skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure it does. The grandparent is saying that we should have a higher quality web, and you are saying that we should have a more dynamic web.
By far the biggest barrier to books being available is perpetual copyright.
There is no excuse for the journal to take so long to provide a response. At the same time, it seems to me that their response was entirely predictable. Or does the journal usually post such long articles directed at a general audience?
Surely "overreaction" is a matter of perception as well.
Except that article itself is an egregious "I'm glad you say you like diversity but...".
Yeah Amazon doesn't review any stuff like that. They may respond to reports after the fact and have a pretty low threshold for suspending a product, but they aren't going to inspect it or test it.
What burden are you talking about exactly?

You (along with many others) seem to be conflating the major point of the memo between interests and abilities. Not liking something does not mean you're not capable of doing it.
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and using HN for political/ideological flamewar, which is not a legit use of this site. Would you please not create accounts to do this with?
Funny I can do.. successful startup?... Mehhhhhhh ;)
I should have been clearer that I was referring to both books in the series with my remarks.
> I also agree that there are differences between the behavior of men and women, on average.

Isn't saying that a fire-able offense at Google? I hope YC is really sure that these are anonymous because if she gets doxxed her career is over.
to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous.

Let's just agree on two things then.

_Every woman at google has every right to be there.

&

_The number of women at google relative to the number of men is not the result of mostly imperceptible, malicious actions by men, but rather due the fact that the personal interests between the sexes varies substantially on average, and this results in skewed sex ratios throughout the entire workforce that match nearly perfectly with what scientific evidence shows us.

Women are more interested in working with people and nurturing professions and men are more interested in working with things and abstract, theoretical, mechanical and spatial professions.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...
I don't, but I was pointing out the annoyance of such a statement. You could probably scrounge up such a paper on google scholar.

For example, black lives matter 's point was simply that some specific white people were biogted, and yet all lives matter is a thing. Which is an example of the inverse (generalizing specific complaints, vs. in this case, specifying general complaints).
One billion trees in 4 years is like 28,000 trees per hour. Seems a bit far fetched.
> A source close to Uber’s operations says its engineers watched the intersection where Uber’s cars were said to have run the red light, and that this text refers to them recording a number of normal, human-operated vehicles also breaking the law. Uber has never officially admitted that its software was to blame.

is the implication here that that intersection has a lot of red light runners? if so, are they so dense in not understanding how normal people running red lights is less of an issue here than a machine running that red light?

normal humans run red lights because they're either not paying attention or they're assholes. how is a machine safer or better if it can't pay attention (or even worse, is an asshole).

someone could have died because uber decided the rules didn't apply to them. it's ridiculous that they're still allowed to operate in california.
That definitely sounds like something that would lower the bar. If I was playing H.O.R.S.E. with an NBA player, if I got two chances to hit a shot for every one chance that an NBA player got, I might look competitive, even though I'm not very good at basketball.
Considering how it pissed them off before any leaks happened, I'm going to have to do with the former.
The result from HR was silence. He never intended for the memo to go public, but he did want feedback from his colleagues. If HR didn't want the issue going further, they should have actually responded to him.
It's not clear from the article whether this was a counterfeit issue or if the issue is that the glasses (allegedly) don't work and can cause people to damage their eyes. There's nothing in the article about co-mingled inventory.

Totally legitimate multi-million dollar sellers get suspended for dumber reasons and even by mistake.
Except that CS isn't a science, it's engineering. And it tracked down to the level of other engineering fields.

http://news.janegoodall.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/perce...

So the mystery is not why it went down, it was why it was higher initially.
I have some people at work whose opinions I value highly that I occasionally run ideas and documents by before disseminating things to a wider group. It's very helpful, and has sometimes caught potential damaging misinterpretations before they were spread too widely, allowing me to reword things.

I definitely agree that if he'd simply had a few women he knew and trusted at work read it before he disseminated it widely then this all might have been avoided. If he didn't know any women at work that he trusted with this then that itself is a huge problem.
That's victim blaming. His claims that he supports diversity are nothing more than false virtue-signaling. I have yet to find a person who would say there are no biological gender differences. The problem is assuming those differences are the underlying cause for why women and minorities are under represented in technology. Were you aware the first programmers were females? There are -many- reasons why women and minorities are underrepresented. The biological differences are not a significant one.
His first group he sent it to was a diversity group. I think it reasonable that a skeptic group who, ostensibly, would side with reason would be a next logical step.
Uh... P ISN'T known to equal NP, but people seem to have a lot of fun using computers anyway.

