skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And yet pretty much everyone still gets up, drives a car alone to work, does their eight, nine hours, drives home alone in that same car, eats, watches a little TV, and goes to bed.

I was born in 1963. Where's the 30 hour work week I was promised? Why am I still driving a gas vehicle by myself to work? Geopolitics? Same shit, different day. Sure, we got an unlimited flow of information, and that has most certainly revolutionized many things. But I argue that the day-to-day lives of most people doesn't look a whole lot different than when I was born, it's just better accessorized.
I don't understand why you're being downvoted. What you said is factually correct and relevant to the story.
Which is the plain English reading that people who insist on being offended refuse to recognize.
Natural Selection?
Of course, but you try to answer the questions honestly. I took it as did my wife. I expected that I wouldn't score that high. She got a 17.
presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings.

What does this even mean? People booed simply because they were white and male? I honestly don't get it. And who did the booing?
However there's not much of a different between:

"fewer women wind up having the skills for X in part due to biological causes" and "women are worse at X".
Nope, airlines decide on the width too. The entire internal layout is up to the airline including the lavatory design.

747 has both 9 and 10 seat wide configuration.
I thought the Solo was killed by a random flyaway malfunction...at least, that's what I read when I was trying to figure out why it was available for like 400 bucks. Is that not the case?

I ended up buying a Mavic Pro. Never even so much as saw a Solo in person. In your experience, how do they compare?
Race and Sex are actually protected classes. Conservative however yes is totally not federally protected and neither is Socialist, or Liberal. Frankly I think that's weird, but the law is the law.
That's why they had other pilots. Dickinson was flying the plane only if the schedule was loose enough.
And now the boomerang is coming back... But judging by the reactions here i see asking for the right to express complexity isn't always welcome when it comes against the moral values of the day.

(and just to make sure : people should be treated just great even if they're different, meaning they have different abilities somehow, somewhere, and we don't know them all because science isn't advanced enough yet to make any kind of definitive statement).

EDIT : And for those with a great desire of flaming people in public, i suggest tracking people that :

- don't believe climate change is due to human activity

- don't believe public social security should cover every expense

- don't like electric cars, or keep driving SUVs

- have been found watching (racial) porn at the office

- have made any kind of bad joke on any minority

- have made public declaration (at the office cafetaria to his neighbor) supporting any decision by president Trump.

- has bought a gun for his home

- think Google should pay its taxes. Oh no, wait this one is still too controversial.
Didn’t he publish it only privately inside Google?
The document went through multiple layers of abstraction. Very few people actually read it. Instead, some news outfit reported on it relatively accurately, then a less scrupulous outfit wanted clicks so they sensationalize it, then a third party reads both of those articles and averages their opinion on it somewhere in the middle. Repeat. As the information becomes more popular, we get sponsored snap stories and Facebook news box summarizations that are even more inaccurate, based on bad interpretations and abstracting away so much content that the information is useless. Radical leftists enter the picture and distort it even more to accomplish their own political ends. No one reads the actual article.

Its two problems our industry literally created: Sensationalist click farming and information overload. Our industry does not take these problems seriously enough. Damore was fired because of the outrage, not because of the article, but the outrage was manufactured by a sensationalist click machine and information overload culture literally championed by the company he was fired from.
Does anyone have any thoughts on Opencart?
Announcing the new Spotify Web Playback SDK
Yeah, I do see the difference; the second sentence is spelling out plainly the bigotry he's trying to cloak in faux intellectualism.

It's always the same kind of crap from bigots. "Women MIGHT be less capable of engineering." "Black people MIGHT be more prone to crime." "Gay people MIGHT be more likely to be pedophiles." and it's always based in bigotry, not in science or evidence.
https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be...

TLDR: yes, and there are certain exceptions, IANAL so not sure where this particular case falls
Good job he wasn't advocating discrimination then
If you can't prove something one way or another, it seems like a poor foundation upon which to build your HR policy, as Damore suggests.
The argument goes like this: traits are distributed with different frequencies throughout populations (plenty of evidence this is true), those traits may lead to differences of interest and focus in specific areas, and that leads to differences in the frequencies at which we can expect to find members of those populations represented at the top of some fields.

None of this says anything about the abilities of any individual women. There are many excellent female engineers. Nor does it say that these excellent women engineers don't face discrimination because of their gender. All it says is that you'd expect fewer women to be represented in the population of the most competent engineers (in the same way you find fewer men in veterinary fields, for example).
And thousands more write offs. I can't write off my lunch at 50% either for simply talking about "work".

