skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm certainly not an expert in the domain of "climate change", but it doesn't appear to be difficult to find reviews of the subject that come to different conclusions than reached by the NYT.

For example, here's a recently published paper authored by qualified individuals and the conclusion endorsed by several reviewers [0]. Bottom line was that "Global Average Surface Temperature" data was not credible and that "... it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever-–despite current claims of record setting warming."

This analysis and others leave the impression the subject of climate is not "conclusively settled" nor without legitimate controversy as to how data is interpreted and used for predicting future trends.

It's a shame that important research has become a "football" kicked around wildly for political advantage rather than being left in the realm of authentic scientific study for as long as necessary to understand the processes of Nature that we call "climate".

[0] https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data...
Just to clarify something: the standard many-worlds interpretation (such as discussed in the original article and elsewhere in this thread) doesn't contain anything about other alternate branches having different physical laws or being fundamentally different, and in MWI the only way that branches interact with each other is that probabilities are affected when multiple branches have their physical states match up completely (after possibly taking different paths) -- there's no way for intelligent beings to interact with meaningfully different branches for example. The many-worlds interpretation isn't a baseless what-if-there-are-alternate-universes thought experiment that anything could happen in, but instead is arguably the straight-forward interpretation of what we know about quantum mechanics.
Nay, Google was already fractured after Trump election TGIF and last holiday gift. It's popcorn time now.
As somebody who's recently starting to learn more about ML, a lot of the work of an ML engineer does seem to be automate-able (not doing research or pushing boundaries but just applying ML to some product need). For example, choosing hyperparameters, evaluating which features to collect, etc seem to be things that can be automated with very little human input.

His slide on "learning to learn" has a goal of removing the ML expert in the equation. Can somebody who's more of an expert in the field comment on how plausible it is? Specifically, in the near future, will we only need ML people who do research, due to the application being so trivial to do once automated?
I would count rows upon rows of homeless people in tents on the sidewalk next to where self-driving cars zoom by as pretty dystopian.
Given the number of applications Google receives, I assume they receive far more candidates that "meet the bar" technically than they can ever possibly accept, as do top tier Universities with students who have stellar grades/test scores.

So like these Universities, Google must consider other factors they believe add uncommon value to the "campus" when choosing candidates, among which are ethnic and gender diversity. I believe the author is underestimating the value of this to Google's corporate culture and public image, and is probably overestimating the technical skill required to be a competent Googler.

That being said, I believe his firing will only raise the dissatisfaction of the (I'm sure many) employees that share his viewpoint or at least his right to express it.
Why a Fleet Management App Is Essential for Your Business
This thread is full of problematic comments but yours are crossing into personal attack, which is particularly not allowed here, so please stop.
He puts his employer in a very difficult situation, however Google reacts, it is going to be trigger half of the internet population.

He is hired to be a programmer, not a social activist and Google surely could stand up and say they don't want be part of that.
> Rousseff was democratically elected, media (which is owned by a small oligarchy in Brazil) fanned the flames to get her impeached, the replacement?

Are you talking about the same Dilma Rousseff who has been continuously cooking Brazil's books to try to hide away a chronic economic crisis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_pedaling

Are you talking about the same Dilma Rousseff who tried to nominate her fellow Worker's Party colleague Lula da Silva into her cabinet just to grant him immunity from being prosecuted for corruption?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-rousseff-idUSKCN0WI...

I'm sure she was only hoisted by Brazil's own elected representatives because of bad publicity. I mean, it's not that she did anything wrong or anything.
Not to be dismissive of your comment, but I think the topic of privilege deserves more nuance than you are giving it. Privilege doesn't exist as a binary state, where some people enjoy privilege and others do not, we all enjoy some privilege, although obviously of varying degrees. Privilege doesn't stop just at men or women, white or non-white, there are numerous combinations of privilege that need to be taken into account.

> where male privilege exceeds female privilege.

I'm not sure I can categorically agree with this. While male privilege exists over women, I find it ludicrous to suggest that white women are less privileged overall than black men, despite black men benefiting from male privilege. I think many of the misunderstandings that occur when discussing privilege come about due to using only a few easily categorized traits in defining privileges, rather than a broader set that also include things like socio-economic conditions, health, upbringing, and a variety of personality or physical traits.
Your argument is legitimate. We don't know the exact mechanisms by which Google enacts their affirmative action hiring policy. We don't know if it's through quotas or scores or anything else. An affirmative action hiring policy, though, is built to hire more of a minority in some way or another. When the pool of workers of that minority is quite low(like in tech), I don't see how an organization can have such a diverse workforce without at some point choosing a weaker candidate that happens to be diverse.

