skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I'm still surprised more companies aren't doing it.

Almost every major company has been doing it for many years. Especially large companies with tons of cash overseas. Instead of repatriating cash from overseas and paying taxes, corporation borrow against their overseas cash and pay dividends to shareholders or invest.

Imagine if you were APPL and you have $1 billion a in tax haven in europe. You can bring it back to the US and pay 20% in taxes or borrow against that $1 billion and pay 1% in interest.

Edit: @seanmcdirmid

> Except it isn't so much the tax haven in Europe as it is profit stuck in china (their second largest market)

Their second largest market is Europe and has been forever except for a blip in 2015/2016.

And Apple's foreign headquarters is ireland.

Most of apple's overseas profits are registered and kept in europe.

"Apple’s expanding overseas cash pile has drawn scrutiny from the European Commission, which says the company should be paying corporation tax on profits from Europe, Africa, the Middle East and India in Ireland, where it registers those sales."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/05/01/apples-cash...

Ireland and europe are tax havens for many of the silicon valley companies, including google, facebook, etc.
Exactly. Affirmative action causes everyone, including the person, to question whether they got there on merit or based on filling some quota. Multiple biases are created.
> This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous.

You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to get involved in the argument, you don't have to, but getting involved and then doing any of the things GP is decrying is actively toxic.
There's a huge difference between increasing outreach and lowering the hiring bar. One shields more candidates, the other one increases the chances of hiring someone from the same pool of candidates. The reason why Google (and many other companies) are increasing outreach is because they want to maintain a high-quality of engineers, otherwise they'd just open the floodgate and let everyone in and solve their diversity problem once and for all.

Damore's memo states a lot of things about Google's recruiting practices that are still to be proven truth. Lowering the bar is one of them.
Not exactly, preferring a diverse group over a homogeneous one doesn't mean that the individuals of the homogeneous group are inferior.

If the goal is to have a diverse group then a group composed only of women isn't ideal either. Diversity is not about raising or lowering the bar.
Ok, it was 96 or 97. But the point still stands.
Which city? I'm in a mid-sized city as well. I find it quite surprising since I've lived in many places around Canada from small towns to big cities from Toronto all the way out to the West Coast, and have never had access to at least one library that was open all the time.
> That’s according to a recent study by two Italian economists, Guglielmo Barone and Sauro Mocetti, who compared Florentine taxpayers way back in 1427 to those in 2011. Comparing the family wealth to those with the same surname today, they suggest the richest families in Florence 600 years ago remain the same now.

I recall that study. They were still a multiple orders of magnitudes less wealthy, and that ignores any wealth/money/work children added themselves since that time. If anything, this study proves my point.

>Europe has family's that have maintained wealth over the past 500+ years.

>England has also had wealth maintained for 28 generations and other old money examples are not hard to find.

That's an excellent example of survivorship bias. Again also not acknowledging any work the kids have put in to maintain that wealth.

For every example of a rich family whose money has been kept for 3+ generations, I could find you 100 examples that dont (not actually, I should probably be getting back to work).

This is a non-issue.
That's so terribly sad.

That highlit bit should be tattooed on everybody's forehead at birth so you see it every day. Lots of wisdom in there.
Am I correct in understanding that you think he's a conservative who is lying about supporting diversity? What led you to this conclusion? It seems odd to me to believe a conservative who doesn't support diversity would write a memo that ascribes negative consequences to right wing viewpoints and provides suggestions for improving diversity.
>There has to be a way for everyone to be professional and honest here.

I agree, but just because there has to be a way for everyone to be professional and honest, that doesn't mean that what Damore did was professional and honest.
> And then he talks about "Google lowering the bar".

Strange how you directly quote parts that don't mention the lowering of the bar, then suddenly paraphrase the lowering the bar part, and put quotes around a non-quote. This is the sort of intellectual run around that is really common.

I searched the doc, and Damore uses this word "bar" exactly once (if the search function can be believed - lowering zero):

> Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

And this links (via the text "effectively lower the bar for") to an internal Google chat I can't see.

So ten pages, and lower(ing) the bar is mentioned once, in which he links to some discussion which I assume is relevant to the quote. How can anyone know what that quote means with out reading the internal google chat? For all I know, it links to an chat discussing false negatives in hiring, because I find that whole sentence confusing - how is decreasing false negatives bad? Is he saying they only use practices which reduce false negatives on diversity hires and not other hires? That would actually be really interesting - Google conducting different interviews based on "diversity" and finding they get better candidates as a result would be weird not to replicate.

