that is, though, is the problem. It's also the kernel of the argument.
How is the right using the state to censure? Are you referring to the US, or in a global context?
http://www.poynter.org/
This seems like a race to failure, this nickel and diming. Each content producer will have a min amount per month that they will accept. A consumer only has a certain amount of disposable income. The horizon hurts both sides: consumers will get less content, and no provider will get enough subs to make it work.

The demand for content was met legally through the rise of Netflix and other streamers with large catalogs; consumers could pay one provider one price to get access to entire catalogs across creators.

Once this becomes so costly as each creator has their own minimum cost (HBO + Disney + Netflix + CBS + AMC et nauseum), users will pick only a small number of services, and users will start to go back to piracy in droves. The services will collapse due to lack of subscribers, but instead of going back to releasing the content back to the original services, they will instead sit on it... they won't get the original pricing from, say, Netflix or Hulu because they showed that the alternative, going alone, didn't work: no negotiating power, so they will simply sit on it, like the retail store locations left vacant for years until someone ponies up the expected rent.

This helps no one: the consumer won't pay, the services won't last, and the content gets shelved.

What might work: allowing rapid switching with credits that let one binge on different services for different time periods; allow aggregators to buy mass credits/subs and resell "group subs" that allow discounts to multiple services.

Otherwise, I think this will be a mess. When I start paying more than I did for cable to get the same access, that will be a problem.
>The US is the only country that taxes worldwide income.

Technically no, so does Eritrea tax non-resident citizens on their worldwide income.

And it's frankly hard to make sense of the rest of your comment.

It's difficult (or impossible?) as you say for an American citizen to basically be a perpetual tourist, not actually residing anywhere?

>to pay a crazy US rate instead of the far more reasonable 13% in russia.

>All the comments about scandi countries assume people actually declare income without using many more legal strategies available there compared with the US.

Well, yes, I am assuming that people generally don't try to live as a perpetual tourist and skirt tax burdens by not actually living anywhere.

>The effective tax situation for wealthy US citizens is actually much worse, it is just obfuscated by the headline number.

Still eager to see this proved.
Are you saying that the far right and the far left have the same policies? If they have different policies, how are they the same? Are they essentially the same? Does that mean the content of one's political beliefs is not essential to their political identity? I don't get it so please clarify.
I worked with a guy once who moved from country to country paying zero tax and he was bragging to me about this. He also had a wife and child with him. So I just thought: Nice for him: He gets to live in a country with clean water and sanitation, the rule of law, disease control, free education for young children etc ---- I pay for it.
The Fired Google Engineer, the First Amendment, and the Alt-Right
What about having your own pattern for upper case and lower case in the words ?

Like, say, every 3rd letter of the words you choose will be upper.
hoRse or baTtery etc...
BlackPods brings your AirPods to the dark side
The following article has a tweet from a journo which says its because it was hosting a movie (Jab Harry Met Sejal) illegally and the Madras court thought banning archive.org is a solution.

http://www.dailyo.in/variety/internet-archive-dot-block/stor...

Update: A more detailed from from the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/technology-40875528
I am always surprised that well educated people who are definitely not "creationists" but consider evolution as a way human kind developed are ready to ignore evolution when it comes to gender.

Clearly man and woman are different physically and mentally as for millenias they played different roles. Why "gender people" keep ignoring that and are claiming that sex is not something inborn and is a "cultural" phenomena is hard to understand.

For me gender studies are just new incarnation of Lysenkoism. Lysenko strongly belived (and thousands of soviet scientist) that weeds could spontaneously evolve into food grains because is should cooperate with communistic party.

Those who were against that obvious stupidity and claimed that genetics is the way to understand plant evolution were fired or put to jail or executed.

Similarly absurdal ideas were brought by soviet lingustics - if any one wants to have good fun, there is no better reading then Stalins's "Linguistics".
I'm on the person you asked, but to me the "American left" would include things like drug legalization/decriminalization, abortion as a civil right, gun control, progressive taxation, and tax-funded social welfare programs.
The point isn't about whether GMOs are safe (I supsect they are), it's about the skewed debate.

Companies that produce GMO products (and the groups on the other side as well) stifle debate to the point that it's nigh impossible to find unbiased research to form an actually cogent opinion.
Announcing the OpenShift Container Platform 3.6 GA – OpenShift Blog
I never gave them the benefit of the doubt, and knew that "Don't Be Evil" wasn't much good if you can't recognize that something isn't necessarily good just because it's good for you. And indeed, the "no poaching" stuff is pretty sorry.

They should have depressed salaries with non-competes like everyone else does.
Come on. I think some of his arguments were flawed but that's not what he said. For christ's sake.
Your definition is demonstrably unusual. Remember, something is true "by definition" if it's not true for any other reason.
My company has an anonymous internal forum and I don't even like asking simple HR questions on there! I once complained about my disuse of my dependent care FSA going unnoticed. That's as far as I'm willing to go.

