skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Please don't post snarky one-liners to HN, especially not in divisive discussions, where they make things significantly worse.

Also, please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not.
>What he said had at least some spark of originality and insight, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten nearly the attention it did.

I actually don't think the public response suggests insight or originality on his part. I would attribute much more of that to the social context.
Having unconscious bias or otherwise being incorrect doesn't make you intellectually dishonest. Whether or not his claims are true, Damore presented a much more metered and reasonable argument than virtually all of his detractors or even published social pundits.
Referring to incidents of left wing violence does not imply all leftists are violent.
> You mean like we've been doing since the Reagan administration?

In what measurable way?
With ongoing discussion about the desire to remove the GIL from Python, I made this utility so that people can actually profile what proportion of the time the GIL is held in their code, because we shouldn't be arguing about making optimisations when we can't profile.

In my experience, in a lot of code (numerics is my background), the GIL is actually not held most of the time, and so programs can benefit from multithreading despite the GIL, as competition for it is low.

I also think this package is a bit clever - since the GIL is not exposed to Python code, I had to do some trickery to access it and check if is held or not. The code basically reads the data segment of process memory, and acquires and releases the GIL to see what changed, and uses that information to determined where in memory the variables for the GIL are located.
There is no evidence of lowering the bar. Companies like Google aim to cast a wider net at candidates, the bar stays the same.

On the contrary, there is evidence of bias against women, which logically means that the bar is lower for men by default.
This could be an object lesson in how not to build a landing page. What is this? What is it for? I see a cartoon...but what the hell does any of it mean? Why am I signing up? What am I signing up for?

> Want all your applications on One Hostname?

Uh...no? Should I? I have no idea!

Oh look. Tiny, low contrast text at the very bottom of the page linking to an article that loses my interest before it gets to the point.

This could have been 24 point bold arial black on white: "We made a service called Fly to help you convert subdomains into load-balanced subdirectories to strengthen your brand and improve[0] your SEO. yada yada yada..."

[0] - citation needed, lol
The physical is different from the mental. Are you saying women are less mentally capable? I can't tell but this is basically exactly why women feel legitimizing this line of discussion is unproductive.
> Funny thing, though. We've done a bunch of studies on this and it doesn't actually help.

> This has been shown time and time again.

One would think a link to at least one study would be appropriate here?
Workplaces are not free speech zones. Employers have a legitimate interest in maintaining internal harmony and making people feel comfortable. There are lots of things that you should be able to say in general that have no place in the office. E.g. you should be able to maintain a blog detailing your sexual escapades, but emailing those descriptions to all your coworkers is quite reasonably grounds for termination.
Yes, this is a case of context. In that exact quote it states "preferences and abilities" in terms of biological associations.

However, biological traits and abilities != career ability. Even more so since these are average indexes with vast overlap between groups.
Rhetoric vs reality. And yet people keep falling for it.
note that "differ in the distribution of abilities" does not mean the average is different, it can also mean the outliers are more extreme, and as I understand it research supports just that.
So, honest question. Suppose you work at a hospital, and 70% of the nurses are women. And you're coming under fire, and a lawsuit is pending, because this indicates discrimination.

Now suppose a coworker writes a piece saying roughly "Way fewer men apply for these positions. I suspect men are less interested in being nurses, so we have fewer male nurses, but we can't lower the bar just to make it 50-50. I think it's even possible that men just biologically enjoy nursing less on average, so trying to be 50-50 isn't a reasonable goal"

A) Should this coworker be fired for expressing this idea?

B) Is this argument a skip and hop away from "men are not suited to be nurses" ?

C) Does whether or not there actually are biological factors have any bearing on questions A/B ?
Show HN: Angular CRUD generator online
The Cumulative Levels of SLAM Competence
No, you can't, because there isn't evidence that biological differences cause people to choose different careers.

Why would put forth a theory that is opposed to a company's values of equality if you don't have proof?

Most evidence points to socialized factors, not biological ones.

If Damore really cares about this issue, he should study biology and make his case there. He will do more to move the debate forward from within the relevant scientific community by gathering evidence than from the outside.
well they have a good story that sounds realistic of why they 'want' to use blockchain. But it is not really solving any problems, it's not going to make a product better.
Lyft Can Spend Less Because Uber Is Stumbling
> I know I'm an outlier at work due to my politics, my religious beliefs, and other details of my background.

