skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Race blindness isn’t the end goal, the goal is racial equality.

Says you. The whole concept of race is an aritifical construction, a barbaric vestige of the past that should be rightfully recognized for what it is, and cast off.

>Today, black people on average make 1/3 less income than white people. Even if society were totally race blind, some of that disparity would remain—it would be the legacy of when society wasn’t race blind. You can’t fix that injustice by ignoring race.

Of course you can. The issue is economic equality, not race. In your paradigm, just making a whole bunch of white people a lot poorer would be a fine solution, as there would be no economic disparity between "races". We need to strive towards a society where everyone has economic security and prosperity regardless of the tone of their skin or any historical prejudices their ancestors may have suffered at any time.

>I think history will remember “race blindness” with derision.

I think history will remember those who clung to the barbaric vestiges of the past with derision and as an impediment to social progess. We need a society that aims to lift all people out of poverty and powerlessness, not just the ones whose ancestors were discriminated against. Clinging to the injustices of the past and codifying racial polarization into law is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing to evolve as a society.
Indeed. By the same logic we can tell there’s massive and pervasive pro-Chinese bias in Malaysia and Indonesia and pro-Jewish bias in the entire Western world. Obviously we in the West need to cap the number of Jews in elite universities. /s
Piracy is not the same as theft. Please do not conflate the two
It doesn't need to be from Kentucky, but it does need to be from the US (in addition to being majority corn, etc.) [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_whiskey#Legal_requirem...
Sounds like they just learned a good lesson about not trusting marketing. ;)
Disagree about banking (having gone to business school and worked on Wall Street myself), but would add doctor/nurse, engineer, psychologist, and most other jobs that will survive the automation apocalypse.
I think someone could self study and become a lawyer or banker / stock broker, but licensing requirements would prevent it (not necessarily for good reason).
Hmm.. 1. This is being announced on GitHub, a Microsoft entity; 2. there are typos everywhere in the documentation; 3. the code is generally undocumented.

This is a single author's work to write a demonstration piece. Odd that is made the top five items on HackerNews.
Why is the name even a factor? Why can't it be an input of criteria, and handled by formulas? We're not in the 1920's with a guy with a fat cigar looking at each one individually, while burning and throwing away the ones that sound (irish/black/jewish/whatever).
I've never actually been forgotten, but I've definitely spent months unutilized. Once was as a consultant through a third party. Job was a 1 year contract to help implement some APIs. they had enough work planned for about one month, then nothing for a loooong time. I worked on some load testing busy work sporadically during this period. It was the type of situation where the on site manger knew he didn't have anything for me, so we just sort of mutually agreed to not discuss it.

I was offered to convert to full time by the same manager. I said "Seriously? I haven't done sh-- here?" He replied yeah but I contributed more than a lot of the others. I declined as I had another job lined up already. But I was stunned, still am when I reflect on it.
But is it worth the time?

I've seen the studies showing how people who get more sleep live longer, but I always wonder, if you were measuring "total number of waking hours lived", would they come out to more or less equal?

(My curiosity has never been strong enough to make me actually do the calculation.)
As someone who is even older and has seen these types of threads, I can say with some confidence that this is called nostalgia (phpBB was never good). Not to say the internet is not ripe for another decentralization of power. Lack of patience is an issue.
Because Harvard administrators think the upper echelons of society - which a Harvard education can lead someone to - should reflect the racial makeup of the broader society as a whole by default. While they must discriminate negatively against Asian Americans to achieve this goal, this discrimination is justified in their minds.

I'm not defending it, just recognizing discrimination is not an end for them but a means to what they consider a just society.
Messi is doing several things in the referenced video. First, he's staying wide (almost to the touchline) which is drawing the 2 defenders towards him. This increases the open space for attack, but more importantly it betters the overall ratio of attackers to defenders in the active part of the field. He's also intentionally walking. Running, and more so sprinting, causes opposing players to be more aware of you. Walking suggests you aren't actively participating. When the defenders turn their attention to the play, he slowly moves in behind them - this puts him in a more dangerous position (this isn't a great clip to demonstrate this because he ends up having to back up to receive the cross.) Notice also he's positioning himself so he's not substantially closer to one defender than the other - you don't really see the effect of it here - but that will tend to cause both players to cover him. If he can pull two defenders instead of one to cover him, he really doesn't need to do anything else to increase the odds for his team. But space-making isn't the real genius of Messi. His ability and willingness to take on several (or more) players at once, aside from the obvious advantage when he scores in such situations, will draw opposing players to him, opening up the rest of his team for through-passes into dangerous positions where defenders have been pulled out of place.
And there have been amazing incremental battery advances over the last decade.
Black people on average make 1/3 less income than the average white person because certain significant subgroups of white people are highly privileged. The problem you then hit is that when you start compensating for certain groups by race, instead of the actual root of the problem (people who don't come from a priviledged background have a hard time getting out of it), you then leave everyone else absolutely screwed. There's a LOOOOOOT of white people out there, and some are in exactly the same boat.