A touchy subject like this from someone with a technical background to a large group of people... I guess Google has a lot of employees and it was bound to happen eventually but seriously, how do you hit send on something like this without some twinge of anxiety?
Your post needs more visibility. I've taken the liberty to post it as a direct comment.
>Mr. Hastings, the chairman of a committee that evaluates Facebook’s board members, told Mr. Thiel in an email dated Aug. 14 that the advocacy would reflect badly on Mr. Thiel during a review of Facebook directors scheduled for the next day… "I’m so mystified by your endorsement of Trump for our President, that for me it moves from ‘different judgment’ to ‘bad judgment.’ Some diversity in views is healthy, but catastrophically bad judgment (in my view) is not what anyone wants in a fellow board member.”

Is it legal in the US for someone to judge a person’s political beliefs or a declared support for a candidate in a performance review? I can imagine that even if the answer is ‘no’ that things might be different on a public board where it is less ‘performance review’ and more ‘public face of the company’, but the idea of judging someone professionally on the basis of their personal politics at the ballot box seems a little disturbing to me.
Rather, perhaps, Ada 83.
Based on the names, could it just be that the baby boomers are retiring and going home? They are a very large demographic and I imagine their options for reasonable priced healthcare insurance are shrinking.
Please quote from his manifesto where he actually said anything like that. You're both misinterpreting and sensationalizing, which does not help the conversation.
This is wrong assuming, as is recommended practice, you use a hashing function like bcrypt or scrypt that is designed to be resistant against massive ASIC speedups, right?
The problem with this thinking is that many of us are not extremists and genuinely want to know what the scientific truth is.

And if someone prepares a text which is logically sound (but remains to be seen if scientifically sound) supported by references then it's completely a different game.

And when journalists and other people criticise that text with ad-hominems, jokes and invectives but ZERO arguments, that's no longer enough.

I'm afraid that the critics of this manifesto will have to put in the hard work and prove that it's wrong. The tactic of shouting the author down, as they do with typical trolls won't work in this case.

But the really bad news is that it never did work. Those people that were shouted down continued to hold the same ideas except they hid them and acted silently.
I've never noticed that, because I never typed my password but I guess it's similar to what facebook[0] does in order to prevent caps lock issues?

[0] https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/68013/facebook-...
Agree! I was surprised to see that in the con column. What possible benefit is there for differing programming styles in a team?
Repeating the comment by @tryprasannan

Most (all?) savings claims by govt are at best projected numbers. For those interested in an analysis of the savings claim and some of the other myths propagated by govt, see the 3 part analysis by Anand (https://twitter.com/iam_anandv) linked below

Part 1 - https://www.medianama.com/2017/04/223-nandan-nilekani-aadhaa...

Part 2 - https://www.medianama.com/2017/06/223-aadhaar-lpg-scheme/
It seems you interpreted my comment as a critique aimed at you as an individual and I can understand why you did that. However it was certainly not my goal and Im sorry if you felt attacked. I tried to be clear both that your comment (i.e. not you as an individual) was a good example and I also finished my post by saying that I didnt mean to continue bashing you (as an individual). I wrote that because I actually had read your other comments. That was why I added the last sentence.

I think this is getting a bit OT. Again, sorry if you felt personally attacked. That was not what I was after. If you take a step back from the posts and just read them for what they are... maybe you could see that it is a pretty good example of the drama we see around this. The Google VP of Diversity made (imho) quite a similar comment in her statement as you did. She did, however, not detract it as far as I know.
> I believe it's illegal in the US to fire someone for their political leanings

In most circumstances it's perfectly legal to do so. Exceptions include states with specific laws that protect political affiliation (which includes California) and federal government employees.
Right-leaning professionals who live in major urban areas are completely surrounded by left-leaning people: almost all of their colleagues, friends, bosses, etc. I know many conservatives in these environments who would never admit it outside of a very trusted circle. They would never think of making their job a platform for their views, like left-leaning people routinely do (often at the encouragement of management and HR). They fear precisely what happened to this Google engineer: a smear campaign, weaponized outrage, and a ruined career.

I'm sure there's challenges to being a left-leaning person in rural Georgia. But moving to rural Georgia isn't necessary, or really even an option, for people seeking economic mobility.
Are Endurance Athletes More Susceptible to Getting Diabetes?
What Is Cryptocurrency Game Theory: A Basic Introduction
You are confused about what sexism is. Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. Saying that women are inferior to men is a sexist remark.

Saying that on average, women prefer working in people oriented roles whereas men prefer working in mechanical/technical roles is not sexist, because this is a fact supported by real evidence.