Right. Now imagine being an outlier due to your biology in a way that's impossible to conceal. I'm an outlier in some ways from my peers as well. But I just don't talk about those beliefs or those parts of my life. You don't have the option to do that if you're female or a visible minority.
It wasn't even disclosure. The person that said it wasn't involved in hiring if I understand correctly, but basically didn't like the person and thought they were unqualified, and said that.

I guess what I'm saying is when there's even a feeling that there is a system that is diversity over merit, people will assume that people they don't like who are minorities, are somehow less able to do their job, even when that's not the case.
Is exploiting a sex imbalance to get power morally wrong? Yet women do this all the time, and there are no laws against it, in fact in some ways our culture celebrates it.

I think you have to be very very careful when you start labelling things as moral or otherwise.
I still have a lovely, fairly local, shop. It is called Twice Sold Tales. It's a lovely place. I miss bookstores.
Yes you can walk away but no you can't say "you're {{}}phobe and then walk away.

Take my example. I have not read the memo. I shouldn't say the memo is unscientific and homophobic because I have no clue what it says.
> ...why is this not enough of a factor for white American women?

Working as an engineer in America is a bigger jump in economic opportunity for someone in India than for someone in America. Also, it's likely that Indians are better informed about what the pay for top notch engineers is these days. I suspect the average American underestimates what coding pays by quite a bit.
The Hitchhikers Guide to Microservices
And which part of that definition has anything to do with the views being inauthentic?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
Do tell me where in the country is this daycare located at....
If you/anyone would like to watch an exceptional narrative based on this exact premise, you have to see The Hunt w/ Mads Mikkelsen [0]

It really sums up this issue well and gave me lots to think about.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_(2012_film)
I can understand this. But things can be offensive and still be true. It's a possibility. I'm not particularly fond of pointing out, or even researching, possible differences between groups of people; however, the insistence on the opposite, when it's not perceived as backed up by substantial proofs, ends up provoking a response from those who value truth at least as much as harmony.
Get a trainer who will take the time to understand your needs and your goals and customize a proper workout routine for you that will modulate in type and intensity throughout the period of a week.

What you're describing sounds like over-training.
Adding Extra Packages to Development and Production Runtime Environments
Could you share the paper? I mean if they were making a mathematical argument...it is kind of hard to do that without defining things..
> With the commits made today, master can
support at least 900,000 processes with just a kern.maxproc setting in
/boot/loader.conf, assuming the machine has the memory to handle it.

They are just four bits away from hitting a really big number.
> How saintly of you to never have such a lurid thought.

Some people--a lot of people--just don't have those thoughts. That doesn't make them better or worse than people who do; both can do good, or harmful things. I think the point of GP's comment was that there are many of people out there who simply don't feel that way.

There are a lot of ways that might play out: they might not be attracted to others until someone is attracted to them; they might be attracted, but have no automatic desire to turn that into action/hitting on people; they might not be attracted to others period, et cetera.

> The urge to hit on a woman you find attractive ... makes [you] a straight/bi male

You're still assuming the two go hand in hand. Your impressions might be confirmation/selection bias: people who don't have the urge to hit on people they find attractive are going to be less obvious to you (insofar as they are competition for people you find attractive), and are also likely less inclined to jump into public discussions on the subject, given that a lack of sexual aggression is, in many demographics/situations, a basis for shaming.

Edit: punctuation.
If control were an illusion, then my desire to raise my arm would not result in me raising my arm. The fact is, desires, wishes and so on, have direct causal influence on actual physiological and psychological states.

Free Will doesn't really enter into this, so we don't have to enter that rabbit hole.
Someone posts an ignorant comment. I provide a relevant, actually helpful and fact-based reply and get downvoted. So I get pissed off, say something pissy, and then provide a ton of supporting evidence in response. But it doesn't affect the votes, and probably hasn't changed any minds at all.

Comments are the problem if you find civility more important than rationality.
> You would expect, for example, the Jewish people and the Islamic people at a company to work together.

No one wrote a memo claiming that Google hires too many Jews who don't meet the same quality bar due to diversity efforts.

No one wrote a memo claiming Google needs to have mandatory anti-terrorist training because they've recruited a lot of Muslims lately (putting aside the fact that white christian terrorists are far more likely to be your cause of death in the USA).

>Basically, in any other context we expect people who have vastly differing views to be able to put them aside and work together.

