skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Women are interested. Women want to do the work.

Perhaps this article might shed some light on things:

http://neurosciencenews.com/women-in-neuroscience-4548/

(Why are females underrespresented in neuroscience)
"This is probably media hyperbole"

> reads comments ITT

...
There's a lot of nuance in the distinction between cultural excellence and product excellence.

In IT and a few other fields, a lot of people have come to associate "cultural excellence" with "work is a really fun activity because of perks/getting to do whatever I want/having a very fraternal relationship with all of my colleagues". That's an extreme, and, I think, harmful, spoiled, and incorrect understanding of cultural excellence.

When confronted with that that claim (that the perk/fun-based definition of cultural "goodness" is wrong), however, people tend to argue against it from extremes "Are you saying I shouldn't feel good while at work? That I should just tough it out while being abused/overworked/discriminated against? That it's some weird character-building masochistic activity?!"

No, of course not. Cultural excellence includes professionalism, compassion, making employees feel valued and rewarded, and making sure they don't feel persecuted or attacked in the workplace. But that's a line that's hard to draw, especially when participants in the conversation are entitled ("well, $big_company_x gives me a ball pit and a nap room, so I think you're stodgy!") or truly threatened ("To me as $underrepresented_demographic_x, any cultural statements short of radical inclusivity and protection sound suspiciously like excuses for discrimination and cultural oppression in the workplace!"
--a suspicion that is unfortunately justified quite often).

When it comes to product excellence, the nuance and difficulty discussing it comes from the perceived dichotomy between product/cultural values. Valuing cultural quality isn't at odds with product quality unless you do it wrong; a good culture facilitates more ideas, employee growth (an employee who grows makes better contribution to the product), and helps make the structures for acquiring, keeping, and getting rid of employees more fair and productive.

However, discussions about that dichotomy often end up with "well we can either not grow or value radical workaholism/Uber-style cults of personality/whatever, so might as well prioritize the product and forget about the irrelevant soft stuff!" That's false, because you need both to succeed. Different strategies might work better or worse depending on what phase of it's life the business is in, or on other factors, but the strategies shouldn't be split into "cultural" and "product". You can't get by with one or the other; thinking about it as a tradeoff is myopic and harmful.

TL;DR conversations about culture/product excellence are important to have but tricky to conduct in practice because of misperceptions, participants' prior bad experiences, and the tendency to argue from extremes.
I'm always very curious about the backstory of projects like this. Without that backstory there is very little chance I'd try out something like this.

Ideally the read me would explain why Kafka didn't cut it, why the trade offs the authors made were worth it (in this case), and why I did consider using a this system.

Sadly I don't have enough time to read an entire repo of code to try and figure these things out.
> will finally leave us alone

He’s not even leaving the state. Branding his move as political exodus is marketing for his China-oriented fundraising, a capital source better serviced from Los Angeles than San Francisco.
Sure, one standard deviation makes the ratio like 63% to 37%? That's not what we see in tech job ratios, it's worse than that. Everything past that is unjust and deserves effort to rectify
If a woman is going to be put off participating in tech because she feels unwelcome then she probably isn't that interested in tech to begin with.

If people do what they love they will be driven to overcome barriers, perceived and real.
> you're confused as to why women choose 'difficult' jobs less often

so, all those high-power, highly-paid, female lawyers are likely to have just breezed right though?
I think we share some similar concerns. I’m trying to focus on what can be done to improve the situation, rather than just noting it. Rather than complaining about wrongthink, what can you do to move the needle in a constructive way? No one likes being accused of collaborating with the Brave New World, and are unlikely to think they actually are doing so: rare enough is real-world self-realization displayed in Mitchell and Webb’s “Are we the baddies?”, much less when we’re on the defensive.

We’ve got to figure our way out of this, all around. Even more so to tackle issues like those addressed in the submission and so clearly on display in this thread as well. An early comment lamented the current situation:

> ”Hopefully we're still at the point where we can sensibly discuss a WSJ article.”

