skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I really don't see it as Harvard enforcing racial quotas but rather looking at the whole student not just academics and standardized test scores. I applaud them for attempting to create a diverse and varied student body. Do you have a better alternative or would you select a student body just by GPA and standardized tests?
I think absolutely people would look at that negatively, but should they? That might be the harder question to answer.
An anecdote about the evolving value of higher education:

I received a resume recently for a junior software engineer role. Under the 'Education' section was a paragraph that listed a prestigious university and entrance year, but under it stated something like, "I was accepted to this university, but rather than attend and go over $100,000 in debt, I taught myself computer science and coding for 3 years with online tutorials. Here are the projects I did over that time," with links to a github repo showing the projects from his self study.

I gave him a phone screen, and while he wasn't a fit, I did not exclude him because of the nature of his education.

I think more hiring managers in companies that are struggling to find talent will begin to accept this narrative about education. The signal to me (if it checked out) was his acceptance to a prestigious school, and his lack of attendance was not very important to me, provided he could do the work.
These guys fill voids in google searches and may close a deal when people are looking for validation.

If you cannot make a decision between the Four Seasons and the Conrad or whatever, some random guys food porn or gush about the bellman may tip you.

Travel magazines have been doing this sort of thing for decades.
> I also recently found out that seed rounds are basically non-existent

$8.5 billion were invested across close to 14,000 seed and angel-stage rounds in 2017 [1]. On both deal frequency and gross volume, seed and angel financing grew from 2016.

[1] https://news.crunchbase.com/news/q4-2017-global-report-vc-se...
Because Google made a popular interace to USENET called Google Groups, then added a non-USENET component and discontinued the USENET part. By doing so, a lot of people ended up on the non-USENET part.

A secondary factor was spam getting out of control IIRC.
Hello! I'm an engineer at Civil, happy to discuss some of your concerns.

The CVL token is used to vote on whether or not the community believes a newsroom follows well understood journalistic standards (more information about these standards can be found in our "constitution" - https://blog.joincivil.com/the-civil-constitution-beta-64460...).

We use a system known as a Token Curated Registry (https://medium.com/@ilovebagels/token-curated-registries-1-0...) that incentivizes people to vote judiciously according to a shared understanding of values and not simply according to their own political leanings. TCRs also have built in mechanisms that reduce the ability of wealthy individuals/parties to unilaterally attack the integrity of the registry, as well as mechanisms to recover from such attacks if they do occur. We've further refined this idea by creating an independent non-profit body known as the Civil Council made up of well respected journalists and academics that can step in in situations where a vote was clearly motivated by political bias and not made in good faith.

We are also working very hard to ensure that our tokens are distributed to parties that are going to use them in good faith. We'll have more to announce on that front soon!

Being "whitelisted" or not on our TCR does not determine whether or not a newsroom is able to publish. Newsrooms are independent and have full editorial control of their content. Being on the TCR is a (we hope valuable) credibility indicator for newsrooms. The idea is that when you see an article by a newsroom that is on the TCR, you'll know that they have been vetted by the community and are very likely a trustworthy source.

TCRs are a new and experimental system, and we don't claim that our first implementation will be flawless and fix all the issues in the news media landscape. But we will iterate and improve it and firmly believe that some form of TCR can be used to help people understand their news sources better, increasing media literacy and trust, in a way that can scale worldwide.

--
Nick Reynolds
Malcolm Gladwell wrote a much very thoughtful analysis of the admissions process and it's bias here... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/10/10/getting-in
I wish I were there for all that. I'm still a teen, but I like to hearken to older times. I voluntarily chose not to join any social media, because I can see how commercialized it is. In a world were smartphones and social media are dominant, the world seems like glass, where everyone can see everyone, and everyone's competing to be seen. I hate and reject such ideas, becuase they make daily interaction something of a contest. "How many likes can I get for this tweet?" and other such things turn what normally would be conversation into someone shouting at the top of a tower to see how many people shout in agreement. Forums, largely aren't that way. I've been a part of many different forums in my life, and I can see that they fostered conversation and community. It's sad to see them go the way of the dinosaur in favor of commercialized, mobile, "reactive" "apps".
The answer is pretty simple: makes for easy money laundering, at least for how some of these ICOs are set up. That’s why they’re involved, as to why our wider society has decided to trust them, I think the only answer I can think of is greed.
> Then the jerks discovered the site and within hours it was nothing but a huge perverted caricature of what it was intended to be.

It was a lesson Microsoft learnt the hard way, a decade+ later with its AI twitter bot (Tay)[1]

1. https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-ch...
I use Instagram and other social media. But I just don't get how this works. Perhaps someone can give me and others an overview. I only see the posts from my friends, so how would posts from these "influencers" influence me or other's like me? Why would I follow some random person I don't even know? Really, I'm looking for some enlightenment here. I assume that I'm not the only one.
Having run a business (in an unrelated field) that offered both a subscription and a paygo model, the reason was pretty clear: you lose more from people who would have subscribed opting for paygo than you gain from people who would never subscribe but would choose paygo.