Arguably, P=NP makes CS less fun, since an efficient "universal algorithm" could solve a vast class of problems in polynomial time, while P != NP means there's more room for programmer creativity making intractable problems tractable in special cases.
PayPal doesn't care enough to verify your identity claims
I will absolutely agree that there's a minority a very vocal people, but they themselves could not maintain a PC atmosphere. If they were truly in the minority they would be easily dismissed as overly sensitive. It's the large body of moderate people, who in general agree with the idea, that provide the muscle for enforcing a PC atmosphere.
I think it's interesting how the Edith stated Damore had said women were worse at their job, while one of the other women explicitly said he didn't, and the other only mentioned interest in programming.

This is similar to the divide I've seen in the media. I have not read the memo in it's entirety, but since the impression I got from reading a few news stories was that Damore had only made his controversial statements in regard to the population, not skill of programmers, I'm curious what causes this disagreement.

I also wonder why Edith felt the need to mention gender not being binary in a discussion partly about whether biological sex influences choice of job, considering that as far as I know biological sex is indeed binary, you either have at least one Y chromosome or you don't. (I'm not a biology nerd so feel free to correct me on this.)
Also known as "modern journalism".
Except the fact that those physiological differences have nothing to do with any ideology,none that he mentioned anyways.And why should one matter if it wasn't even named in his memo?

You're just projecting and putting words in his mouth.
If you call his attack on Google an echo chamber("entrench people in the positions they already have" means exactly that) on itself then you clearly didn't get the core point of it.

"Even if you accept that there are average genetic differences, they are far outweighed by socio-cultural factors."

Socio-cultural factors are not the ones that make "genetically inferior" people be competitive/exceed the more "gifted" ones, willpower is.
Just a few examples:

* 1914 Ludlow Massacres: National Guard trained
machine guns on a tent city with women and children
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

* 1979 Greensboro Massacre: National Guard deployed after
shootout between Communist Workers' Party and Ku Klux Kklan.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

* 1970 Kent State Shootings
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

* Great Railroad Strike of 1877: National Guard deployments
across the country.
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877

* 1892 Homestead Massacre: National Guard deployed after
Pinkertons shoot on strikers.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

* 1894 Pullman Strike: Nationwide strike. National Guard
shoots into crowd of civilians in Illinois.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

* 1903-1904 Colorado Labor Wars: National Guard one of
several antagonists in violent dispute between miners and
mine owners.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars

* 1957 Little Rock, Arkansas: National Guard deployed by
Arkansas Governor to _prevent_ black students from entering
school.

I could go on and on. And that's just famous instances where the National Guard showed up. Many times they were deliberately and even maliciously _not_ deployed. I'm also ignoring the decades before and after the Civil War where there was all kinds of unrest, as well as the post-Revolutionary period, such as the famous 1791 Whiskey Rebellion.
That works for a single person. Not so much for a family looking for a good school district.
The question is not whether you can or will be successful, the question is what you prefer to do.

One answer:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...
These are all interesting questions! I would like to mention that it is important to remember when analyzing these scenarios that the world in which we live is very much a real-time system; seldom is it necessary to make decisions for "long time horizons" without the opportunity to adapt, change or update the decisions along the way.

For example, consider the hypothetical scenario where a cure for Malaria is spontaneously discovered and rolled out in Africa. Suppose, then, that in the few years following the end of Malaria, African population economists argue that an explosion is in play, to the point where the country cannot hope to continue to support itself into the future. In this scenario, I find it hard to imagine that even the most austere and strictly enforced population control program could not match the rate at which the population would increase due to the elimination of Malaria. Moreover, I would not expect that even in the hypothesized scenario, such austere measures would need to be enforced, although I will leave that to the economists and public health experts to figure out. I would suspect that most people would prefer a reality in which Malaria does not exist, but every family in Africa is only legally permitted to have one child, than a reality in which no restrictions on family size are imposed, but Malaria remains a top killer.

The point I am making here is that this is very much a real-time system, in the sense that action can be taken as soon as it is suspected that negative effects may be growing. If such negative consequences are to arise, we are not committed to a downward spiral without intervention. Furthermore, I would consider it unlikely that the rate at which the population would grow as a result of eliminating one of the leading causes of death is so great such that no intervention by the African people can keep the "net good" of the scenario positive.