Well, maybe not it we just complain about it rather than making contributions that make the situation better. Of course it’s important to note that there’s an issue. (Bad analogy imminent!) Bug reports are necessary. At the end of the day we’ve got to dig in and fix those bugs and close the tickets, and make the system more robust.

A confounding twist with the system we’re working on makes it hard for us to disentangle beliefs from behaviors. It’s too easy to conflate the bad behavior of those we disagree with from their beliefs. And sometimes they are guilty of bad behavior. And we also need to realize that we ourselves might be guilty of behaving badly, and work on improving that so we can be more effective in understanding and be understood.

And I’ve increasingly tried to keep in mind that there are some games we play to win, and others we play to keep playing: Discourse in the small and society in the large is most definitely the latter. The goal is not to defeat our opponents, however they may be defined: it’s to figure out how to effectively make the game better. And like any rule change, everyone needs to be persuaded that the new rules are are a good idea.

I encourage you to work on some of the open tickets. Pull requests welcome!

(Thanks for your patience. Please accept the analogies only as far as they work and are useful.)
Are men more accepting of high risk, low QOL careers? You don't see many women on oil rigs or driving long-haul trucks, either, even though it can be quite lucrative relative to the skill level required.

Software jobs have little in the way of on the job training, "up or out" career progression/compensation, unstable employers, long hours/crunch times/getting called at night, management pressure and constantly changing goals, frequent skills turnover, age discrimination, abstract work without a concrete purpose, etc. etc.

Let's say someone with the mental acuity to become a Pediatrician can also become a reasonably decent Software Developer for some FANG. The expected value of the Pediatrician's annual earnings is $150k a year and the Software Developer's is $250k, but with much higher variance and personal stress.

Is it irrational to pick Med School instead? Maybe the question we should be asking is why men are stupid enough to flock to tech or other workaholic fields (big law, investment banking) in the first place.
Type systems and proofs
> This is just bizarre to to me. I moved here from the Midwest, which I found stifling. There's a far greater variety of social values and political ideologies

Really? Because the only values I've heard expressed have been standard democratic talking points and once in a while far left ideologies.
The main thrust, that we ought to value the truth, is hard to disagree with. Certainly, it would be good if instead of adopting a Machiavellian ethos in which the goal is to "win" at all costs and where the spoken and written word isn't about communicating truths but rather functions as an instrument of manipulation and power, we were at least committed to the truth even as we honestly disagree.

But what's this about an "engineering mindset"? It's an incredibly bizarre thing to appeal to in this context. Engineers are not somehow the quintessential pursuers of truth -- indeed, their pragmatic approach is less about the truth of the matter and more about effectiveness. Engineers are not, by virtue of being engineers, somehow particularly competent or qualified at understanding political issues. Politics is not a technology. Indeed, viewing politics in technocratic terms is positively dystopian. Perhaps the author of the article, writing for tech media, has fallen prey to the specialist's syndrome. To a hammer, everything is a nail.

Furthermore, there is more to politics than just the evidence of the matter at hand. There are things which affect politics that are not political as such. The importance of truth, the proper relations between state, society and individual, and so on.
>Whatever is keeping women to 20% of our field is artificial, and a travesty.

How are you concluding that? It does not follow logically from anything you said before it.
> Chinese model actually works

Model of what?

China does have the advantage that any dictatorship has: the country goes on any direction with full force.

Of course, it's all at the expense of the individual, their rights, liberty and life.

The benevolent dictator is only benevolent until he isn't.
Re. dynamic lifetime: you are right that there are many rocks. You underestimate the vastness of space though. Collisions are extremely rare and the Tesla is pretty small.
Still, those pushy activists should see the GP's wife as a person with her own interests, priorities, and desire to be left alone, not just a token [insert group identity here]. A generalized version of what I just said might even make a good item in a CoC.
Paradox of tolerance, huh? Being intolerant towards the 'intolerant' while still claiming to be tolerant? That's exactly the kind of crap that made Thiel and Altman making such strong arguments towards the culture in the valley.
Thanks for setting me straight.