If this isn't the case and Google does actually hire people based on their skill and not skin color or gender, then Google needs to emphasize that, or else the majority of people will look upon women and such as "diversity hires" and build a disdain for them, thus hurting the cause.
> as long as we continue to perpetuate diversity practices that emphasize sex and race in any way, some classes of people are going to be harmed

The whole reason diversity practices exist is because "some classes of people" are already being harmed. Without "diversity practices", we already have practices that emphasize and discriminate sex and race, except they happen to be the status quo.

Attacking diversity for harming "some classes of people" misses the point, because any change to the status quo is necessarily going to harm certain classes and benefit other classes.
DVDFab Passkey 9.1.0.5 Crack Full [Latest] Version
Do we know where Martin Shkreli was during all this?
I am not aware of any studies on the subject, but from experience I can say that most generics don't perform as well.
>You are risking your own personal assets only, while a coop structure would involve risk for everyone.

That would actual make risks smaller, as the investment and risk is spread across more people.

>Furthermore, you are founding a small business that you hope to eventually grow in some direction. That is very different from a whole set of workers founding a business where they wish to continue doing the same work they were doing before, only on a coop basis.

That's both not accurate (in the first part) and a shifting of goal-posts.

Who said Walter founded a business to try whatever and "eventually grow in some direction"? He had specific things in mind for the business to do, and pursued those.

Second, and inversely, who said people doing co-ops are against pivoting and trying stuff? That they "wish to continue doing the same work they were doing before" is a new, arbitrary, constraint.

Heck, people could start co-ops a) without having worked before, b) with people from different backgrounds, where the "same work they did before" doesn't apply, c) with people wishing to do something different than what they were doing before, not just with a different organizational model (e.g. build software of type X instead of working on mindless features upper management demands).
If that's the case then that 40% should probably go too.

It's 2017, not 1417.
> the title of the article is bad.

How, exactly, does a comment posted in the comments section means that Venezuela isn't being forced into a dictatorship?
Check the bfs code at https://github.com/OmkarPathak/pygorithm/blob/b7a5c1cda3b945...:

# breadth first search algorithm
def search(graph, startVertex):
# Take a list for stoting already visited vertexes
if startVertex not in graph or graph[startVertex] is None or graph[startVertex] == []:
return None

# create a list to store all the vertexes for BFS and a set to store the visited vertices
visited, queue = set(), [startVertex]

while queue:
vertex = queue.pop(0)
if vertex not in visited:
visited.add(vertex)
queue.extend(graph[vertex] - visited)

return visited

It returns None if there is a bad input or if the start node is a leaf. That's very weird, as None would seem to indicate an error but searching from a leaf is not normally an error. You should return a set just containing the start vertex if you start on a leaf. This doesn't need to be a special case.

The initial guard also checks whether graph[startNode] is None, but this is never checked when looking up other nodes in the graph. Whether you check this should be consistent.

The loop pops the zeroth element from the queue. As the queue is a list, this is a linear time operation. This makes the bfs implementation have quadratic worst-case complexity rather than the linear complexity it should have. The Python standard library has a deque class that can be used to fix this, and it would be more instructive and more correct to use that. This also means the time complexity function is wrong.

So 2 clear bugs and 1 weird and probably unnecessary check in the bfs implementation. Also, the implementation has no comments to explain how it works, why it has the time complexity it does, or how you might tweak it to accomplish different goals.

I don't see how someone who didn't already know BFS could learn from this. There's nothing here that teaches the algorithm, and the implementation is weirdly flawed.

On top of all this, the package claims to teach all major algorithms but only contains a handful of sorting and searching algorithms. It doesn't even have a UI to help people discover and learn about the algorithms it does teach. You just have to know which ones are there and import them, then run a bunch of commands to print out the source code. This UI is worse than just browsing the source on GitHub, and that's much worse than just looking the algorithms up on Wikipedia or reading a textbook.

I really don't get why someone would share this on HN in its current state. It looks like what you'd throw together for sample data before you started working on your algorithm teaching package.
Google fires employee behind anti-diversity memo
So you think you live in a democracy?