In any case, that internal chat must clear up at least part of that context, and I can't read it so I have no context for this single line. Given this was an internal memo, however, the author gave its intended audience full access to the context, so even then, I can't see how this can be used as a sweeping statement by those externally of much of anything.
I have an internet guide from 1995 which describes Usenet and its varying focuses and levels of seriousness in great detail, including an extended section on trolling which concludes memorably by explaining that people that do this "probably have a very small penis (especially the girls)", which could just as easily have been written about Twitter yesterday.

Every time I read something about how social media is changing everything, I remember that it pre-dated the web by a decade...
What? Research papers tend to also present data and research that arrive at different conclusions when such things exist, or show how the existing body of knowledge is deficient in some way. Usually the point is either accounting for the difference or showing how the authors' research refutes, modifies, or augments the body of knowledge as it stands. Damore didn't present a research paper. He presented an accusation of left-bias and poorly argued his case.
I guess it might just be a UK health and safety thing. Like you I've touched 230v a couple of times as a kid but can't say it's exactly pleasant.

This blog post lists the reasons professional builders in the UK could use 230v and an RCD but generally dont.

https://www.its.co.uk/blog/buying-guides/what-is-110v-do-we-...
This nonsense is being propagated by idiots. Nobody is now forcing dolls on girls and guns on boys. The aggression in men is built by evolution. Again, we only talk in averages. There are idiots again who point to aggressive females to try to make me sound sexist.
I think a charitable way of taking that particular statement might be:

"The distribution of preferences and abilities of different groups differ."

Note the binding emphasis to both sides of the 'and'.

Also the focus on any specific cause for that difference should be addressed elsewhere, if at all. Not in an over-simplified singular soundbite.

Edit: what flavor of markdown hell is HN using... I always forget.
You appear to be using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's an abuse of this site and we ban accounts that do it, so would you please not?

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15021772 and marked it off-topic.
Yep, I have a pair of glasses shipped directly from American Paper Optics (so I know they're genuine) and the only things I can see through them (besides the sun) are the bare filament of a 60W incandescent bulb and the LED chip in my phone camera flash.
I'm sorry, I hope you get through it.
Deep learning is not diverse enough: announcing fast.ai diversity scholarships
Strengthening public libraries is an excellent idea, with lots of public benefits. Libraries are one of the most trusted public institutions in the US and provide a range of key social services including access to education, internet, health information. They also reach and support a demographic that is currently not well served through online-only programs.

I co-founded Peer 2 Peer University [1] a non profit that brings people together in learning circles to take online courses. When we switched from online-only to face to face meetings in public libraries we started teaching adults who had fallen out of the education system and who were not benefiting from online courses. And I can't say enough positive things about the librarians who we work with.

[1] https://p2pu.org
that's what the entire website is about...
I’ve been looking for something like this in PHP too. Nothing yet though. Happy to work on something with you though!
Actually, we use LDAP. If you have an LDAP account, you're authenticated. The use of the certs is transparent to clients - it's wrapped in library calls.

The problem we're addressing is multi-tenancy for users on Hadoop. If you have sensitive data and want to restrict access to it, you need at a minimum dynamic roles or attribute-based access controls. With Kerberos, you have a single ID, a single role. You can't revoke privileges from users, give him/her access to a dataset, then restore privileges.
We introduced dynamic roles by introducing a new abstraction - a project. You get a project-specific username - and a new cert for every project-specific username. Unlike Kerberos with the centralized KDC, cert generation can be scaled out with intermediate servers. This way, you can give a project-specific user access to sensitive data in a project - and the user can't export the data, as that user only has privileges for resources within the project. You can still share datasets across projects using either ACLs or group privileges in HDFS.
I think a corollary of the author's point is that by the time someone is college age, selection bias is the most powerful force in education.

I'd be curious to see a study of younger people to see if perhaps there are some assimilation effects.
We're not extending Damore any benefits by not speculating about his state of mind. We're just avoiding discussing a topic about which we can't hope to learn the truth and which isn't necessary to understand whether or not Google's hiring processes do indeed lower the bar.

My "points" are indeed speculative, that's why they were presented as questions. I don't know the truth and it's impossible for us to talk non-speculatively about Google's hiring process because we simply don't have that information.

The original memo (not article, this distinction matters) did indeed cite a great deal of evidence, you may or may not consider it conclusive, I found it quite compelling. But I think it's important to remember that the memo itself was a request for clarification, posted to an internal message board for skeptics in the hopes that somebody would be able to tell him why he's wrong.
I've only read one of them [1] in full, so it's hard to say with any depth my opinions of the others. Some of the findings listed in the abstracts have varying mentions of biological involvement. The larger point they were trying to make is that there are differences _now_, and given some of the research that's influenced as far back as at least middle school for the cultural part of it. Where the ratio is for nature/nurture they leave open for a future post (which they claim to be working on).