I find the term juvenile, personally, but it's here to stay for now it seems.
I'm unable to sensibly discuss a WSJ article because I am not willing to pay to read it. Where does HN stand on pay to read articles? I didn't flag it btw.
For studies like these, it actually helps to look at the data rather than just skim the headlines/talkimg points, which tend to cherry pick to support the narrative.

For example, when "left due to unfair treatment" is unpacked by group, white women are the lowest percentage! (28% vs. 38% for white/asian men).
10-12 years ago, there was no tech in SF. Zero. It was mainly financial companies or workers for Levi's, Gap, etc. All the best tech companies were in South Bay. It was Twitter, Zynga, Yelp and quickly followed by Uber, Airbnb, and all the other cool startups that brought tech into SF and probably the cause of that shift. SF started giving tax breaks to tech companies in the late aughts, and then it started the huge migration of tech startups from South Bay to SF.

Before that, it was rare for tech workers to live in SF. Most would live in South Bay and come up to SF to party on weekends.

Also, salaries went crazy in the last 8-10 years. Once all these rich tech workers came to the city that thought they knew best because they were rich and young, that's probably what caused the shift.
Sure it is. No one claims driving a Honda Accord isn’t a mainstream choice just because they aren’t the number one selling car.
Yeah I was referring to him leaving Silicon Valley / SF as the headline mentions but I agree it’s a self serving move and won’t really change his agenda much. He did buy citizenship in New Zealand so he can flee there if he messes our country up too much.
No for an other computer.
This link was top of hacker news and then suddenly disappeared. What's happened?
Like the meteor belt? :P
Well, the parent was upfront about it after all:

"For fun, let me suggest an absurd theory."

How does that interact with the peak arrogance premise? You'd have to say they were knowingly lying and using that intro to deflect it being challenged on a serious intellectual basis. That's a step too far imo, and goes against leaning toward good faith as far as other members go.
I did not gender my example. Check your logic. You wrote "I'm sure someone will create an app" etc. My point is that your hypothetical example of a potential future bias is outweighed by the preponderance of existing evidence today.
> There's nothing inconsistent with the view that sure one is within one's rights to do such a thing but that it is still bad, and that one might, to the extent that one can within one's own rights, take measures to discourage such a thing rather than just accepting it as "Well it's within their rights so it must be OK".

Sure, but ultimately, if the other party to the discussion refuses to agree, you need a decision rule.

If your views are largely about that decision rule then you look silly for not accepting it.
>it’s that people have given up on that search for truth.

No, it's that lowering the cost of information access also lowered the cost of DDOSing people with bullshit.

It isn't that people don't care; it's that it is very inexpensive and very effective
and very profitable to muddy the waters at scale.
Where is SpaceX's Starman going to be in the future?
Sorry, I was looking for Node APL connections, had scrolled down to the readme and gotten overly excited. Realized it was a fork past the edit window. Anyway to get it changed to the original once edit window is gone?
structural wood is almost always treated with boron to prevent insect infestation
Unicorn Coin is going to be listed on Stocks.Exchange
We have approval from Stocks.Exchange (https://stocks.exchange) to be listed there after our ICO ends !
Our application is being reviewed on a few other exchanges.Buy 1 or more UCC and win 1000000 UCC from our end-of-ICO winner pick!
You could become a Unicorn Coin Millionaire (https://unicorncoin.xyz )
Imagine something like Go and APL compile down to the same AST, and imagine two programmers working on the same project with different syntaxes as you describe. The Go user one day finds a function called "life" that contains several hundred lines of code, which is clearly bad style and should be broken up, so he goes to talk to his APL using coworker who wrote the function. His coworker seems confused, "it doesn't seem too long to me" he says as he shows the APL function on his screen:

life←{↑1 ⍵∨.∧3 4=+/,¯1 0 1∘.⊖¯1 0 1∘.⌽⊂⍵}

I think what you proposed is a good idea, but it's just an idea. We'd need some new innovation to make it work I think.
>[WeWork] is for people for whom this society works well already

