skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Huh. Nice to hear about a problem with audio playback that my twenty-year-old beater and its tape deck adapter don't have.
That's interesting the ones I remember were literally rings of static links, coordinated by the webmasters, presumably over email. I see what you mean now.
I miss the dial-up BBS boards.
Women don't have a choice as to whether we participate. It comes up everywhere. It comes up in our workplaces, and as the minority group in conversation, we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way.
Great. Then there shouldn't be much controversy.
Its definitely possible although I personally have yet to meet someone whose threshold for not taking a job was that a stereotype existed around it. I tend to go with Occam's razor: I think it is far more likely that peoples choices of careers affect stereotypes.
HemaApp screens for anemia, blood conditions without needle sticks
I think that's a relevant metaphor, to look at evolution as a kind of machine learning system - especially the aspect of actors not "knowing" or understanding the logic/reasoning behind their (seemingly?) intelligent behavior. That might be a way to explain "intelligent design" in nature, without bringing God or consciousness into the narrative.
My sister was considering going into CS, until the career adviser at her school told her it's a great idea to go into CS since companies have gender quotas and someone will have to hire her so going into CS basically guarantees her a job.

Yep. Not because CS is a popular field where there is a shortage of skilled professionals, but because she's a woman. She was so upset by it that she chose something else entirely.
Something like a magnet school?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_school
Diets high in sugars? I wonder if we can plot the consumption of sugar and corn syrup on a trend of colon cancer incidents over the last 4-5 decades.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9298574/
I think people won't feel comfortable sharing freely, which undermines the whole point of it. It won't just affect candidates like Damore.

People who don't feel like sharing probably won't feel like getting talked at, so there won't be much listening in the other direction either.
What does LDP stand for?
I built a tool that does just this.

Its a CLI tool that inspects HTML pages and determines if it meets a limited number of WCAG checks.

https://github.com/data61/wcag-zoo

Here is an ASCIInema that shows how it works (which I should embed in the readme)

https://asciinema.org/a/104903

It was mostly build so I could add it to my CI builds to check WCAG compliance and stop deploys that didn't meet it.
Engines are much easier to work on when they aren't in a car. It's when you have to work on them in the car (especially modern cars) that it gets tricky - or sometimes impossible (there are cars where certain parts on the engine are virtually impossible to remove, because the engine was assembled and installed before the body was fitted over things - usually, the only way to fix these is either to remove the body (virtually impossible for the diy'er), or by tearing half the car apart just to get to the part (and praying you can get it all back together afterward - without any extra parts left over!)...
This seems to be hinting at some dispute. What is it? Is it a problem that someone is commercialising Wordpress and it's not the original authors?
Rust code I've written has been fairly straightforward, so not sure why you think Rust is complex.
When you make something free for everybody, instead of just those with a financial need, it's going to be chronically underfunded. We're the richest country in the world, paying trillions in taxes, borrowing trillions more and advocates for every expenditure tell us more funds are needed.

If those with the means paid a fair price for the library resources they are sharing, a library could be open for many more, have better resources AND cost the taxpayer less.

Libraries weren't always free. Like the one Ben Franklin helped establish. These didn't cost the taxpayer anything. And if you wanted to help someone without the means, you would just pay for their membership.

http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/lending-library/
Is there a point to this rant over semantics?
>Damore presented evidence to support his claim that women are on average less able than men in areas relevant to engineering.

His claim was that women are statistically less likely to be interested in computer science. He said nothing about ability.

>It's one thing to propose that 50/50 is not the natural ratio to end up with, but until Damore can propose a model that predicts another number then proposing HR policy changes put the cart before the horse.

He gave lots of numbers. 20% is about the percentage of female computer science graduates. Targeting anything above that would necessarily require discriminating against men.

>Damore's proposals discuss diversity as a whole (race not just gender) without a single word of justification

I don't see any mention of race in the memo. When Damore is talking about "diversity" he always is talking about gender diversity.

>>He didn't discuss veracity, or contradictory evidence. That's textbook confirmation bias, not intellectual honesty.

>This indicates that the policy changes are what James in interested in, not the evidence. More confirmation bias.

>it's certainly not intellectual honesty...

>stringing them together to confirm a conclusion you'd already set your sights in making is bad science.

I've been asked to edit my comment to make it less argumentative. Could you do the same for yours? Calling someone you disagree with "intellectually dishonest", etc, is not good taste.