1) http://sci-hub.io/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x
Show HN: C++ Xcode and Mac – File Handling :D #XcodeLoveC++Too
If--if--I grant your premise that biological perspectives are significant in this discussion, I think that procreation and long-term reproductive goals aren't the same things at all. Procreation is short-term; create the possibility of a lineage and you've "succeeded". Humans don't work like that; we are eusocial animals with complex communities; "impregnate and move on" is not an evolutionary tendency we embody.

That said, your premise is invalid. Biological prerogatives are not significant in the not-even-slightly-sexually-premised interactions between members of the 21st century tech community with career motivations and numerous other factors at work that evolution did not prepare them for. Saying that "biological prerogatives" are a significant factor here is like saying that a lemur let loose in a supermarket would be drawn to product branding based on how likely a given brand was to help the lemur secure a mate--too many factors have changed for simple parallels to be drawn.

Edit: spelling, I still keep forgetting this isn't markdown.
Just some candidates get more attempts at that bar than others, systematically, as a result of explicit policy ensuring that’s the case.

You can call it justified, leveling the playing field, or whatever else, but it’s still lowering the bar to getting hired.
Your hypothetical is self-fulfilling.

Imagine that if you're a minority, you have nearly a 0% chance of getting hired if you're the only minority in the hiring pool [1]. As an employer, wouldn't you want to counteract that by making sure that the decision to hire/not-hire isn't affected by status-quo bias, so you don't overlook qualified candidates?

https://hbr.org/2016/04/if-theres-only-one-woman-in-your-can...
Introducing embedded code snippets
Is it worth it? As far as I can tell, it's a voluntary initiative by Google which is well meaning. And I question if it really "hurts" anyone. Hiring processes are never perfect but Google seems to do a good job out of anyone.
What wonders we see in nature.
I'm not saying it was appropriate... but what exactly is the "time and a place for that"?

I only mean to say that typically people meet potential mates/partners in school and at work. Now, taking a text based conversation to that level is definitely wrong. But I would propose that actually testing for interest in the workplace isn't inherently wrong, only in so much that it's a matter of intent, extent and explicitness that isn't always easy to judge.

Personally, I'm of the mind that a soft ask about dinner/drinks/coffee sometime, and if a decline, then one more ask a few weeks later is probably okay, as long as it ends on a second ask. The reason I say this is only because sometimes a person doesn't feel comfortable if they don't know the person well enough yet, so best not to close the door right away.

On the flip side, this was very explicit without any of the contextual cues you get in person, especially with a soft rejection, is definitely over the top. Never be overtly sexual or dominating over someone in the workplace.
No, if you think there are problems with cgo, the solution is to address those problems, not reinvent it. If you have performance concerns, file a bug or comment on an existing one.

Also, I don't see any reason why jni should be slower than cgo. Go has its own scheduler that brings overhead to cgo and needs to switch stacks whereas Java doesn't have to deal with such things.
> Specialized landing pages are one of the few time it makes sense to have separate hostnames.

Why, what is the theory?

Do you have any concern that the "help folder-ize subdomains" business may go away with a Google algorithm update?
Please don't post ideological snark to HN, regardless of what your underlying point is. It poisons discussion and we can all use less poison right now.
The benefits of a higher education are more than just career path and earnings.
Processes, not process, and I was talking in terms of security, but even in terms of performance, yes, it mostly is. There are some Docker features that can be more expensive (NAT and layered filesystem), but they are optional. A "Docker container" itself is just a group of processes to which the kernel applies a different policy than the default.

I'm not sure what that link is supposed to show, can you be more clear?
It's zany! It's fun! It's not one of the two possible websites https://twitter.com/jongold/status/694591217523363840
> I don't do Docker but from what I've heard it's not designed for security? Which means it wouldn't work for this scenario?

Are you asking if that's what you've heard?
Smart brand’s move to all-electric results in losing 2/3 of US dealerships
I recently got the Dell 42.5" 4k monster (P4317Q), and while the dpi and color reproduction aren't good enough for serious design work, I'm able to divide my desktop into thirds for browsing and text editing. I usually keep a browser on the left, documentation in the middle, and a terminal on the right. I still get a little giddy when I turn it on every morning. What I really want is for apple to start producing 42" 8k "retina" screens, but I won't hold my breath. :)
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
> Damore's memo states a lot of things about Google's recruiting practices that are still to be proven truth. Lowering the bar is one of them.