The subscriptions are surprisingly valuable. Paygo not so much.

Usual caveats apply: on average, in my experience, YMMV, etc etc.
The P-p-p-p-owerbook story is pretty entertaining as well: https://wiki.bibanon.org/P-P-Powerbook
“head” has the type:

<T> (List<T> -> Optional<T>)

(“For any type T, function from list of T to optional T.”)

So assuming “xs” is a list, “xs head” is either a full Optional (“some”) containing the first element of the list, or an empty Optional (“none”) if the list was empty—typed, of course, according to the element type of the input list, so if “xs” has type “List<Int32>” then “xs head” has type “Optional<Int32>”.
I agree with you on the importance of diversity and the quality of Netflix programming, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the general public has no interest in comic book movies or Star Wars. The Force Awakens is the third best-selling movie of all time, and Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe occupies about half of the top ten best selling movies.
But it has near no own emissivity black. It should be at around first gen oled phone at this like samsung i7500
Very easy. Admissions should be race blind and name blind. Everything else, including socioeconomic background, can be included in the admissions packet.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/06/13/about-face-hosp...
>I don't know how to break this to you but as long as there are more than one country there's going to be one that will not hunt down the privateers of the other.

Ok. Piracy will be made harder and harder, to the point where it will be inaccessible to mainstream. This also means that the tech savvy pirates will be more exposed.

>If studios weren't greedy and produced objectively garbage content I would buy a product on faith but in a world where there are how many Pirates of the Caribbean movies, I'll be more skeptical.

That entire paragraph is weirdly nonsensical. You don't have an ineliable right to watch movies, you aren't the universal judge of movie quality (lots of people like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies), and you aren't entitled to dictate how you want the business of media to operate (i.e. you get to pick how much or how little you pay). It's one thing to pirate, it's another to think you're a 'good guy'.
https://soundcloud.com/krazhtest-3/banhmi15nico15krazhtest
It’s more than an annoyance: macOS barely fits onto the 11” MBA SSD. There’s no room for a camera load of raw images. All my operations now require me having external storage in addition to my camera or SD card reader.

I have resorted to carrying a wallet full of SD cards, swapping those out, then doing a bulk import when I get back to hotel/home/camp. The use case for the MBA (photo culling while having a coffee break or while travelling) is no longer possible for me.

I would love an incremental update to the MBA which just gave me more SSD, more RAM, a faster processor without tripling the price.

It is not that the old product still meets my needs, so much as there is no equivalent product in the new range.
It seems like there are two conflicting goals:

- don’t explicitly consider race, gender, etc., while you make a decision about a cohort of admitted applicants. That is, only use other “performance” criteria (grades, essay, recommendations, etc).

- ensure that post facto, the observed distribution of demographic properties of your cohort of admitted students fairly reflects the natural distribution, within a societally acceptable margin of error.

The problem is that these two goals are in conflict for at least two reasons, one big and one small.

The small reason is that a person’s most salient “performance” metrics might involve direct relationship to their role in a religious community, race-related organization, etc., such that it is impossible to treat it like a truly demographic-blind process.

The big reason is that for whatever performance criteria you pick, like grades, test scores, essays, community involvement, etc., there is endemic and generational discrimination and privilege issues that can mean even if you truly did not want to make decisions based on race, religion, nationality, etc., you inadvertently did just by using proxies for societal scale discrimination or disadvantage in those categories.

So in the end, you can see why a big organization or corporation is terrified and would rather use quotas to explicitly control the relative ratios and acceptance ratios on a category-by-category basis.

I’m not trying to defend it. I think it’s a bad thing.

But what do we do? It seems like a lose-lose.

- If you ensure perfect decision blindness to race, religion, nationality, etc., you’ll end up admitting a cohort of students that greatly favors basically wealthy white people, because whatever proxies you do use will encode longterm privilege deeply enmeshed in them, way beyond whatever we are consciously aware of.