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

by: Mayer Amschel Rothschild

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Mayer.Amschel.Roths...
Nice analogy. I'm thinking exactly same. More partners you have, more difficult it will be to stick with one.
So on several readings of this, it sounds like you're saying that corporations should function as some sort of jobs program and that should take precedence over their function as a profit making enterprise and that some groups should have lower expectations placed on them.
Until very recently, almost no one has read the entire piece, because Gizmodo intentionally stripped out all the citations and charts the original author had in the document. Hmm. I can't imagine why....

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
Maybe he did.
3 month bootcamps make us "experts". Ha!
>It boggles my mind that people don't see the fundamental and toxic misogyny in this 'manifesto'.

It boggles my mind that ANYONE sees "toxic misogyny" in this document. I saw really offensive internal emails directed at this guy. Are you really so sure you're on the right side? I'm not asking if you think you have the right ideology, I'm asking you if you think you're still on the right side.
But consider http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria...
Could your great grandfather opt out of war?
I think a trailing slash is what makes Chrome try to resolve instead of searching.
> 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)

I agree that change happens with meaningful engagement. The first step to meaningful engagement on complex issues is usually a discussion. Setting aside that it's incorrect to refer to the memo as a "manifesto", it is very much not obvious to me that this doesn't count as meaningful engagement.

While I disagree personally with much of what was written in the memo, I find the response equally disheartening if not more-so. The backlash clearly displays that so many of those claiming to want meaningful engagement are interested in no such thing.
It's a slippery slope. In the beginning it looks like innocent little constitutional changes etc. Usually under the pretense of some external enemy (Terrorists, whatever). some private media losing their broadcast rights (Poland). Journalists arrested on terror charges under very strange circumstances (Turkey) and so on.

Once these changes are in place, and the division of power and free press is gone - the goal is open to move much faster. That's why it's so alarming in Poland/Turkey even though Venezuela is much worse already. Liberal democracy is brittle, and it can still be saved in Poland/Turkey. In Venezuela it has to be built.
I don't think the worst is his being wrong and biased but that rather than discuss his concerns in a sensible way (i.e. quietly and with someone in a position to set him right on the diversity issue) he has caused a shitstorm by making this document so widely available.

Perhaps it's a failing of culture at Google that he didn't have a better way to express his concerns and have them addressed.
Indian Wedding Invitations| Hindu Wedding Cards – A2zWeddingCards
> An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Winston Churchill
> Why are you so sure the bias is there? Countries like Norway are one of the most equality countries but they have the higher ratios, which doesn't make sense because they have the less bias.

This sentence is a little garbled so not quite sure what you're going for, but I like to point people to the example of the Danish parliament. A gender quota was established some decades ago to ensure that female members could get the job, because obviously half the population is female and so they need to be represented. Now that they have an equal number of men and women, they're getting ready to remove the quota because it served its purpose, and it's not needed anymore. There are enough qualified and experienced women with strong reputations available that they don't need the help anymore.
If we're so concerned with the advantages of wealth and education inequality, why are we still using race (a bad proxy, given the spread and distribution around the averages - the whole point of the original document) as the determining factor instead of just asking for tax returns/education records for special programs?

And regarding gender - let's consider the example of salary negotiation. Now, if you research, you'll see that statistically women are less likely to negotiate as high a salary as men. It would make sense, given that research, to create a women-only program for teaching salary negotiation skills, right?

Except what if the bell curve around those averages was wide? Well then there's a number of men that suck at negotiation, and a number of women for whom those classes would be a waste of time. So the likely better program would be one where negotiation ability was evaluated at the start, and only candidates that needed training received it. Statistically, this program would have more women than men in it, but an exclusive program would not have been ideal.

Maybe I missed the part where he called women inferior?? The gist of his document as I saw it was that only looking at deltas between averages is a myopic approach (makes sense), and that programs need to consider that there's often a wide spread between those averages (also makes sense).

There's a huge difference between creating a safe work environment so you don't alienate otherwise interested talent, versus artificially stacking the deck to create diversity for diversity's sake. The latter approach, particularly when poorly evaluating the data (as the author points out) can cause significant damage to an organization.

Case and point - how is it that a Googler discussing "White Male Persecution Complex" and "majority privilege" is contributing to the discussion of workplace diversity dynamics, but a (now ex-) Googler internally writing about dogmatic diversity and the need for nuance should be fired?

Are any of your co-workers white? Male? How is it that your assumption that they've had a silver spoon in their mouths their whole life not insensitive and inflamitory? Are your comments here not alienating?

Either no one should be able to write on the subject and any discussion a fireable offence, or perhaps rational, respectful, and data-driven discussion should be encouraged (and so far today I've only seen one Googler having written such on workplace diversity).
Capability to do work does not mean you have the same qualifications to raise your level and become the cream of the crop...ie raises or promotions.