It's very easy to learn about biases like confirmation bias, and fall into the trap of only applying that knowledge to other people. "He only disagrees with me because of confirmation bias. He's just intellectually dishonest."

You can't possibly know the thought process behind another person. As far as we know Damore did the research and found these facts convincing and developed his view. Not the other way around. Or at least someone presented these facts to him and then he developed the view he has.

In any case, this is how all debates work. People present evidence for their beliefs and the other side responds with refutations and evidence for theirs. There is nothing wrong or intellectually dishonest about this.
That's what I thought...and, as is stated elsewhere, it's a pretty unfortunate state of affairs.

I'll go further and say that it's close to something like a real root problem, that exhibits symptoms in various ways.

The overall 'noise level' is so high, and most everyone is so 'high strung'....that assuming the worst appears to be the default.
Good, quick, and sure to get the job done. Now I have somewhere to link to when I get asked to explain the difference.
It's not postmodernism. It's hot cognition, and this sort of behavior isn't limited to the left.
Nothing of substance to contribute but I'm immensely pleased to see Freddie DeBoer writing again.
I'm not sure this is going to be very helpful to a non-technical audience. Do they know what a “free software project” is?
> Google had plenty of reason to rethink his employment, not just because of his poor judgement, but because of the fact that he tackled a new (to him) science is such an unreasoned and unscientific way.

This is emphatically not the issue. Suppose for argument's sake that he had made an air-tight case. Wouldn't he still be advancing "harmful gender stereotypes?" It wouldn't void a single one of Sundar Pichai's points when he fired him.

And turn it around; suppose an activist had sent around a poorly argued pro-diversity screed that "cherry-picked" shoddy research on implicit association tests, stereotype threat, etc. Would Google seriously be rethinking her employment for tackling research in an "unreasoned and unscientific way?"

Damore is out because he took on the left's sacred beliefs.
This was posted the other day: http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...

It's a great read and the sort of lead-out at the end yields some more useful insight:

> Prior art aside, I would like to leave off on a high note. I mentioned earlier that men are doing a lot better on the platform than women, but here’s the startling thing. Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely. So while the attrition numbers aren’t great, I’m massively encouraged by the fact that at least in these findings, it’s not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever. Rather, it’s about women being bad at dusting themselves off after failing, which, despite everything, is probably a lot easier to fix.

To me this is more useful than "women are less interested in tech on average," or "there's a hiring bias in favor of men over women."
What's your point? The same could be said of "conservative parties are a platform to neo-Nazis and white supremacists" it doesn't imply all conservatives are neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but... "the implication."
Tonnes of speculation. So I'm just gonna stop refuting all that.

"had already done his fact and opinion finding, and incorporated feedback into the memo by the time he posted it"

I didn't claim this, he did (see: Youtube link). My point is that he didn't actually look into or ask hiring committees why they were doing what they did. Instead, he made bold recommendations, that (like the OP link shows) made women in tech feel like they didn't belong.

He wasn't open to a discussion as many characterize, in his mind, he'd already had discussions and incorporated feedback (his words)
Watch PiCluster in action
> We raise our children to be more evolved and better than we are as their parents, are we worshiping our children?

You don't build them on a drawing board, do you? edit: also, I think a lot of people would take issue with this. I'm no parent, but I know that when and if I'll be one, yeah, I hope my kid is bright and friendly and whatnot. But if they're disabled or have other issues, I'd still love them. I'd even love them if they were worse than me in every respect, and try to raise them as good as I can, but even then them being "more evolved and better" doesn't really strike me as something primary or even very important. I guess that's a nice thought until you actually see your child, then it goes out of the window. But I'm guessing here.

And sadly, many people do (worship their kids). They call it love, but confusing oneself with another, being fused with them, is not love.

> These are, born out of selfishness, the two methods of education of parents: tyranny and slavery in all gradiations, though tyranny can be very tender ("you have to believe me, I am your mother!"), and slavery very proud ("you are my son, therefore I will make you my saviour"), but they are two horrible methods of education, methods of anti-education, fit to stamp the child back into the ground from whence it came.

-- Franz Kafka, letter to Elli Hermann

> If a machine can do everything you do practically, but in a way people would agree is more optimal - including being empathetic, just and kind with it's resources, then that's a reality you need to adapt to.

