skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, a certain level is required. I see no indication that freedom of speech _in the legal proper sense_ is restricted to anywhere near the level that it would be threatening rational discourse.

Indeed the types of speech targeted by laws typically is far removed from rational discourse.

And I am not aware of any laws, real or proposed, that would grant a "freedom to not be offended". So again, in this context, that's a red herring.

In this branch of the thread I was replying to the discussion whether anyone arguing against rational discourse is automatically irrational (not in the "subtle and qualified opinion" camp). A stance I disagreed with.

The whole freedom of speech issue is a complete distraction, as far as the discussion I was answering to was concerned, as well as as far as the case of the memo is concerned. Nobody was threatening legal actions against the author of the memo, were they?

So please, clean up your argumentation. I agree that there is too much shaming for unpopular opinions going on, but stop going to war under the free speech banner.

Admit that this is above all a cultural issue, not an issue of constitutional principles. There are all sorts of things that you are allowed to say (freedom of speech) while you definitely shouldn't say them, and you certainly can't expect a company, or anyone else for that matter, to not shun you for what you say (no freedom from consequence of speech).

If you argue that slavery should be reinstated, and Hitler did nothing wrong, he just wasn't thorough enough, then the consequences of this are on you.

I do believe that there is definitely a culture of shaming people into silence going on that has gone to far. I find the concrete case hard to adjudicate. It definitely at least straddles the boundary. The memo is ill informed and naive, but it's also not evidently written by someone immune to reason, and it does take some effort to minimize harm/offense to others.

If somebody on my team would write something like that I would ask them to come in for a discussion. I would force them to read the Pinker/Spelke discussion.

So by all means, let's push back against shaming people into silence, but let's not do it under an utterly naive banner that says "I should be allowed to say whatever I want". We all want to build a society that works for everyone. What the correct attitude to certain speech acts (like this memo) is, is not a matter of legal principle. It is a matter for rational debate.
You're right. I should have said half of the country that voted voted for him
I think they acknowledge that our society differs from that of our evolutionary ancestors, and that this context matters in determining social policy, and does not amount to "ignoring evolution".
Do you have any evidence for your assertions?
PullRequest wants to be your company code reviewer
According to Google, the definition of sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

So if you don't consider dating somebody because of their sex, by that definition you are sexist?
> In fact, research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy.
I just read that in a Morgan Freeman voice.
>Now you are switching from "what is right" to "what is legal". The law is dictated by society, based on common morality.

No, I keep using both moral/legal.

It's their thing, so they get to set their rules for giving access to it.

What's immoral about "I created Star Wars 555 but only allow you to see it if you pay $10,000. Oh, and you only get to see it once for the price while I play the kazoo".

That's their proposition. The buyer can simply decline.

>* They didn't just boycott the technology, but the law as well - that shows that the public do not value those laws, and the laws were erected in contradiction to the will of the people. No?*

Only as much as DIU shows that the people don't value driving laws.

We can still say that pirating doesn't show that they don't value those laws, as much as that they found an easy way to bypass them and not get caught.
It was an attack on women, even if it used "science" as corroborating points.
Relation between strict and non-strict identities
Social Media Strikes Back: Risks from the Digital Social Sphere
"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"

The main argument isn't about prowess; it's about preference.
Think: Russia.

The state says there are no gays, therefore if you discuss being gay with people you will be arrested for propaganda.

Ring wing censorship comes from the state, left wing censorship comes from peers.
That still doesn't really protect the underlying API from abuse because the intermediate server could be abused by someone who stole that intermediate server's API Key from the app. The benefit is that folks wouldn't have full access to the underlying API, but it may be enough depending on the evil doers purposes.
When I first read the memo. I thought this was going to prompt a debate. But... I knew somewhere there was a possibility of dismissal. The fact that a number agree with the view point should have called for a discussion. I for one don't agree with him but somewhere I see the perspective he is coming from
Not really, assuming every gets a $15,000 bike. it's about $20b more than we spent last year on Medicare.

But, It really depends on the bike you're suggesting. Supply and demand for 46.2M units will surely raise the price as well.

46.2M Americans over the age of 65 (retirement age) * $15,000 a bike (conservative, since we're talking "high-performance motor cycle") = $693B.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicar...
> There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races.

I mean it's not controversial to argue that on average caucasian men are taller than asian men. I can't find a quotation for that exact fact right now but let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument. It's a toy example anyway.