That's what is happening here, but with Asians. Imagine you're Asian but not from a privileged background. Now not only you have to claw yourself out of that, not only you have to deal with not being white, but you also have to fight against the school's racial quota.

Odds aren't great for you. Worse, its' not just some society bias, it's not just people's racism...it's literally a rule. We're in 2018. Let's not have rules that screw over underprivileged people by race just because some subgroups of those race might make the statistics look in their favor.
This is interesting. I am curious what is the upside to a stock company if all the shares are owned by the same entity(the government)? Are there some classes of the DB stack that are allowed to be publicly traded then?
The Paperclip Maximizer
The right way is to improve education in neighborhoods with black/hispanic communities.

Instead if we just introduce quotas, the system is not going to improve. Having 50 more blacks admitted to Harvard does not change anything for millions of African Americans who get lower quality education. This is just the easy way out for politicians.
I don't under-pay anyone, but like most people hiring for desirable jobs, I have too many resumes to sort through and could never interview everyone. You find yourself reaching for quick filters, even if they're not perfect.

Could I miss out on great candidates by interviewing only people with college degrees? Yes, and I'm sure I have.

But the ones I have interviewed have also ended up being the worst interviews of my career, and it had nothing to do with technical skill. YMMV
Ha. I just checked into a Marriott about an hour ago.

In the lobby, there was a giant touchscreen and one of the icons was "social media".

I tapped it, and it said "Our Instagram account is currently offline."
TACHYONS – Functional css for humans
I always skip the first season when I rewatch it. You don't really miss anything.

I do the same thing for Parks and Rec and the Office (US), both of which had subpar first seasons in my opinion.
Maybe. But also a honeypot for clueless pedophiles.

Seriously, though, pedophiles make great canaries. Everyone hates them, even those who create and manage systems for security and privacy. And police love to brag about busting them. For example, we learned about Freenet vulnerabilities and CMU's Tor exploit through pedophile busts.
This isn't Maybe. Optional in Swift is Maybe.
Constantly locking and unlocking handles was the problem. The whole point of having handles was so they could be moved around, and locking them defeated the purpose. People just created their own problems by dereferencing a handle and then wondering why their pointer became invalid and then locking stuff willy-nilly to prevent it.
Names absolutely matter. Many studies have been done where the same resume was submitted with different names. Why not Google it?
Not sure what GP was referring to, but those issues are related. If Asian-Americans were 40% of Harvard (as they should be based on merit), instead of 17% (as they are now) then that would mean fewer spaces for everyone else. In particular, it would make achieving the goal of affirmative action - proportionate representation for black and Hispanic students - much harder.
The answer is one that was unfortunately rejected years ago - class-based affirmative action instead of race-based affirmative action. For example, there are far few legitimate greivances that would (or could) be raised by giving admissions preferences to those whose parents don't have a college degree. The end result would still end up assisting minorities most in need without codifying racial preferences or getting bogged down in the arbitrary idea of race at all.
if it's re hosting video like mine does then yes.
I can't imagine buying a disc and not immediately ripping and trans-coding it, though I was assuming buying some cheaper, downloadable content in the first place.
Or Mike Church, or Uncle Bob... pretty common, actually.
The one I wanted is gone ;)
Because we must assume black people are intrinsically just as capable as white people, the goal must be to drive that disparity to zero.

Must we? There's another comment here about no one seeming too bothered that the NBA doesn't contain very many Asians. Is it already too racist to believe that there are certainly trends in race, and that everyone is different and should be considered on their individual merits alone?

As a (Asian) friend once remarked, "raise the bar on us and we just jump higher. Lower the bar on the Blacks and they try even less, because they know they don't have to do as much."

Indeed, it seems all that making it harder for Asians and easier for Blacks has done is pushed the Asians harder to achieve even more, which certainly isn't helping equality much. A pretty good demonstration of the law of unintended consequences.
Yes, but when they used purely merit-based standards, some groups consistently scored lower than other groups. That was deemed unacceptable, so discrimination was reintroduced to the process.
> Black people on average make 1/3 less income than the average white person because certain significant subgroups of white people are highly privileged.

No that is wrong. It’s not some elite white subgroup. According to the BLS: “Among the major race and ethnicity groups, median weekly earnings for Black men working at full-time jobs were $723, or 72.5 percent of the median for White men ($997).” That’s not even counting large differences in employment rates.