Having owned 7 small businesses in part or in whole, you get away with a hell of a lot if you try. Having been an auditor, companies do so many illegal things they get away with, the ethical isn't even in the same category.
You're right but that doesn't mean it can't be useful for understanding psychosis in general. Clinical psychologists could, for instance, take lsd to get some sense of what their patients experience. It wouldn't be identical, but would offer at least some reference point for what it means to be psychotic.
> you probably shouldn't refer to ability instead of inclination.

Maybe you shouldn't, but it ain't libel.
he said "different" abilities

Are you seriously saying that the meaning I should take away from that quote is that women don't work in tech because of their superior ability?

And the quote we're arguing about, "women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering", also says "may". So it seems you're arguing a strawman.
Because he didn't just say that. You can't just pick and choose the part of the sentence you want to respond to. You have to accept the entire thing as a complete thought.

e.g. It would be like me suggesting you wrote: "men and women are different 'repugnant crap'". It's accurate, but misrepresentative of what you meant. One is honest, and the other is dishonest.
I had to skim the article to make sure you were not kidding. In retrospect, this is not so unusual - this was a rescue operation, so regular no-flying constraints did not apply. And normally, ~4% of women are pregnant, so EV for number of pregnant and ready to give birth women is 10860.04(percentarge pregnant)0.5(percentage of women)/9(only 9-month pregnant are ready to give birth) ~= 2.41. What surprising is that they gave birth during the flight, and not on any other day of the month. TRansition from danger to relative safety, I guess?
Our current financial system does require end-users like you and me to trust each other either.

It only requires us to trust the legal system
What? Did we read the same memo? One of his central points is that the representation gap between men and women in technology is due to different biological distributions.

From the 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.

Minus a bit of softening language ("in part", "may"), proposing that women are on average less biologically capable of programming is exactly what he's saying.

Also, because I know how HN works, let me pre-empt the inevitable reply to this one: "but what if there ARE sex differences?! shouldn't we be allowed to talk about that!? Freedom of speech!?!"

Scientists who study this stuff (including those cited by Damore) can and do talk about it, and the consensus is that biological sex differences are not that big of an effect, certainly not enough to explain the gender disparity in tech. What effects there may be are absolutely dominated by sociological factors.

Sociological factors that some companies are attempting to counter, which is what Damore didn't like, which is why he issued his complain-y memo to start with.

And THAT is why people are upset with him. Not because he's an amateur biologist with a day job as a programmer who just earnestly wants to have an innocent conversation about sexual dimorphism. It's because he's just another brogrammer whose jimmies got rustled by the thought of women being his peers, and decided to insult (on average) his female colleagues and create a hostile work environment for which he was (quite correctly) fired.
Yes from a certain angle it's a PR win/win. However if he actually pursues a lawsuit with his money he's with near certainty going to be the loser.
Except literally (almost) nobody used windows media player to listen to mp3s. Certainly nobody I knew and the majority of my friends are not "techies." Whatever windows media player was doing is not really relevant.
It appears to me that in part this may be explained by him attempting to cover his ass.
This quote is speaking about the distribution saying that i might be affected, not that women are in fact less able if they wanted to. For example if more women don't go and study CS, less women will be in CS, thus the general population of women will be less able to practise CS which means that the number of women in cs will be low.

As for the distibution of preferences based on sex. While some might claim that sex does not affect preferences. A Meta-study found robust sex differences in children’s toy Indicating that sex "might" be a factor in deciding factor. The categorical refusal of this claim to the point the mere fact of suggesting that it "might" be true let alone asserting it is taboo, is scientifically unfounded.

source: Study finds robust sex differences in children’s toy preferences across a range of ages and countries
http://www.psypost.org/2017/12/study-finds-robust-sex-differ...
GOOD for you James! Sorry that you have to engage their tactics to get justice or some monetary semblance of it. If the googly buttheadz were as smart as they pretend to be theyd be offering to angel invest in you to create a new platform that'd be the opensourced mega data provider they promised but sold out for "the gods of profits over product integrity!" and as for the buttheads who rape us with their gender insanity,...yeah you read that right! YOURE the problem because you mistake your SEXUALITY with your fn GENDER! You have the right in this country to be as FD up as you wish, but you still dont have the right to Fck up everyone elses rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness !! DATS JUST HOW IT WORKS BITCHES!!!!!! [I'm using that term to describe all you wage slaving idiots sucking off the googly corporate rat trap!] because it fits. IF YOU EXCUSE THIS GOOGLE POLICY BECAUSE "MUH PAYCHECK" THEN YOU ARE* THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!! HYPOCRITES ALL!
This has nothing to do with the news and everything to do with what Damore did.