(Let us suspend, for the sake of argument, the thorny path of quantification of good - suppose we use QALYs, with some simplified metric for human quality of life that is defined in such a way that makes comparisons meaningful)
Can agree on number one. Can't agree on number two. Here's why: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
I don't care if the women I work with don't speak up. If I see sexism I will (and in fact have on more than one occasion) call it out. I use discussions with my wife and with women I've worked with in the past regarding how sexism in the workplace works to help me identify it in cases where it may be ambiguous or even something I'd never considered to be sexist.

It does help identify those cases when women do speak out, though. My view is we should listen more to them about what sexism is and how it works.
I hope it won't make the news like the money raised for Grenfell Tower Fire survivors
Sure, but it's the hypocrisy of saying, "stereotyping people by group is productive sometimes (when hiring and trying to hit quotas)" but any criticism of it is unproductive, in fact, how dare you even discuss it at the workplace."
Don't forget illegally running autonomous tractor trailers in Palo Alto and on the roads of Nevada.

These guys are criminals... total disregard for human life (but their own) in every shape and way there is. From potentially killing people, too treating everyone is who not their BRO like trash; drivers, employees, customers, business partners, etc, etc, etc... GROSS!
Hi. Hetero here. Author of that article has been to some pretty sad cocktail parties. I love that the main image of this story features a woman reporter wearing a shirt cut just below her chin. Sorry, that's not exactly sexy. I've never really had a thought about how hot the anchorwoman looks. Never. Never seen cleavage or anything close to it. Not that I would care anyway if they did. It's mainstream state media anyway. If I wanted to see tits I would go watch porn. If I want news I would certainly not watch TV. Maybe the female reporters want to look good? Ever think of that? Sometimes its not for others, but for that person. Maybe they feel better not looking frumpy on live TV..

You know, it seems bullshit arguments like this are probably coming from the same line of the emasculating messaging generally present. Nobody wants any more dick? Fine. The obnoxious man hating liberals who scream inequality can't have any more spawn to further their nonsensical agenda.

Meanwhile, maybe we can have male reporters wear thongs. Would that make the author happier? Then they'd say male reporters were being lewd hairy creeps. Maybe we have a dog or Microsoft Clippy read the news? Fuck you people. You're the reason society is slowly eroding and everyone is becoming needy whining pussies. Go rub some dirt in it. Learn to stand up for what really matters. See things for what they are and not what you want them to be. And most of all, maybe don't report on non-issues. You should be ashamed to be a reporter.
People right here on HN advocate against start-ups taking security seriously because it slows them down. Really bugs me.
Suppose that fifteen of them were pissed off and one was not. Would the sixteenth have felt psychologically comfortable in your team expressing the fact that she was not pissed off?
Cultural Marxism has been explicitly anti-Semitic from the beginning, and early adherents argued that it was necessarily anti-Semitic. So people who believe in the conspiracy now are either anti-Semitic themselves, or profoundly ignorant. Neither one is a good look.
I've met engineers who have expressed a belief that women are often hired if the recruiter found them attractive, and that those women shouldn't have been hired. While those engineers are able to find employment there will always be places where women don't feel welcome, even with diversity programs in place. It is simply the case that some engineers are grossly sexist and will always think a woman has been hired for some other reason beside technical merit if they have an opportunity to. If Damore can't see that then he hasn't enough experience to be talking about hiring.
I've been trying not to comment in these threads.

The thing that gets me though is how much people WANT to argue about this shit. So many people on this site want to defend that guy and his ideas like they gain something from it. It's weird.
Around here, the library buildings are new, large, modern, and spacious. Those buildings were expensive to construct.

They lack books, though. The shelves are low, widely spaced, and don't occupy much of the floor space.

http://www.buildingwork.design/projects/kenmore-library/

I've long since given up even looking for books there. I just go buy them.

Contrast this with Half Price Books:

http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=ae61a8...

It's crammed with books. (The picture barely does that justice.)
Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general.

Women that work in the field should definitely be respected as much as anyone else. They should be free of sexual harassment, and mistreatment. On the flip side, if only 20% of graduating classes in targeted STEM fields are women, and women represent a disproportionate amount of college students... then maybe the issue is broader than the affect of men on the field at that level.

I think part of it may be natural inclination... another is probably the role of movies and media. The latter likely a much bigger role on the impressions of the work and the likely types to fulfill those roles.

--- Edit:

Big example Daisy/Quake from Agents of Shield... started off as a badass hacker, best of the best... as the show moved on, the role was relegated to brawler, and the impact of intellect or technical ability was largely sidestepped, or made secondary and less.