Put another way, if whites took a pay cut so they made the same as blacks, $1.6 trillion of national income would disappear, a number comparable to the total income of the entire top 1% ($2 trillion).

We’re not talking about elites. The median white person is much better off than the median black person.
I think something that's overlooked is the importance of parents in admissions. Case in point: Jewish culture values education in the same way that Asian families value education. As a result, a large number of white students admitted to Ivy Leagues are Jewish. 25% of the white students in my med school (Yale) were Jewish, despite making up only 1.4% of the U.S. population.

I don't agree with racial quotas, but there has to be some form of normalization for students whose parents/culture/childhood environment didn't value education.
> Judging by your username you want to see the world burn.

An effective ad hominum!
> The reverse is never true (nothing explained by science has subsequently found a better explanation in religion)

1. Scientific explanations are often found to be incorrect.

2. Scientific explanations are often found to be incomplete.

3. Scientific explanations are often found to build on assumptions.

My posts in this thread are not so much about Religion, but about what do you believe. Everyone believes something. Why do you believe what you do?
All of those things are really subjective. A selfie is just a photo of the subject in situ, and it's often more genuine than stock/provided shots used in travel marketing.

Consider also that the alternatives are heeding the hotel itself or a booking engine or a travel agent. As was said, if you're going to be influenced by someone, why wouldn't it be someone whose veneer of life you'd at least tangentially followed, someone who might typically have similar interests to you (surfing, outdoors, fine dining, etc). It might be an imperfect filter of the products being offered, but at least there's a non-zero chance that they rejected poor offers or didn't write enthusiastically about the ones they didn't love.

I think it's short sighted to write off some of this.
> At what point does it start to approximate reality?

When you can cram a few billion pixels onto the head of a pin.
Just to remember the 1990s, Harvard was also shown to colluded with other good schools to maximize the number of scholarships awarded. For example, one might receive a full scholarship from MIT or Harvard but not both.

As in that case, the activity leads to great discussions about what is fair, what are the goals of a university, and what may a private university choose?
People in other threads have stated authoritatively that web sites are not responsible for adhering to the GDPR rules in cases of EU citizens outside of the EU, if they do not cater to the EU in general.
Well, Either is a monad. Evolution of this style to avoid divergent nesting depths (The Codoken: http://i.imgur.com/BtjZedW.jpg) is a monad, even in the "railway" style of F#.
Somewhat High-level article https://www.edn.com/5G/4458325/What-is-5G-NR-

Another somewhat high-level PPT http://www.5gsummit.org/docs/slides/John-Smee-5GSummit-Silic...

I've worked on LTE; the 5G NR physical layer look to me to be very similar to LTE. See http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/38-series.htm and https://www.keysight.com/upload/cmc_upload/All/Understanding... for gory details
Are those privileges really given to Asians? Isn't there a little possibility they have reached those privileges by themselves?

Why should a student who has worked hard all his life be punished for being Asian?

Why don't we try instead teaching those who are left behind how to get a at the top?

And by the way I'm not "white" at least not in the new racist standard, I'm a Latino (as if that meant anything, a race or an ethnicity? No one knows).
> This is good up to a point, and obviously it makes sense for absolute beginners.

The way classes are explained with cars and animals has always struck me as extremely perverse, I've seen a couple of very bright students who were just baffled by what lesson they are meant to take away from the analogy. Consider:

Vehicle is to Car as is Superclass is to Subclass.

Vehicle is to Car as also is a string of bits is to a C int.

Why is this analogy any more relevant to explaining class relations vs explaining that all data can be represented as a stream of bits? Or a whole list of other concepts where a thing is classified? Once the OOP vehicle-car analogy is probed past the truly superficial grammar, there isn't anything there.

Classes are an organisational tool. They have more in common with database normal forms and and functional programming than cars. Representing that an organisational concept should be thought about as a physical relation is not helpful.
Why exactly does your mother need to run a full node? You imply incorrectly that to perform a Bitcoin transaction, one needs to have run a full node.
> a cohort of students that greatly favors basically wealthy white people
Isn't that already the case?
We can only become "post-racial" by acknowledging the role that race plays in our society. Otherwise, too much systemic and subconscious discrimination will get swept under the rug. Too many people who claim to want to be blind to race are either naive or willfully wanting to perpetuate conditions that are not equal based on the long history of discrimination in our society.

And Harvard's admissions aren't just about selecting the best collection of individual students. It's about selecting the best cohort of students. It's not just teachers that educate students, it's other classmates and a diversity of perspectives benefits all students. A good chef doesn't just choose all the most expensive ingredients, they try to balance flavors. Admissions departments should do the same, since their goal is to maximize the post-graduation success of the class they assemble, not to capture as much pre-admission achievement as possible.