- If you do explicitly consider race, religion, nationality, etc., to try to manually control rates of admission per each possible category, you can ensure the admitted cohort has the overall demographic statistics you want, but only by explicitly making race, religion, etc., as major driving factors that are explicitly and consciously weighted into the admission decision.
The man who went to the North Korean place that “doesn't exist”
Here’s another article about it https://www.popsci.com/carbon-fiber-from-plants#page-3
> the roll-out of social credit scores in China

The thing is, these all aren't enforced by governments, but through social media and organizations. The popular one sesame credit in China is from the Alibaba group, not the Chinese government. In the same vein, Instagram is it's own platform, people can determine how much they think "followers" are worth and businesses can use their own discretion to decide how much to enforce their own policies based on others "social credit" or "followers"
A simple dictionary-based spell checker would be enough. Even vim ships with one of those.
BTW BOE stands for Beijing Optoelectronics. The company that lived on gigantic state handouts up until around 3 years ago.
A suggestion for the benchmarks: add one where the screen is filled with a solid color. I was getting 175fps on 1280x768 with a 1.5Ghz AMD back in 2003.
Letters: How to Reverse the Rising Suicide Rate
four roses produces single barrel bourbons - typically through their barrel select program, where you can taste a couple of different mash bills, but more important to the question: yeasts. you can taste the different yeast strains changing the end flavor. everything makes a bit of difference, if you're you're not trying to make neutral grain spirit.
>While well intentioned

How long can elite bureaucrats play games of selecting winners and losers before we stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Barriers to entry to competition will always be deleterious to results. Especially when those barriers to entry are based on financial incentives and racism.

And let's be honest, anyone familiar is fully aware that at the very least, you can quite easily coast through Harvard if you don't care about your GPA or major.

The discussion should be about 'what's stopping us from giving everyone open access and opportunity,' not 'we must reject thousands of qualified candidates, let's have a law suit to decide the correct number of Asians.'
Lessons Using Apache Airflow [ENGINEERING]
How noble of you to steal what you didn’t want to pay for to fulfill your urge. Do you try this at the grocery store also when you get frustrated by the prices charged by the people that created the items?
So, you disagree with the allegation that the admissions office was biased against Asian-Americans in the personality test?
How to meet friends in your 30s: as long as people are kind, sincere, etc, then it doesn't matter if we have anything in common.
And bourbon from Kentucky.
To get past the affirmative-action-is-reverse-racism argument that often frame these discussions, I'd recommend checking out this thoughtful breakdown of the case from Metafilter:

Yeah, debates over affirmative action are just one of many situations where the Asian American "model-minority" mythos gets used in service of anti-Black and anti-Latinx racism, and I encourage other Asian Americans to resist being used as tools for this agenda. Our proximity to whiteness will not protect us. Our ancestors never enjoyed it, and it will not save our children. In solidarity with other minorities, we can use the privilege we have to dismantle the systems that oppress the most vulnerable among us.

On multiple occasions in my life, white people irl have complained to me about how affirmative action disadvantages Asian Americans, clearly expecting me to agree. I think this demonstrates a profound and/or willful ignorance of history? Racism against Asian Americans definitely exists -- but anti-Asian racism looks very different from anti-Black and anti-Latinx racism, it has different historical roots, and it has had different historical impacts. In some contexts, Asian Americans get the privileges associated with proximity to whiteness, and in other contexts, they don't.

I think the educational system leading up to elite universities and white-collar professional fields is one context where Asian American and white people generally get profound advantages.

https://www.metafilter.com/174730/Asian-American-Students-Su...

As this comment notes, the guy behind this case clearly has a clear ideological axe to grind:

I love to see Harvard squirm, and they surely deserve whatever fallout comes their way from this case. But there's some context here worth keeping in mind: this lawsuit is part of a sustained campaign by neocon perpetual litigant Edward Blum to kill affirmative action. He is the same guy behind Fisher v. University of Texas (previously), which claimed that a white applicant was the victim of "reverse racism." Whatever the merits and facts of Harvard's specific treatment of Asian-American applicants, Blum will be seeking the broadest possible ruling against race-based admissions policies across the board.

https://www.metafilter.com/174730/Asian-American-Students-Su...
Which is a great answer too, though our modern life puts it out of reach for most.
> By enforcing racial quotas, Harvard and other institutions are actively cementing race as an important factor in our society

That's not really accurate. If you look at the Coleman report, the main study that was done in the run up to school desegregation and forced busing, it showed a bunch of negative impacts to changing the racial balance of institutions too quickly. That research was largely ignored, which in part lead to white flight, inner city gangs, and a bunch of other issues we still haven't really recovered from to this day.

Contrast this to the integration of gays in the military, which was done over a few years rather than all at once and went much more smoothly -- you didn't see any major issues or society-wide backlash as a result.

The point is that policies that ignore race often make racial issues more salient and pronounced as a result, rather than leading to a society where race isn't a factor or whatever. That's not to say that Harvard isn't doing anything wrong, but it's naive to assume that ignoring race is going to lead to some sort of post racial society.

C.f.: http://pages.jh.edu/jhumag/0400web/18.html

It's actually still one of the biggest studies ever done and probably that ever will be done, because it was conducted before they really understood the math behind representative samples and statistical significance, so it had way more participants than were actually needed.
As the internet gets bigger, it's been feeling increasingly "small" to me. The time I spend is concentrated on a few sites, which haven't changed much in years.