If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue without repercussion that I should be allowed to cut before asian men in the line in the cafeteria because as tall people we are always hungrier. Even arguing that would (rightly) be considered racist.

I tried to make a toy example but you get my drift - the use of a scientific fact in argument can be racist.

Even if you don't agree with my toy example (either the made up fact or the toy argument) - would you agree that IF scientific argument is found that e.g. one race has less cognitive ability than another that might be "good science" (although ethically questionalble science) - that most uses of such facts e.g in arguments would in fact still be racist? Or do you still insist that scientific facts make all arguments and actions based on them non-racist?
DataViz: AirBnB neighborhood rankings heatmap in major cities (worldwide)
The platform is there, just not quite visible because the upper floor is obstructing it. But you can see the bottom of the platform next to the accessible ramp.
The guy's post was science, according to scientists - 5 of them have now spoken up saying that. Maybe there'll be more.

With respect to "why not try to solve it", it's a reasonable question. The guy answers that too - he is all for trying to solve it. He even makes suggestions about new ways to do it, like encouraging pair programming.

But he feels the current solutions aren't working and are, in fact, causing bigger problems. They might also be illegal. That seems like a good reason to pause for a moment and re-evaluate if the current strategy is a good one.

He also made a wider point, that was actually his main point, that Google's strategy on women in tech was breaking the internal culture and causing a severe lack of other kinds of diversity, namely, political and ideas-based diversity. He said that people couldn't challenge ideas around gender diversity and the best way to fix it without intimidation and fear. Google claimed they totally support people having discussions like that, and then immediately fired him, which shows he was right.
Not OP, and US centric, but far left and far right are both united in seeing the status quo as their enemy, and both believe they're better able to harness any chaos that will ensue from overthrowing it.

That's why you had Snowden and Jill Stein throwing soft support to Trump, telling their followers that the previous election was a choice between Goldman Sachs (who apprarently clinton represented) and freedom from banker rule (which apparently trump represented), and why you have Bernie supporters now attacking minority centrist candidates, who would be a challenge to him in democratic primaries.

It's pretty standard for any revolution, to be able to come together to kill the status quo without necessarily needing to agree on what would come next.
> bad engineers for ALL

He didn't say that all (or even most) women were bad engineers.
Well you obviously missed the sarcasm. I was making fun of the stupidity of the "ACKSHUALLY only 25% of the country voted for him" argument, which is needless pedantry and ignores that we can infer how the rest of the country _likely_ would have voted since we have such a large sample size.
In case you missed the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787

Personally, I think quite a lot of the comments in that thread are reasonable, some even insightful and the majority are definitely well-intentioned. I didn't read completely through, because it's just so much and there is a lot of repetition with different people saying the same things replying to different other people. But well worth reading at least a bit if you somehow missed the controversy.
Did you follow a framework or roll your own? I'm thoroughly fascinated with isomorphic kotlin, but haven't had a chance to dig in yet.
Why is it that nobody wants to fix the gender gap in nursing?
I'm pretty sure the media has a large part to blame. By getting the view out that Trump was so bad, people started really believing it. You can see it in articles or tweets where parents say their young children are frightened. Kids don't analyze politics, they just believe what you tell them. So what have these kids been told or seen that actually made them scared?

After the election I saw people, smart people that work in the physical sciences, crying. Yelling that people will be killed now. That they should give up on their careers as it no longer matters.

These people obviously have bought into something along the lines of "literally Hitler". And if you really believe that, then his supporters are "basically Nazis". And given how Nazis are portrayed (and not just them, anyone involved in Germany's WWII effort is labeled a Nazi regardless if they were), anyone remotely like them forfeits all rights.

So it's not about disagreeing on any particular issues. It's that in their mind, the US just elected a monster and there's no excusing it.

This makes sense if you believe he's literally an evil monster. Just saying "politics!" doesn't give people a free pass to think or do anything at all.
Wasn't Google asking for input as to why there weren't more women interested in their industry?
No candidate since Nixon ran on an explicitly white victimhood platform and that is why people are being treated like this.

Trump is a liar but also emotionally honest; people knew what they were voting for when they "held their noses" and that's no excuse
Which is different to "50% of the workforce [is] unfit". There is at least a statistical aspect that you drop in favor of absolutes.
As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men.

And why we see fields like law being dominated by women, right?