Media portrayals of technical professionals all around are usually very unbalanced... and that doesn't even begin to go into the other fields that are disproportionately male or female, or the hindrance of men in higher education.
This is a particularly ridiculous straw man because a good portion of the critics of cultural marxism are Jews.
I don't know about that - I find that I get a lot of my information from sites that have user generated content such as Medium, reddit, and of course HN. I think it would be extremely hard to fit in sources like that to your search engine without letting in what I will admit is garbage. Would be very cool if it did manage to though!
Fiber Foods to Lose Weight
IPTV still uses routed multicast, it just doesn't work on the internet anymore.
It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong".

We shouldn't really take someone's degree of divergence from reality as somehow being a point in favor of their argument.

When people remove themselves so far from reality, ignoring significant mounds of evidence, nearly anything not divorced from reality is going to have the effect of an "evidence bomb."
They were all girls who had shown a strong interest in and aptitude for math, science, or engineering.

There are a variety of reasons someone interested in a career in math, science, or engineering might not consider Caltech.

1. They might not have heard of it. Among top science institutions, Caltech is one of the smaller ones. It makes quite a few more than its proportional share of discoveries, but in total number quite a few others are in the news more.

Also, Caltech is generally only in the news for science and engineering. Some of the larger schools, such as Harvard, are also in the news for business, medicine, history, and other fields, which further raises awareness of them.

2. Caltech has a relatively small undergraduate class. It's about 1/5th the size of MIT, 1/30th the size of UC Berkeley, 1/7th the size of Stanford, 1/7th the size Harvard.

This means it is much less likely that they will know someone who is at Caltech or who went to Caltech. There might have been no prior students from their high school who went there, and so the guidance counsellors might not know much about it and recognize students who would be a great fit.

3. They might think they won't be able to handle the load. Caltech is either the hardest science school in the US, or it is #2 just behind MIT. This can easily scare away people who would actually do fine there.
Well, true.

He tried to be factual, balanced, fair.

His detractors mostly grossly misrepresent what he wrote, including claiming the very opposite, and then hurl ad-hominems at their straw man.
Published AND edited AND photoshopped -- into a nice fake iPhone stock photo for maximum effect.
GNU Guix: The Emacs of Distros [video]
Throw in a track of elevator music.
Well, Europe is much more enlightened in terms of labour protection or healthcare. I'm classical liberal sometimes nearing libertarian and I adore American freedom of speech and some parts of work culture. But I'll defend single-payer healthcare and sane labour protection to death.

But on immigration front.. Europe is built on nation states and that won't change for at least several generations, regardless of what media is saying. I think the main difference is US have problem with underclass of different ethnicity. Thus differences are very stark. Poverty amplifies differences and you get the endless loop. Being homogenous, Europe didn't have have such problem until now. There was no place for such issues to come up. Jews may have been somewhat similar case. But they were relatively educated and rich. Which, while bringing in it's own set of issues, covered a lot of other issues.

However, several countries are headed on US path. Personally I don't see how uneducated migrants can get to median life in a generation or two. Especially with less and less industry and more automation. Different culture and poverty is highway to US style racism/xenophoby/etc. This is one of the main reasons why I'm against migration. Today's Europe can't give good life (by Euro standards) to millions of uneducated people from different cultures. Importing people and then keeping them as underclass is not good neither to newcomers, nor to host countries.
Doing business as or llc will have the same pass through income tax. You're probably already doing dba. You can have a 10 million llc, there's no limit. LLC will protect you better and if you want, later you can make it an s-corp. Find a good CA CPA and a book keeper.
Good. People who think we don't need diversity efforts or that think studies of aggregates should be applied to determine efforts for smaller specialized populations or individuals should keep it to themselves. I wouldn't want a racist to feel comfortable quoting Bell Curve "research" or criminal population composition numbers at work,for many of the same reasons.
Sorry, you would probably need to read through the parent article (from the comment) for the broader context ...in which Scott makes the claim in the form of a rebuttal to another article by Grant, to which Grant replied (who also did not find biologically driven human female preference for "people" vs "things." convincing), and I gave you the link to Scott's reply to that!
It is in the Gilectomy branch of Larry Hastings github project. (https://github.com/larryhastings/gilectomy)

I also pasted the fib test to pastebin: https://pastebin.com/Ryyb2K7V
Well I just informed you that shaming tactics and forcing people to choose sides (as opposed to convincing them to participate) is counter-productive to your cause, so that actually makes you part of the problem.

The issue at hand, "do more work to include minorities", is red herring. The cause celebre involved is irrelevant.