He was fired for a reason.
They said when they're in a car - not when they're driving a car.
An Explanation of the Meltdown/Spectre Bugs for a Non-Technical Audience
I got a big scifi moment when i received a video-call from my dad while driving on the highway because he wanted to show me the vacuum robot driving around his house.
He's talking about distributions, while the article makes out that he is talking about all women in general.
Ecstasy 10x yellow Twitter 120mg Mdma
People who don't have electric cars still seem to have a mindset about refueling that's based on gasoline vehicles.

I have driven electric cars for 4+ years. I have charged in public ONCE -- and that was mostly for entertainment value. I didn't bother with a fast charger at home, either, I just plug it into a regular outlet.

Whenever the car is home, it's plugged in. It trickle charges overnight. So typically, it's almost always at 100% or close enough when my wife or I leave the house. Anyone with a parking spot _at home_ with access to a power outlet can do the same. Public charging stations just don't matter in this usage pattern. Home charging capabilities matter way, way more.

Now, this is for a city car -- and we've had electric cars with limited range (100 miles). But you quickly find that it's very rare to have a reason to drive more than 100 miles in a city in a day.

In cases of a super-long commute, or a driving-heavy job, things are different, but in those circumstances, gas cars or longer range electrics would win out anyway.

But the 80/20 case for most people who live in cities is the city car pattern, and for that pattern, electrics with home charging work fine.

(All the above only applies for the next 5-10 years while cars can't drive themselves. After that, none of this matters, and apparently most auto execs still don't see that either.)
A User’s Guide to the Dawn of Robot Driving
About the security content of iOS 11.2.2
Yes this is a great introduction into the topic. I would also recommend checking out www.leafscience.org home of the LEAF foundation. They are the guys who did that great video with Kurzgesagt last year and their website is packed with great info about aging and research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjdpR-TY6QU
Yeah, there is. "Women are worse" implies that there's a gendered difference after applying the "is an engineer" filter. "Fewer women gain entry into the class of engineers" doesn't imply anything about ability afterwards. And for what it's worth, James Damore explicitly called out this distinction, saying that he was not making a claim about any sort of skill differential between male engineer and female engineers.

Like, male and female high jumpers that make it over a certain height of bar are approximately as good at jumping. There's more men in that category. This all might be playing semantics, but I think there's a real thing here to disentangle, and it'd be nice to say one without implying the other.
By that definition United maintains hubs in Amarillo, Tampa and Hong Kong.

Lots of airlines are no longer performing heavy maintenance at their hubs.
Google, and a few other major tech companies, have turned diversity into a religion. It’s insane. We spend more time talking about it than anything technical or organizational. There is no dialogue about it either, just every day we’re bombarded with reminders about how much we’re failing at diversity and how all people everywhere must be considering diversity before anything else. ANYTHING else. At all times.

What he did was speak heresy. I’m sorry that it sounds like I’m a butthurt male but the fact is diversity is dogma in these companies and you either buy in wholeheartedly, constantly, to the exclusion of all other priorities, or you’re ex-communicated.
What dictates our experience, our "feelings" about the world?

One could argue our experience is primarily dictated by the physical objects surrounding us. This viewpoint wouldn't see a vast difference between 1966 and today.

Another viewpoint is that our experience is construed mostly _socially_, i.e. that we build our world based on our interactions with others. From this perspective, the world today would feel vastly different.

I'm 24. Many of my "meatspace" friends I first met online, often as a result of being in similar online communities, and then we progressed to a real-life friendship. Much of my social experience is based around circles of people living thousands of miles away from me, who I likely will never spend an extended period of physical time with.

Although our physical reality still seems similar, social reality has shifted dramatically beneath our feet.

Venkatesh Rao, a writer of one of my favorite blogs, Ribbonfarm, has a (rather complex) essay[1] explaining this idea of "feeling like the future" -- he argues that technologists, in fact, work very hard to make new technologies feeling _normal_, and that we don't _want_ to feel like we're living in the future, as it's, well, uncomfortable:

> we live in a continuous state of manufactured normalcy. There are mechanisms that operate — a mix of natural, emergent and designed — that work to prevent us from realizing that the future is actually happening as we speak. To really understand the world and how it is evolving, you need to break through this manufactured normalcy field. Unfortunately, that leads, as we will see, to a kind of existential nausea.

Rao, in another essay[2], also argues more specifically for my idea posed above: that the internet as a social technology has had novel, futuristic implications for our experience of life.

> When you first explore the online world, with your feet firmly planted offline, it can seem ephemeral and insubstantial. But once you tentatively and gingerly plant your feet online, it is the offline world that starts to seem ephemeral and insubstantial. The world of offline-first people (or worse, offline-only) seems like a world of people living lives without real views. Lives full of unacknowledged and unprocessed yearnings.