EDIT: I, and I suspect most other scientists wouldn't disagree that there are [edit - had this as aren't previously, woops!] physiological differences between men and women, but as I read the memo, that was not what was being argued. What was being argued was that those differences were the reason for the gender imbalance in tech (i.e. women are predisposition to be less interested/capable in STEM fields), in other words, the effect size associated with biological sex is larger (and indeed must be significantly larger) than any/all combined societal/'nurture' effects.
> If you took the children out of the mines the cobalt would still get mined. The owners would find technology and process efficiencies to stay price competitive, if those don't exist then the price of mobile phones should go up.

You talked about the mine owners and the price of phones, but what about the children and their families? What would they have to do?
Someone asked in another HN thread. Federal employees are protected, and some states protect political affiliation including California: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953325
I wouldn't fire anyone to punish them for their decision in the voting booth.

I would, however, consider firing someone who voted for Trump because of their lack in critical thinking skills–if such skills are relevant to their job.

The difference is in the employer's motivation. Say you've hired someone with a medical condition as a truck driver. As it turns out, they tend to randomly fall asleep at the wheel every few weeks. If you can't find a job where it's safe for them to do so, you will probably have to let them go. That doesn't mean that you harbour ill will towards them, or that you seek to punish them for this behaviour (that they have no control over). It only means that it's a bad fit.

But, to be honest, there are certainly people who wish others to be fired based on their vote. But that isn't actually a new phenomenon: it's the basic reason behind the principle of the secret ballot. If people voluntarily let others know how they voted, all the usual mechanisms of social feedback will kick in: Because people feel that a vote for Trump has and/or will harm themselves or others, they will treat the people who did it with the same sort of retribution they would inflict on someone they saw littering, or hitting their dog, or any number of actions they consider harmful.
The coverage has been near-uniformly garbage. Read the memo and make up your own mind.
I've been doing .NET development since 2006 and have never had to buy commercial components. Every time I have needed something there has been free/open source stuff. I'm guessing it depends on what type of software you are working on?
Was literally reading about this last night in "The Gene, An Intimate History": https://www.amazon.com/Gene-Intimate-History-Siddhartha-Mukh...

Couldn't help but think of this troubling incident while reading about it.
That is a major conservative politician talking point. I do not consider it founded in reality, but making it a talking point and an objective does increase political contributions from wealthy sources.
Yet another example of VC ending up subsidizing America. We could just cut out the middleperson and go to basic income paid for by VCs.
Agreed. Most people can adapt to their environments. I've worked at both and big companies tend to wear me down, but I can still work there.

The problem with small companies is usually they are chaos and often cult of personalities. It's not their fault, it's their nature. They have to be able to pivot their business on a dime. That's tough on developers though, particularly when the thing you've been working on get scrapped on a pivot.

What it boils down to is it's short sighted. He's professing like he's solved the interview process. I'll bet his success / failure rate is just like everyone else's.
Concern over local losses at one company in an investment portfolio is what separates ordinary investors from the class of investors Uber allows to invest. The Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund is not going to sweat this. The value of Uber is the distribution of possible outcomes weighted for probability. The worst outcome is $0 and that was accepted going in.

The reason companies like Uber stay private is to keep out ordinary investors and for the ability to ignore the traditional haymaking of Wall Street analysts. All those subprime leases let Uber gain market and refine its product. The widely published per ride loss numbers reflect those leases because they are baked into the overall losses.
Weird, I have the opposite opinion haha. Angular to me has vastly more boilerplate, not to mention the odd DSL that they invented. We actually switched from Angular, due to many complaints after years.

To each their own.
To a large extent, yes. Companies are required to pay for insurance on the pension, which is run by the federal government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [1], so it's not 100% dependent on the long-term health of the company. But the insurance doesn't necessarily cover the full pension, especially if it was a fairly generous one (there's an absolute cap of $60k/yr, and various other caps relating to years of work). In practice it does mean that how people fare in retirement depends in part on how lucky they were picking an company. If you're a retired electrical engineer who worked for IBM or AT&T, your pension is still fine. If you did the same job for U.S. Steel, less so.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corpo...
Even if you wrote it on your own time, sharing it with internally with your coworkers is toxic.
I can protect myself in one country, not in the other one.
More likely that people who are succesful at big companies don't leave as much, because there's a higher upside sticking where they are than joining a small startup that allows remote working. So the people they are hiring from big companies are usually the rubbish ones.