You are the one digging the wrong rabbit hole here.
Add a slash to the end, less typing work than adding https:// to the start.
So "Sex in the city" is actually good portrait of life and relationships in NYC?
This is pretty subjective, but I've switched away from Gnome since Gnome 3. I find it slow and unintuitive even on modern hardware. I could use at least 4 out of the 6 points the author makes in this article to describe any modern linux desktop environment.

Disclosure: I use Openbox and Xfce. There are a few rough edges, but nothing that's a a deal breaker for me.
It could. In France (which has a mixed system), single payer cover around 70% of prescriptions costs. And you usually have an additional private plan that will cover the rest (and if you're too poor to buy one of these plans, you can be eligible to get it from the state).
So what was happening 1501 years ago, that it was warmer then?
Maybe they are more representitive of their country than they realised! If that is any comfort
Turning the JVM into a Polyglot VM with Graal
The report says (direct quote):

"It is extremely likely that most of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence (high confidence)"

Page 13, line 21. That uses the terms defined in the rubric you noted.

That's in direct contrast to the cabinet quote ("uncertain").
Google fires diversity memo author
I'm sorry but none of what you've said is correct - I'm speaking from experience from the Docker community.

Watch this ASCII recording to see the issue

https://asciinema.org/a/xM8m0iqOepkSwCRBTIP9hYXGU

We run into the issue on RPi/Raspbian - curl hangs indefinitely. I had someone report to me that he couldn't access localhost:8080 in a web-browser using a Docker container for FaaS because it was resolving to this IPv6 - he was on Arch Linux.

Perhaps you can reverse your hasty down-voting?
Badly written software will break.

Or software relying on badly written DNS resolvers.
Yeah maybe the real % is a lot higher. Quit trying to convince yourself this guy is fringe. For better or for worse, he's not.
At least Google threw him under a bus instead of running him over with a private car.
No, I called someone a Nazi because they put a extreme right wing conspiracy theory into a footnote of a manifesto about hiring less minorities.

No one asked for their opinion on Marxism. No one asked for their opinion on Google hiring practices. They volunteered both, and the fact that in their mind these things are entwined together.

Which, not coincidentally, is a talking point of those so far right that facist or Nazi is not a slur but a descriptive adjective, sometimes self-applied.

Plenty of people hate Marxists. It's the ones that think Google wouldn't hire gay people unless Marxist's wanted them to, and therefore hate Marxists that you need to watch.
>The workplace is no place for politics like this.

Actually, it is, in California. Political affiliation is a protected class.

You have to make a different argument if you want him fired.
I don't know why, but the image isn't loading unless I view it directly: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGrQOrZUQAUrwcf.jpg

Just under 280 people (out of 72,000 google employees) responded to the poll at the time of the screenshot. No indication yet as to possible bias in how this poll was conducted. Not to mention, somebody could have whipped it up in MSPaint.
Those studies have tiny sample sizes, and aren't even in the tech industry.
The short story: the US meddled in latin america for so long that now it's trivial for populist/socialist despots to take power under no other pretense than "keep the US out".

Obviously the international community has to be active here, but I don't think it's clever to do the usual let-CIA-help-the-opposition (which in part is why we are here in the first place). This should be international aid for democratic reform.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/able/www/paper_...

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074...
And the beatings will continue until morale improves.

Do you know if there's any evidence that affirmative action would increase, or decrease our biases? I would expect them to increase them:

1. Our brains constantly build models of the world without us asking them to. They will pattern-match regardless of the PC-status of the patterns.

2. Affirmative action reduces the average quality of marginalized groups within an institution by design.

3. from (1) and (2) we should expect implicit bias to increase, barring opposing pressure from implicit bias education - which evidence shows doesn't work (google it).
How TiDB tackles fast data growth and complex queries for yuanfudao.com
He made an argument for his conclusion based on his evidence. You can't prove with science that those things are why women prefer those jobs. But if the facts he cites in his evidence are true, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that women may prefer those jobs. If you want to argue that point, I think it's totally debatable. But that's just it - it's debatable.

EDIT: And as has come out, the author of this memo has a PhD in Biology. Here are comments from four PhD scientists in Sociology on the issue, if you'd like some credentials to go with it:

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
A little old, but still one of the best resources for humanoid control: http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/mlswiki/index.php/Main_Pa...

It has a chapter on closed-form IK for simple structures, and one on Jacobian transpose control.