Yeah and the way this works is not to bring up potentially offensive or sensitive topics except with coworkers you know really well. When you do bring it up acknowledge other people's viewpoints and ask lots of questions instead of making grand pronouncements.

All workplaces are political. Software development is about working with people and that is inherently a political activity. Took me a very long time to realize that but it is 100% true. The quicker you accept it the further you will go in your career.

>The idea that toleration for one memo form a nobody employee marks an entire company as unwelcome is insane. This zero tolerance attitude is a recipe for disaster.

What if his memo was arguing that black people aren't suited to be engineers period?

What if his memo argued that black people should be sent back to Africa and that the USA should be for white people only? What if he said he only believes this should be the law but so long as it isn't the law we must respect that and treat people equally until the law is changed?

Should Google "tolerate" someone being openly racist simply because they haven't called for violence?

Let's make this even more abstract: what if an employee openly states they think the company is evil and they disagree with the entire mission and direction of the company? Do you really think they won't spread cynicism and negativity? Do you really think they can be effective? Is there really no risk to morale?

Even if he were completely correct (he wasn't) by doing such a sorry ham-fisted job he made himself a liability. Even if he only angered or offended 10 other engineers that alone is reason enough to get rid of him. Hiring and training engineers is expensive.

Corporations are not free speech zones. If you become a liability the company will drop you like a hot-potato and don't you ever forget it.
I've done this with GraphQL (major changes to the shape of the data), and I still think it's easier than other approaches.

For example, in those cases where the response object was fundamentally different, I've added a whole new Query field (and Mutation field) at the top level, that returned the new object. Under the covers there was still a bunch of complexity needed to support both top-level query fields, but old clients continued to access the old query, and new clients went to the new query.

Also, two other things I really like: With GraphQL it's trivial to log which clients are accessing which fields (at some point you can just decide to kill old ones). Also, the @deprecated support in the GraphQL schema IDL integrates wonderfully with the GraphiQL tool, so anyone browsing your schema for the first time always sees the recommended latest version that they should use.
Agreed. First thing I thought when I read that. To anyone reading, there is no OK amount of bleeding there, excepting some aggressive tp, and even that can lead to issues. If you have this issue, it is not likely cancer, but many of the causes are deadly if not addressed. Please see a doc.
I hate to pick on your language but corrected sounds a bit scary, like you would favour having Saudi style morality police walking about.
There's plenty of antagonizing language in Damore's memo.

Not to have to retype: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15022769

> Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence

> but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google [[ citation talks about Communist/Marxist ideals, directly equating Google with a Communist/Marxist organization ]]

> Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

> Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased [[ says this without citing any evidence at all of this happening ]]

The "tone" of the document is pretty aggressive, even if Damore throws a lot of fluff and "but I don't mean..." in the mix. In general it sets it up as "Left is bad and violent, Google is left, FIX IT."
All the content I read will still be the way I don't want it though.
On a side note, I would like to thank the HN mods for allowing this discussion to take place. Previous attempts at discussion were quickly silenced by flagging, and while it's a little weird that a piece on YCombinator just happens to be the sole exception, I'm glad that an exception was made. These kinds of discussions are difficult but necessary, critical to the process of gaining a greater understanding of those we disagree with. I hope we're able to keep having these discussions going forward.
That's actually one of the reasons all my personal stuff gets built as HTML/CSS, then just use Javascript for quality of life stuff (image lightboxes that work without putting #target in browser history, auto-loading a higher-res image -that sort of thing).

I know I won't be maintaining it forever, but I want it to be accessible through the archive.
If you're doing pure math, it's FAR more objective who's good at it and who isn't.

Also, people do it for interest, and not for status or the money, so it's less political.
You can look at ngrams. It's much lower pre-Tolkein but "dwarves" exists:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dwarves&year_s...

Dwarvish is a more unusual world and it doesn't surprise me that's almost exclusively tied to Tolkien and derivatives.
That's a fair point; it was mostly the presence of the random crypto that annoyed me :)
http://hilltopcc.com/

Great place.
You might view it as cherry picking (even though it's not the only line in the memo written with a condescending tone), but to me it is a big clue that the memo was not written in good faith to solicit discussion, but rather to push a pre-conceived agenda. As one of the interviewees says in the original article:

There’s a difference between “let’s have a discussion” and “let me tell you what’s up, all you wrong people.”
(let me just disclaim right away that I'm pretty liberal)

> So it's objective and fair? Or it is too fickle but it doesn't matter?