Well said - and further to this, it creates homogeneous environments which leads to innovation only towards your own community. On this note, I've been advising my younger friends to do two degrees (or chase two desires) on completely different subjects towards the same goal: the most interesting people I know have more than one core interest.
> Everyone is incentivized by it because everyone can benefit immensely from change, even the ultra-rich.

Not everyone. And, some people don't feel like they need charge. Some people are actually happy with their life, career and situation.

> even the ultra-rich.

What does the ultra-rich have to do with anything? You've kind of jumped the shark there.
I don't want to be too rude, but you are being willfully ignorant if you believe it's not happening.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/16/us/politics/r...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/now-available-more...

You're free to debunk these and a hundred other sources, but there's something there. Do you really belive an ex KGB officer doesn't use some KGB tactics? That a nation with major economic disadvantages isn't going to rely on alternative methods of attack?

Not looking to get into a whataboutist argument. The US has done shady stuff, plenty of it. Propaganda is in no way limited to the Russians.
> SF just happens to be a highly visible example with some unique problems

Coming in from New York, San Francisco’s lack of attention to its homeless population is self inflicted. It’s also a problem that nobody in the city seems very much to care about.
Over 300 million dollars per year is spent on homeless in SF, and the result of that money is still people shitting on Market street with no fears. I don't understand why there isn't someone going over that budget and ensuring that the money is properly spent instead of lining political allies with money.
Your leaders cant stop it from happening and any attempt to stop it would make free speech situation much worst then attempts to punish hate speech everyone complains about.

Because Russian trolls boil down to speech - speech and could and should have been countered by local speech (which is much better funded anyway). Speech that is not much unlike America paying various political parties around the world (also for sides I liked and agreed with). Yes, purposeful conflict creating is annoying and problem, but it does not seem like Russians caused those divisions in the first place.

It mostly all seem to be an attempt to blame Russia for internal problems.
Yeah sorry I guess your comment wasn't about that. But I don't understand the original comment's point.

What is the problem you describe about Lua? That you can't just say "import module" and have many modules available? Sure you can if you have a distribution that provides them, which I think is the kind of thing that the previous comment was referring to. What's the big difference with Python?

I guess the lack of round function is surprising too, but the explanations I see online about it being a minimalism and ease of implementation make sense. I think it's a fair choice and I don't think a core library's choice should be an argument to judge the whole language.
The younger generation of the left is all-in on postmodernist philosophy. They’ll happily tell you that the concept of objective reality was fabricated as a tool of the patriarchy. This is the right direction to look in to understand what’s going on - valuing the truth for its own sake is an antiquated notion. Now facts are simply instruments of power, to be deployed when useful.

I hope to see a resurgence in my parents’ brand of liberalism, but it isn’t going to come from my politically active college classmates.
I believe that the only generic fixes are to either (a) ensure DRAM is never cached, (b) ensure no atomic operations address DRAM (as the author proposed by using TCM), (c) implement atomics by disabling interrupts, performing a normal RMW operation (i.e. no LL/SC, as even with IRQs disabled that would cause cache incoherency), and re-enabling interrupts.

No library like FreeRTOS can guarantee (a). Not even the compiler can guarantee (a), since the user can control the cache by memory-mapped registers. (b) can't be guaranteed by a library, nor can it be guaranteed statically by a compiler, since only the linker knows where the atomic variables will reside in memory (and, atomic operations could be performed on an address that isn't a compile-time constant, e.g. dynamically allocated memory).