That's true and an excellent point. If he's lying about Google's recruitment practices, either by misunderstanding or by outright false accusation, then large parts of the memo are moot.

On the other hand, I would make the counterpoint that the only reason his honesty has come into question is because of the negative reception his memo has had. Also, what are the odds that Damore misunderstood things? I'd say low.

Additionally, I have yet to see any fellow Googlers publicly calling him a liar, but we shall see.
Piling on, a real dark-sky site is worth a visit. First one I've been too is the Cosmic Campground.

I don't have my photos on hand, but it really looks like this to the naked eye, maybe even more vibrant:

http://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CC_MilkyWa...

(Be careful, at the CC we accidentally were "those guys"- there were no lights at all except red headlamps, and our car kept lighting up like a Christmas tree)
Should be show now, no quesiton asked.
Very true. We need to promote a mixed and diverse culture.
>Of course it's possible that the truth is in between.

In this case, isn't the finding the truth pretty straightforward? Pull the performance reviews of the second chance hires. Check to see if there's a clear correlation in review and find a pattern.

Are we assuming that Google, which specializes in using data, does not bother to mine its own data with regards to its hiring practices?
These are unsafe. Very sensible default.
The reason the book didn't mention spam all that much is that it was from 1994 and probably mostly (or entirely) written before April 12, 1994, which is when the infamous "immigration lawyer spam" hit every newsgroup. It wasn't the first spam, obviously, but it did seem to mark a line where spam (USENET and email) became more and more prevalent.
Good point, I wasn't aware of LinkedIn's abilities with that.
It's entirely possible that it was the drug, but there was some factor that led his tumor to be susceptible to it, most likely a DNA mutation in the tumor.

That's what "personalized medicine" or "precision medicine" is all about for cancer.
Thanks! I don't know what you mean by "direct replies" but the thing above got downvoted to 0. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Yeah, I will send an email to hn@ycombinator.com next time it's something I think the admins should know, this time it just seemed relevant to mention this.

Anyway, Good Day! :)
FCC’s favors for Sinclair are the natural byproduct of a pro-industry agenda
They're ideologues. I'm not saying that as a good or a bad thing. But remaining consistent to their principles is their top priority.
I just can't figure out why it is so difficult to even discuss the fact that men and women are not identical. It is really difficult to research and measure, but it is a really, really strong (and untrue) assumption that men and women are just exactly the same in every possible way.

Now if we accept that fact, even if we are not able to quantify it, also the demographics are going to vary by occupation, just by choice, even in a perfect world without discrimination.

Given how impossible this is to research, how are we to know whether occupational gender differences are good or bad? How do we know what's discrimination and what's just choice, knowing that the two are also related, and choice is also related with ability regardless of the gender.

We should fix discrimination by punishing the actors behaving that way, not by establishing countermeasures that are just discriminatory in the other direction. This is what I understood to be Damore's main argument.
Violence is never the answer, statistics is.
> Google took the decision to fire him based on what was likely to create a conducive atmosphere for its workers.

They did the opposite, someone said it's not okay to shame people into silence, and then they did just that.

> made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams.

What does "as effectively" mean? What are "some teams"? If someone sweats a lot, and a million other things, the above would also be technically true. Or hey, if a company fired someone over something like this. That will make a lot of bright people, both male and female, think twice before even giving Google a consideration.

> Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests.

It's not about responsibility to him, but about their responsibility for themselves to not shit the bed like they did.
Liberal ideology doesn't have a flowchart path for that one.
>I don't understand why this means that Damore shouldn't have shared his opinion.

"Shouldn't have shared his opinion" and "should have shared his opinion in a different way" are two completely different things, and I don't see many people saying the first.
Throw a dart at a board?
The feminist movement as a whole is very much against gendered norms about who should and shouldn't be a kindergarten teacher. Which feminist movements did you see fanning these particular flames?
I may not be correct here, but it seems to me that Jon Snow's remark isn't universally true.

(Paradoxes FTW!)
It's usual for an engineer to understand something outside their field of expertise by submitting a draft of what they know to others who aren't domain experts, either?

Wouldn't an actual engineering process have started by submitting a document for feedback from somebody whose field of expertise deals with unequal gender representation in the workplace?
Are men there not impacted in the same way?

Point being it is too complicated to nail down a biological factor that was determined from birth.

No culture is completely free from environmental influence. As we age, the influences from our youth act like compound interest. These can change the way we think. Nurture impacts nature, and vice versa. The generally accepted view these days is the process is cyclical,

"neurological traits develop over time under the simultaneous influence of epigenetic, genetic and environmental influences. Everything about humans involves both nature and nurture" [1]

[1] https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
Dueling rallies at Google this weekend