I don't know how much sense this'll make to you, given my parents are around the same age and they still struggle to understand how Twitter, chatroom technology, online dating, Yelp, etc. has changed the feeling/experience of reality.

At times, I resent the technological changes, as they seem fundamentally dehumanizing. But sitting from our present-day vantage point, these technologies seem like inevitable results of the Internet as it continues to change how we interact with our fellow human beings. The current political moment in the USA is already the sort of futuristic Thing driven by these technological changes, and I expect that, at the very least, politics will continue feeling more Weird (i.e. futuristic?) before it feels Normal again.

1: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/05/09/welcome-to-the-future-...

2: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/04/16/a-life-with-a-view/
His memo does not say "women are incapable of programming". He says the way Google uses engineers means men are more likely to fit the role. He offers suggestions on how to change the role to attract more women. For example, women may be attracted to social programming (pair or mob programming) versus the classic picture of some man locked away in a basement. Which he references specifically in the article.

This is different from discriminatory hiring of women to be forced into a male oriented role. This is a substantive claim, which he accuses Google of doing. Discriminatory hiring is illegal, and also stupid, from a free market standpoint.

Tldr: If women aren't buying your product (not applying to Google), it's not the fault of women, its your product that needs to change to suit their wants and needs.

This is only sexist if you think men and women don't, as a general statistical rule, tend toward different interests along a bimodal distribution. But they do.
> “Distribution of...abilities” suggests “women are worse.”

No, it doesn't. It suggests fewer women are good. It doesn't suggest that the women in the field are any worse than the men in the field, it just explains why there may be fewer women than men.
No?

The person who isn't interested wouldn't even be applying in the industry in the first place.
In California, yes. See section 4 of:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Found it: http://entrances2hell.co.uk/page322.html

Sadly the comments have vanished but I pointed out the photo was actually taken in Crystal Palace (I know that spot well as it's where the old derelict High Level Railway Station used to be - a place I explored in my youth: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/see-inside-the-se...

I sent in a comment pointing out the anomaly and offered an explanation in keeping with the back story such as it is.
He'll have to explain that to a jury, and I've read the memo that claim is not abundantly clear.
That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that Damore thinks every man is a better programmer than every woman.

He suggested that on average men are biologically more suited to programming, and the contention of his opponents is that that is still a problematic and inappropriate thing to say.
Is it a complex set of features, or rather a set of focused tools?
> He said exactly that, right there. Why do conservatives always appear to defend this guy and try to pretend the memo wasn't full of repugnant crap.

Perhaps because what he actually said was that statistically women tend to have lower expression of the traits that engineering positions favor and lower interest in those positions. And because of this the representation of women in tech is lower than their representation in the general population.

Nowhere did he say "all women are worse than all men at engineering jobs". In fact he repeatedly explained that there are tons of exceptions to the statistical rule.
With PoW, assuming you can use the same hardware to mine different coins, then you just point your BTC mining rig onto MinorCoin, you get 51% of the hashing power and then you can double spend and let's say crash the value of the coin.

Once that is done, you can move your mining rigs onto the next MinorCoin, or you can put them back to mining BTC without you having lost any value except for the opportunity cost when you weren't mining BTC.

With PoS, you need to buy up 51% of the coins in order to make the attack. As you buy more and more coins, the price will rise, so you will spend more money than you expect to get to 51%. Then, once you're there, you do some double spend attacks and destroy the value of the network. Now, all that money you pumped into it is gone. That is the key difference between PoS and PoW in this scenario.
Yes, yes it is

No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt
to coerce or influence his employees through or
by means of threat of discharge or loss of
employment to adopt or follow or refrain from
adopting or following any particular course or
line of political action or political activity.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Try reading the memo- with all the citations to research- instead of assuming.
Shell functions, Git shortcuts and other scripts I use with the Twilio API
Hijacking a 'show HN' thread to promote your own product is a very dangerous form of marketing. To you, it might seem like some edgy 'growth hacking'. But, frankly, it hurts your brand way more than it helps.
The latter implies far more about the competence of women who do have the skills for X.
> So he realistically has a choice between becoming a paid speaker for fringe ultra-right organizations

Isn't that what he's been doing through his twitter account where he muses whether people join the KKK because they have cool titles? Or his interviews with people like Milo?
Legal question: Most employment agreements require employees sign an arbitration clause. Even though these have mixed enforceability, they are very intimidating (which I believe is their intended purpose).

If you had a high-profile case like this, are you choosing to defy the arbitration agreement? Anyone ever gone through this and willing to share the process?