(c) also can't be guaranteed by any library, but it could be guaranteed by a compiler that has access to the full source of the binary. That's a hefty limitation though, since it means you can't mix any other compiler/language (e.g. assembly, which is almost always used for the startup sequence) into the binary and still have these guarantees.

For method (c), I believe gcc allows one to somehow override __atomic_load & other "builtins" - the use-case being that atomics can be implemented for new or uncommon architectures without modifying the compiler itself. If this is the case, then a potential fix could be shipped by a library (e.g. FreeRTOS) which defines __atomic_load as something like

void __atomic_load (type *ptr, type *ret, int memorder) {
#ifdef IMX7_<partnumber>
__disable_irq();
*ret = *ptr;
__enable_irq();
#else
// insert code to perform a normal atomic load.
#endif
}

In fact, gcc allows one to "wrap" functions - it might be possible to do something like

void __wrap___atomic_load (type *ptr, type *ret, int memorder) {
#ifdef IMX7_<partnumber>
__disable_irq();
*ret = *ptr;
__enable_irq();
#else
__real___atomic_load(ptr, ret, memorder);
#endif
}

which would have the benefit that the library doesn't need to know how to implement atomic ops on other platforms. This approach could also be used to implement (b) by performing a runtime assert that `ptr` lives in a cache-coherent section of memory.

But again, this approach only works if you're not relying on any binary blobs that perform atomic ops. In the end, if you're doing anything nontrivial (e.g. atomic ops on heap-allocated memory, or even stack-allocated memory), it's impossible for a dev kit to completely hide this bug from the developer.

Alternatively, do these M4 processors have some type of updatable microcode like X86 processors do? NXP might be able to push a fix that somehow patches LL/SC primitives, or traps when they're encountered at runtime and allows the user to decide how to handle them (e.g. putting them in a no-IRQ critical section like above, but since it's done at runtime now you can mix multiple languages / binary blobs, etc).
Valueable in what sense? Are what most programmers programming intrinsically valuable?

If that teacher was a difference maker for 100k people, that seems very valuable.
Why am I not surprised that such a classy response came from a Clojurist?
Added to the list, by @HarrisJT!
Well, it kinda delegitimizes their complaint about other peoples' thoughts and ideas.
I don't understand. I mean every word I've said in this thread.
A cursory look suggests that math aptitude starts at parity or near parity and grows over time, which doesn't necessarily disagree with either of us.
Proof that more women (as a percentage) are mathematicians than programmers? I think it’s about equal for many of the same reasons.
> As a Spotify competitor, you can't just sign up for Binge On, unless perhaps you have connections with people who work at T-Mobile.

Binge On is video. The zero-rating program for music is Music Freedom.

If you are a Spotify competitor and want to get included in Music Freedom, you contact T-Mobile at the email address documented in the Music Freedom. You don't need any inside connections. T-Mobile's stated policy is to get as many music streaming services as possible covered.

For video providers who want to be included in Binge On, there is a different T-Mobile address to mail to, also documented on the T-Mobile site.

For Binge On, the video service can actually choose one of four ways to participate:

1. Do nothing. Their content will not be zero-rated. If a T-Mobile customer has enabled Binge On T-Mobile will try to optimize the bandwidth usage if it can detect the video.

2. Be zero-rated. T-Mobile detects and optimized bandwidth usage.

3. Be zero-rated. The video service detects when the customer is on T-Mobile and handle optimizing bandwidth.

4. Disallow Binge On. Their content will not be zero-rated, and T-Mobile will not try to optimize its bandwidth use for customers who have Binge On enabled.

Here are the technical details: https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Vi...
> I have no idea what SF is like, so in these discussions I never can tell if there really is an influx of insane, insufferable far left crazies

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but I remember clearly the morning after the election and seeing people walking through the street in SF on their way to work in tears.

If that doesn't point to a presence of insane, insufferable far left (or at least leftist) crazies I don't know what does.

It was very difficult not laugh.