The keyword being "if". As things are going, I see this as a carrot to keep people going; the carrot isn't actually where the road leads.

> Something that brought so much progress that it would be irresponsible to remove it.

And how does that go together with "fade into oblivion"? How would something that doesn't require us, but can afford to have empathy with us, diminish us in any way? What fabric of our lives are you talking about? The ones that faded into oblivion? Do you see no double think there?
> Only if you assume that finding qualified minority candidates is just as easy as finding other qualified candidates. Or that hiring chances are equally distributed.

Nope, it's independent of any of that, because the effect is relative to what other companies do rather than any of those things.

And when you do that experiment in the real world rather than a lab, you get the opposite result anyway:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/1...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria...

> Also, is it Google's responsibility to make sure other companies have the best candidates, minority or not?

It's not about who gets the best candidates -- presumably the men who are displaced are of equal quality and then go to work for the same other companies. The problem is that it creates an unfair black mark against every woman who doesn't get hired at Google despite Google having a special preference for them, and then leaves them in an environment with an even worse gender ratio than it was already.

And these other companies feed into Google. Plenty of women get their first jobs there and go work for Google later. If Google makes it harder for the women there and increases the number who drop out as a result, that's bad for everyone including them.
Translation:

That's a linguistic question, not a mathematics one.

In Portuguese there's a very small difference between "differentiable" and "derivable" (in the context of Math Analysis), but I don't recall it.

English being a mutable language, may end up absorbing the difference between nomenclatures in that way (??):
derivable x differentiable.
>That speaks either to his discipline/understanding or his honesty, I don't know which.

You're holding him to an unbelievably high standard that is never applied to those making the case that gender disparities are due to societal discrimination.

I can't imagine you're being driven to apply this standard to him by anything other than a preconceived notion that women are underrepresented in engineering due to sexism and that anyone that disagrees is a misogynist.

>Damore was metered, but understandably triggered a threat response in the people who his memo targeted as being below "the bar".

Damore did not target anyone as below the bar. He made a statistical observation about the distribution of personality types among gender groups and how that would play out in gender representation in various occupations, to counter the discrimination-as-cause-of-disparity narrative. No individual was cast as below the bar due to their gender. The threat response was immature.
I'm not really following the purpose of this. Even from a non-technical viewpoint it doesn't tell me much.

- Free software project: Many casual users won't get this.

- SaaS: same as "free software project", not something the average user will always get.

- Trademark: I can't think of too many times when an end user gets really excited for or against trademarks.

Basically, yes technical folks like HN readers already know what this page is getting at, but for everyone else, it doesn't really clear anything up.

... so what's the point?
I guess we didn't read the same memo?

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
At one point you're talking about malformations and in the next you're talking about perfectly healthy people. Academically, we see that women excel up to college with no barriers in their mental capabilities. What other evidence do you need?

I can tell you as a women in tech, there is absolutely nothing about tech that is that difficult to understand or comprehend. Nothing more than the many other professions women excel in and are equally represented.
Here's an actual citation to prove the USSR anecdote as true: http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6985/downlo...

> Since the Communist Revolution of 1917 and during the ensuring Soviet times, the role of women in engineering and engineering education was strong with almost 60% of the engineers being women. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian women in these engineering careers has fallen to below 40% of the engineering workforce with a continuing downward trend.

I had completely forgotten about this - my own mothers' class in Moscow Aviation Institute (rocket engineers) in early 80s had more women studying than men.
Ignoring the larger picture at hand, I was reading articles about bathrooms in busy venues of NYC (theaters, mostly), how woefully inadequate they are in terms of capacity and cleanliness.

The comments on the articles were nothing but an amalgamation of what seemed to be screams of teenage children that there is some great misogynist conspiracy that keeps women lined up outside of bathrooms, several shouting contests about whose behavior is nastier in the bathroom, male or female, etc.

I pondered then, about how many of the commenters have ever worked on a plumbing issue, even in their own house, had to unclog a toilet, or build one from scratch. Or had to clean a public bathroom as part of their job (not that I had)

The reason I'm writing all this is to agree with your point - it's a marvel of civilization that we've achieved the world wide web, and that we can address progressive issues and tackle the causes of inequality and minority disadvantages. But we shouldn't forget how we got here: before the internet there was plumbing, and washing machines, and ovens, and vacuum cleaners, physical things that did more to liberate us (in my view) than most comments on the internet could ever hope to.