Btw, if you're really good you can work remotely even in the largest companies. Just work your way up to your own P&L, hire a global team and away you go. Probably will have to check in a few times a year in person, but that's no big deal.
the first was cited as well, though news sources removed the citations.
Well, it is a reasonable solution if archive.org was simply ignoring them.
Have you read the unnamed studies?

Presumably at least a few of them anticipate the easy problems and design a methodology appropriate to dealing with them.

For instance, if voter ID is highly effective, you'd expect much higher rates of double votes under a given registration in places that don't require it (unless the cheaters are masters of anticipating registrants that aren't going to vote).
Managers often end up commandeering a meeting room to get around not technically having an office.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I advice to my customers that any passphrase with an entropy below 80 bits is insecure, around 140 bit is fairly secure, and anything above 200 bit entropy is very secure.
Why should it be compassionate?
"Supporters of women in tech praised Google." .. total lockdown of discourse is helpful to women? Outright firing anybody who dares to ask for open discussion is creating a more woman friendly working environment? This is pretty sexist. They are openly saying that in order for women to succeed we need authoritarian thought policing, and that if you are a woman you automatically agree with their agenda. Something strange is going on here.
That’s a rebased branch. You can see just the changed introduced by a branch:

MERGE_COMMIT=$(git rev-parse :/“Merge .*$branchname”)
git diff $MERGE_COMMIT^1..$MERGE_COMMIT^2

It never occurred to me that people prefer to squash so they can avoid the crummy UI of git diff
This might be the traditional view of "left" vs "right", but the rise of the "leftist fascist" in the US is challenging those views.
It sounds like the company is growing up. Firebase is great for simple use cases but has too many limitations for most cases.
Thanks! --tb=native combined with --color=no makes it almost bearable.

It still annoys me that

==================================================================================== FAILURES =====================================================================================

takes the whole screen width. I can pipe stdout through "cat" to fix it, but it's not very convenient.
> I disagree, so I'd better flag this submission to keep people from reading it and discussing it
That certainly would be par for the course. There's been much speculation that auto leasing might be a bubble. See:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-29/signs-auto-bubble-s...

and

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/05/01/what-comes-after-the-a...
2 Things.

1) He never insinuated that anyone was biologically inferior just that there is marginal statistical proof that -on average- women prefer to work less hours, and more flexible hours; his "idea" was to promote a culture that adopted this, rather than using hiring quotas, in order to achieve the diversity goal which he also claims to wish for.

That you claim he was calling people "inferior" only shows your own bias.

2) It's not a "Manifesto" that's what gizmodo called it but it was, at best, a memo, at worst, the first post on an internal forum thread hoping to discuss this matter.
Both political extremes are not the same.

Getting fired over a creepy manifesto that you chose to make public isn't censorship, and not a threat to your "rights".
Reminds me of this article from The Atlantic last year:

> For the last several months, social scientists have been debating the striking findings of a study by the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton. Between 1998 and 2013, Case and Deaton argue, white Americans across multiple age groups experienced large spikes in suicide and fatalities related to alcohol and drug abuse—spikes that were so large that, for whites aged 45 to 54, they overwhelmed the dependable modern trend of steadily improving life expectancy. While critics have challenged the magnitude and timing of the rise in middle-age deaths (particularly for men), they and the study’s authors alike seem to agree on some basic points: Problems of mental health and addiction have taken a terrible toll on whites in America—though seemingly not in other wealthy nations—and the least educated among them have fared the worst.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/white-w...
How, specifically? Something like a very complex query joining too many tables, or maybe a full Cartesian product of n > 2 tables?
Economics is not a monolith of wages and taxes. In a family there are many householding activities where retirees can contribute to the economic health of society.

Retirement should be a focus for these types of activities. Things like tending a small garden, or playing with grandchildren.
“Fix lint” is my favorite one.
That's really interesting. Do you have a link to the un-molested version?
5 sins of a promising programmer
It is a little absurd to say that this is censorship by the left. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, and the manifesto has been widely distributed.

What rights were deprived from the author exactly? Did I miss a story where he got arrested?
> you have to fight your own KDF to discover that last word. You don't want that barrier.

You pretty much want it. Why would you make your password easy to brute force so that you can recover it in case you forget it? This makes no sense.

A 6 word phrase reaches your 64 bits target (on the GP's 2-48 word dictionary). It is still easier to remember than a base64 dump of a 64 bits random number. I still fail to see anything wrong with passphrases.
did you read the document? Did you think it was an appropriate workplace share?