For me, college was a time when I broadened my perspectives greatly. I can remember a discussion on, somewhat ironically, affirmative action in admissions, in which an African-American student said he didn't support it. His reasoning, which was eye opening to me at the time, was that he had no way of knowing whether he actually belonged there and worried that people looked at the color of his skin and assumed he got into school because of his race and not his intelligence. Up until that moment, I'd always looked at affirmative action as benefiting minorities at the expense of more deserving students. But I'd never consider the emotional toll it took on minorities. And that moment also drove home the fact that I'd never have gotten to hear that perspective if he hadn't been in that discussion group and, therefore, my education had been improved by his presence. After I made those points, it seemed to hit him that his presence there was valuable to the rest of us and not just the more limited way he'd seen it before. It was a bit of a kumbaya moment and several students remarked that their views of affirmative action had become more nuanced and (pardon the pun) less black and white.

The one area where I do agree with you is that I think racial categories often lack the nuance necessary to have that broadness of perspective in a college class. Lumping Southeast Asians, East Asians and South Asians together, for example, feels wrong to me. Similarly, lumping American caucasians with Russians, Scandanavian or Spanish people feels equally reductionist. Within the overly-broad racial categories, there's a lot of diversity that isn't necessarily recognized.
First, acquiring enough tokens to singlehandedly determine outcomes of votes is incredibly expensive. The simple act of buying tokens increases demand on the tokens (which have a fixed supply) thus increasing the market price. By the time a bad actor has acquired 51% (or close to it) of the tokens, they will likely have spent the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Second, even if they are able to acquire some huge percentage of the tokens, the public nature of the blockchain means we (the public) can actually do some pretty fancy analytics to determine if there's collusion between accounts and identify bad actors (if not by name, at least by account). The community can then decide to "fork" the bad actors out of the system (Essentially the community can deploy a new token that is identical to the old token except the bad actors' account balances are zeroed out. If everyone decides to switch to using the new token, the bad actors' old tokens become worthless and they just spent millions of dollars to slightly inconvenience people).

Specific details of our initial token distribution (how many tokens does 1 ETH buy, etc) are forthcoming, but after that initial distribution, the price of the tokens is determined by the market forces. It's those market forces that (theoretically) make the TCR actually "work" as token holders are incentivized to make the registry as "good" as possible and increase demand for the token (because people want to be on the registry).

-- Nick Reynolds
Tangentially, if we wanted a strict meritocracy based solely on someone's skills, then we'd base our decisions off of a skill assessment that was open to all people, and do away with college degree credentialism. The current system is based on what you were like when you were 17, what your peers (competition) at the time were like, how admissions personnel feel (what they believe is) your personality at a particular time fits (what they believe is) the culture of an institution at a particular time, etc.

I think this sometimes gets overlooked - no matter what form it takes, the system of college credentialism is in itself fairly arbitrary and removed from actual merit. It shouldn't be surprising that such a system tends to run into a lot of problems.
In my opinion, Harvard needs to just be straight about why they're doing what they're doing. If it's race-based quotas for the sake of class diversity or long-term societal benefit, then just say it outright and we can have a discussion as a society as to whether that's ok. I personally think this is bad (with medium confidence), but understand that there are arguments for why it may be necessary.

What they shouldn't do is try to say: Asian people have worse personal characteristics, when evaluated by our admissions committee, even though no such deficit is found by the face-to-face interviewers. That's not propping up one race for well-intentioned reasons, but rather suggesting that a specific race is timid, not leadership qualities, worker bees, and many of the other negative stereotypes assigned to Asians.

Can you imagine what the newspapers would say if Harvard just said that Jewish people, on average, had worse personalities? Say, less honest and forthcoming than other ethnic groups?
> Why is such an evaluation is even necessary? What is its purpose?

In general, selecting for good personality traits make sense. In the extreme, only selecting for test scores and grades ignores all of the characteristics that make a person good in real world endeavours (ex: all of the recurring HN stories about genius coders sucking at team work).

That said, evaluating for these in a consistent, non-biased way, at a scale of 40k/year seems incredibly difficult.
“Perfect” iTunes equalizer setting
This is exactly why I setup https://hackerforums.co ! It’s a small community, but humming along fine so far. I have a long post with details of our first month getting posted tomorrow!
In spite of a century the Black population is still concentrated in the South. I am not saying the disparity does not exist.

Blacks are less than 10% of population in California and about 33% of population in Alabama. That it self will skew numbers in certain way.
Looking for a Job? Try The Guaratee Company of North America's website and send a resume to the hr email. https://www.theguarantee.com/en/about/careers