There is virtue in getting down to the basics of it, so to speak. Sometimes it's humbling, and perhaps being a bit more humble is the difference between constructive dialogue and a shouting match where every party is hurling insults at strawmen of their own construction.
Could you please at least try to think how this looks to people with other opinions on this subject? This kind of attitude makes people move further in the other direction. I wish HN to still be a place for rational discussion.

Remember, the content here is made by the users. For free.
You could argue that high sugar diets are just a proxy for obesity, so if obesity has been ruled out as a cause for this new increase then high sugar diets can be ruled out as well. Plus, no real reason it would be confined to young white people only.

But I still avoid the stuff, because it seems so unlikely that the quantity of sugar we consume is just harmless.
No dispute -- just a mistake in naming their SAAS the same as their open-source project way back when and dooming the world to confusion.
> Bill Gates was not upper "middle class", his household was in the 1%

Seems to have been a successful petit bourgeoisie, or upper middle class, family. In traditional understanding of class relationships in capitalist society, the middle class isn't mostly middle income but well above; the majority of society is the working class dependent on wage-labor. The upper (capitalist or haut borgeoisie) class is a very thin layer.

The modern American media generally uses a different model which where “class” would more accurately be called “income group”, rather than focussing on relation to the economic system; this gets confusing in conversation when people could be using either model. In that model, Gates family was clearly upper class.
Well, apparently all this is still controversial. There are rumors that Zuckerberg might be running for office. CEOs and other leaders giving speeches about politics and participating in political demonstrations. Lobbying the government about political issues unrelated to the core business of the company.

To be clear, I don't think all those things are necessarily bad. But I think letting corporations and corporate leadership have free reign and a big microphone while expecting employees to censor themselves is inconsistent to say the least.
> If your problem justifies a Hadoop cluster, you probably have the team that can properly set it up.

95% of the installations of a Hadoop cluster do not have a problem that justifies a Hadoop cluster.
It's only true of hiring practices that cause the gender ratio in your company to be different than it is in the industry as a whole.
Visited a GP about a year ago due to blood in my stool, and he said it was hemorrhoids, but it hasn't gone away since. Going to schedule another appointment this week thanks to this article.
You can't control or humiliate someone merely by offering them sex. They can just say "no thanks". If they end up getting controlled and humiliated, it's because they were foolish enough not to do that.

If you are someone's boss, you can control and humiliate them by, say, having them fired. You can't say "no thanks" if your boss fires you.

That is the distinction that I was drawing.
> Just today Trump retweeted an image of a train running down a CNN reporter.

Where'd you get that? Earlier today to get caught up, I looked at Twitter for the just three people I follow, one of whom is Trump, and saw no such thing.

Just now from your post, I looked again and again saw no such thing.

There's some lack of communications here somewhere.

> The guy is a fascist lunatic who constantly eggs on his base into violence.

No facts, references, evidence. Just the same such nonsense we are flooded with daily from the NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC. It's all just nonsense.

It's just Goebbels style "repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.".

It's a lie. You believed it. You repeated it.

For your "fascist", Goebbels was a leading fascist, Nazi, the chief propaganda minister of Nazi Germany. It's ironic that you are using the technique Goebbels used and explained.

Goebbels went on to say " ... and eventually you will believe it, too.".

As bad as Goebbels was, and as bad as a lot of his propaganda was, it appears that he had some understanding of propaganda. Now what Goebbels understood has been borrowed; apparently it still works. It sucked you in.
Can we perhaps instead of 'punished', maybe 'brought to justice' or 'rehabilitated'? Negative consequences should be focused on making the affected persons whole, and secondarily on getting the person to the point where they're not likely to repeat the crime. Insisting on proportionate suffering is in my opinion morally dubious, and risks devolving into "eye for an eye" mentalities, or worse.
Ya, a lot of crap like that is why the imposter syndrome has so much fuel. But we aren't really allowed to talk about it, and anyways, it involves bad actors acting in bad faith.
I don't know what you're arguing anymore. I'm thoroughly convinced you either haven't read the relevant sections or have forgotten them since this discussion started.

Please show me where he says anything like "The idea that the only way to achieve the goal of hiring more women is to apply inconsistent hiring practices is his opinion."
Underlying implementations often have a way to disable parallelism, ie, OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 or MKL_NUM_THREADS=1