The author's point about societies with the most gender equity having bigger gender gaps really drives this point home. In societies where there is gender equity, people aren't compelled to behave a certain way and instead gravitate towards the roles they really want to take.

Real, verifiable, reproducible truths are not sexist or racist. They are truths. The fact that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_people#Sport dominate sprinting is supported by empirical evidence and also science.

So to be clear, racism and sexism are terms used to describe prejudices, lies and falsehoods about a gender or race. These terms shouldn't be used to describe real, empirically shown gender or race differences.

We as humans are all equal in worth, but that doesn't mean we are all the same.
There is a difference between a military alliance and a mutual defense pact. NATO is the latter.
It's very odd that you admit you didn't actually read the document. Does it cause you physical pain or something?

You then judged it based on a bunch of re-tellings, believe it says something it doesn't and that this is somehow virtuous and worthy of proclamation. Kind of discouraging.

It didn't say Google should stop encouraging women to apply. That's simply not true. It did say it should stop giving women specific non-encouragement based advantages, like letting them proceed even after failing an interview when a man would have been dropped. It also said lots of other things. Why don't you read it yourself, and then judge it based on that?
Tips to Hire the Best Mobile App Development Company
does the right differ? Is it non-democratic, against free speech, or happily accepts contrarian views?

I doubt being close minded is specific to any political group.
"You really need to read it again. He never brings of the topic of suitability. His section about biological differences only discusses why genders tend to choose certain professions."
That's because the election was over, and they got to taste victory, at least for a little while. Most people don't feel the need to lash out at other people when everything just went their way.
What do we talk about when we talk about “Data Exploration”?
No. The way it usually works is you can contribute up to X% of your pay tax advantaged (with a hard dollar cap) to your 401k. The company can match up to Y% pay.

What he is suggesting is that he can contribute 10%. Everything he contributes up to 4% is matched by his company (ie a 4% pay increase). Usually its a little more complicated than that. Like they'll match 1:1 the first 2% and then 1:2 the next 2% for a total of 3% matching funds.
OK: let me rephrase - he argues that women (for example) have lower stress tolerance and are more neurotic, and that could be a reason for the lack of women at the top. He never says outright that these properties actually make women unfit for those jobs, however.
I really like Pytest but I didn't see a way to easily customize the output format (not just traceback but overall output). If they can add documentation with examples of the hooks available (if present) to customize the output, I won't have anything further to complain about Pytest.
European city maps from Airbnb location ratings
I personally never called it out for sexism. I called it out for regressive-thinking as a solution based on plain fact.

I can only be brief right now, but it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this. To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a second thought.

If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tuned to engineering prowess to the extent that men do for whatever cause, then just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there?

Humans never evolved to fly, yet we do it all the time. By the same logic, if we weren't evolved to do it, we should probably just put our planes away because it's bad for us. Same with communicating long distances and sharing knowledge on a planet-wide scale. <sarcasm> I mean, they've caused problems themselves after all. I think we should put all these silly, limit-pushing ideas and practices aside and just go back to smashing rocks together. The ground has rocks. We all have two hands. It can work for us.</sarcasm>

TL;DR Why is a fact being accepted as sound basis for a totally disparate theory on why we should stop trying to exceed our limits? This guys post wasn't science. He used science to reason out a way to revert to a state of community where he stands to gain more. There was another theory like that, I can recall. I think it started with an 'e'.

edit: Wanted to add, a PhD of neurosexuality is probably one of the last people I would consult on philosophy, humanism or any kind of larger social issue. It's not exactly her scope. It does help to have an expert on the subject chime in on the science, though. It will help at least dispose of that less useful side of the discussion.
He claimed that women are more neurotic and emotional, that it negatively correlates with engineering performance, and that it is the reason why they aren't succeeding.

He claims that, therefore, we should make software engineering more emotional and people-focused.
The far left is dunking on the center / Clinton establishment pretty hard all across the internet, which has been immensely satisfying.

That being said, Clinton was pretty tepid and corrupt, not openly offensive and terrifying the way Trump is. Unless you're REALLY desperate you can't honestly say supporting one or the other is the same.
> The right to unionize is not part of free speech. The actions you mentioned are not protected under the First Amendment. Instead, they are protected by sections 6 and 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

Yes, which is exactly the point. Lazy justifications of any non-governmental punishment of speech with "well the First Amendment doesn't protect against it, so it's fine!" is just that: lazy.

> There is more to the First Amendment than free speech.

Yes. And there is more to free speech than the First Amendment.
> So why aren't the management layers of tech companies composed of mostly women?

From my experience, women in technology have a higher chance of reaching manager level than men. I worked with plenty of female managers, and their people and communication skills were the reason that got them in those positions. Women with families, women working 4/5th.

So yes, I do think they can rise up with those skills, from a European perspective.