Whatever the ideological or scientific opposite of Damore's memo is, I would never publish it to anyone -- not even a single person -- at work. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that discussing race or gender issues at work is out of bounds, regardless of your position.

> I think he would have hired a publicist and lawyer before publishing the memo if he knew what was coming.

Aha that's probably true but I'm not talking about the backlash. I'm saying he knew he wasn't just asking to be proven wrong about migratory patterns of ducks. He's aware diversity is a sensitive topic.
So having diversity metrics, and hiring based on diversity over merit will correct this how?

In your example was the person in question hired because of their sex or race?
> The physical is different from the mental.

Why? Can you probe it? Most researchers I read says the opposite.
I don't understand why this means that Damore shouldn't have shared his opinion.

We absolutely should not construct a credentialist edifice that says only people certified to have gone through brainwa---err, regent-approved programs--- can comment on a topic. That would prevent discussion on most topics, as virtually all topics of interest are complex and have many years of study behind them.

Overall, these comments are still criticizing the how instead of the what, which is what people do when they don't know how to criticize the what but want to express their offense anyway. It's much easier to criticize delivery and in fact it will always happen whenever anyone cares, because delivery is inherently contextual/subjective.

If Damore's paper was rejected from Nature or another peer-reviewed journal, that'd make sense, as it is not a rigorous academic work. It's just a conjecture on the state of diversity hiring and it expresses his reasoning for believing the way he does. If he is so wrong, it should be simple to disprove him, and we can all move on without anyone having to get fired.
It creates a very simple CRUD application with the entities and fields you define.. If you are new to Angular you may like..
Uber is saying that this text doesn't mean Uber knew that its self-driving cars were running the red light - instead, it refers to Uber engineers recording normal, human-driven cars running the light.
Apple's entire music ecosystem is garbage and it makes me very sad.
I meant not offense to those with neon-colored hair, correct on the PHB read. Also, Wally is based on a person I worked with. Apparently, he worked with Scott Adams back in the PacBell days.
I seriously question whether that was a minority viewpoint expressed in the memo. I went to school with loads of people like that. I think the reason such viewpoints get blowback is because they basically argue for the status quo when the system is not serving large swaths of the population.
Totally disagree. The landing page is nice, is pretty, it invites you to read and has two very useful links.

If it was a black on white page I would have read it, acknowledge it and close, perhaps add it to Pinboard for later use and never look at it again. The way it is now I've clicked the links and read the whole article, almost.
To quote you:

> Are you trying to claim that causing offense to a large group is not creating a hostile working environment?
"Let's focus on things we can actually know rather than speculating about Damore's state of mind."

So let us extend him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't extend the hiring committee? How about we extend the benefit of the doubt to everybody involved, which would result in him never writing this memo and second guessing the hiring process.

The rest of your points seem to be just a whole lot of speculation, which you just told me not to do. The article shouldn't have been written without clarification on these points and conclusive evidence. Maybe go talk to the hiring committee about their motives/state of mind first Mr. Damore?
For heaven's sake let's not take this into religious flamewar as well. (I'm sure you didn't mean to, but we know empirically what sort of effect this has.)

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15021907 and marked it off-topic.
> A team of researchers from the UK has shown that the under-representation of women at the top end in chess is almost exactly what would be expected, given the much greater number of men that participate in the game at all. Researchers Merim Bilalic, et al., have published their research on this statistical sampling explanation in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

> In the study, the scientists also discussed the question of why so few women participate in chess at all. While it's possible that there exists a self-selection process based on innate biological differences that leads women to drop out of chess early on, this argument rests on a controversial assumption, the researchers say. That is, it requires that there is an innate difference between genders in the intellectual abilities associated with chess - an assumption that has little empirical evidence to support it.

Luckily, people have studied this, and in the case of chess, it's simple. More men play chess. And did you just dismiss the entire field of sociology?

https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biologi...
>Is exploiting a sex imbalance to get power morally wrong?

Not to nearly the same extent, no. If someone has power over you and you refuse them sex, they could potentially do you all kinds of harm. If someone is very sexually attractive but has no power over you, then the worst that they can do is leave you a bit sexually frustrated.

In other words, being offered sex with strings by an attractive person is hardly as bad as being threatened by a powerful person.

>I think you have to be very very careful when you start labelling things as moral or otherwise.

Behavior that is clearly wrong is clearly wrong. The danger lies in not calling it out and allowing it to become normalized.