I used to find random forums and communities on a regular basis, and each had their own character. They were small enough that I'd quickly come to know various people in the community and establish a connection with them, whereas now posting always feels I'm broadcasting to nobody in particular.

Nowadays, I often write posts, think "wait, does this matter? why am I posting this?" and then just delete it. It feels like dumping words into the abyss.
They didn't have much choice at the time: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20041104-00/?p=...
I'd go to a clean Motel 6 any day of the week. Unpretentious, a good value, and frequently you're dealing with locally-run operations so you're actually dealing with folks empowered to handle an issue and even sometimes give a damn.

All of my experiences with mid-to-high end hotels seem like an exercise in bilking you at every turn so you can pretend you're wealthy, and hotel staff that are artificially polite at best, indifferent and uncaring at worst.
Hướng dẫn điều trị cơ nhị đầu cánh tay bằng xoa bóp bấm huyệt
I definitely spend an unproductive amount of time on web.archive.org.

I am very nostalgic of the early 2000 internet (I'm also 30). I spent a majority of my free time making anime websites. I met a lot of friends through affiliating with their sites.

Not only that, but on all the various forums I participated in and later (2004) through World of Warcraft.

I miss it all.
That's not what the article said. The key point is that Asian applications scored well in "whole person" metrics when evaluated face to face, from teachers, high school counselors, and alumni interviews, but much worse when graded by Harvard admissions officers, on supposedly similar categories.

All of those subjective ratings should be heavily correlated, as they are all trying to measure the same things.
Have you heard of the Fiesta Movement? [1] Ford essentially did that back in 2010.

With the right brand, right audience, and right production value, anything's possible. Influencer marketing can be finicky, though. A successful campaign requires authenticity – most audiences can see right through paid promotion. I think there's a different dynamic when a brand approaches a creator vs. a creator approaching a brand.

I think a lot of these self-proclaimed "influencers" seek out "luxury" type branding in an attempt to get free stuff they otherwise probably couldn't afford or to create content around a lifestyle which seems unattainable to their audience and therefore draws more views/clicks/shares/virality ("If only I could live like that one day") – mostly Internet junk-food.

[1] https://hbr.org/2010/01/ford-recently-wrapped-the-firs
I argue that having children is 100% a conscious decision (well, unprotected sex is) and if you can’t afford to actually raise your children, you are not in a position to have them. Seriously, why does nobody do the math and make a budget BEFORE having children? I know the answer: lots of babies are accidents and abortion is still seen as wrong by a lot of people. If you don’t have the means to raise children (financially or time-wise), don’t have them.
I’m not optimistic. Nobody is actually struggling to find talent, rather they are just not willing to pay competitive wages.

If your goal is to underpay someone at all costs, then I agree getting creative with the types of candidate backgrounds you’ll consider might work.

Otherwise, college experience is just another way of getting some signal or info about a candidate’s talent. It’s not a guarantee of anything, just an often useful signal.
> In the end, writes Taylor, it was a white man’s revolution whose success came at the expense of everyone else—blacks, Indians, and women.

Talk about rewriting History! At the time the American Revolution was widely regarded as a sign of progress - remember that no country had achieved freedom from oppressive monarchs in Europe, and the Americas led the way to true democracy. And the Founding Fathers, instead of establishing an aristocracy on their own (which is what most revolutionaries do), created the Constitution and gave power back to communities and states.

Looking at History with the eyes of the modern man is laughable. Progress has to start somewhere.
>> -- staffers who are likely under pressure to deliver a target mix of ethnicities each year --

under pressure to deliver a target mix of ethnicities sounds more like, we do not have a hard quota but we have a wink-and-nod quota.
That absolutely is not misleading, the SEC flat out doesn't have the power to criminal prosecution and send someone to prison.
Glad you asked. I haven’t refreshed this list for a while so I don’t know how valid the links are, but there should be plenty of useful content here: https://gist.github.com/macintux/6349828
And yet sadly that almost always what authors reach for when looking to explain OOP...
Socioeconomic background is blocked out for need-blind schools, of which there are a ton, Harvard included.

The application process becomes a strict meritocracy when all of these points (race/name/need) are blocked, which works in a perfect world but does not work when you consider that socioeconomic disparities tend to impact minority races the most. Strict meritocracies are favored in the bay but are substantially out of favor everywhere else precisely because so many minorities are born directly into a disadvantage.

To encourage the leveling of socioeconomic success, race-aware admissions will probably be necessary until we as a country start seeing success in moving the odds of economic success closer to the center rather than in favor of white males.

Anyway this isn't really a commentary on this specific lawsuit so much as it's a response to the suggestion of blinding multiple other categories out.