skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Ultimately, regardless of what he does, a man will be considered sexist by someone.

I mean this is how I read it, but again, I thought it lacked nuance. Someone is key here and ties into how we respond to sensationalized perspectives. I'm advocating for more nuance and being more careful in interpretation. Such as not treating the term "sexist" as being a binary position. I would, and am, argue(ing) that interpreting the word as a binary classification is only detrimental. It in itself is a bad faith response. But we have a problem that "sexist" means different things to different people. While one may interpret my usage as such, I believe that there is sufficient information in my several comments that I am not using the word as such a classification (even explicitly stating so) and this is where I draw contention with the responses I'm getting.

It should be apparent that responding to me as if I am using such a binary classification will give me the impression that one simply skimmed and responded thinking "oh you're one of those people." I'm actively advocating for reducing this type of response, because I think we'd argue that binning people is far too common and leads to many of the problems (in fact, binning is the root of this entire post, thread, and conversation). This is why I'm saying that the damned if you do, damned if you don't is a false dichotomy as (as I stated in the original response) the actions are not equally as bad. It matters "how damned" someone is. My entire thesis lies in a continuum.

> That minority can and has killed people's careers and thus, we have the cautious behavior mentioned in TFA.

Maybe I can be more clear in my response to this. I am saying that how we are responding to sensationalized content is feeding into this behavior. We need tempered and thoughtful responses, not knee jerking emotional reactions (we don't have to be void from emotion). I don't think it is enough to just complain about these people, but that we are perpetuating this system by clicking, retweeting, liking, and pushing these comments into the forefront of our conversations. That minority has killed many peoples' careers (some justified some not, but we're presumably discussing the unjustified cases), but the reason these (unjustified cases) careers have been destroyed is because of public response and selection bias of what majority opinion is. As an example of this Speedy Gonzales was canceled because complaints/fear of ethnic sterotyping. But it was later brought back due to League of United Latin American Citizens noting that he was a cultural icon that was seen positively by Latin American viewers. It is a clear case of letting the minority's opinion overrule that of the majority. I believe that if we let people that are looking for problems dictate what a problem is then we'll only have a race to the bottom. I do not believe the people responding to me and downvoting would disagree, and that is where my confusion lies.
I increasingly find myself on the axis of "dont" for a lot of reasons:

* Age (why do older people always assume their prior experience in stone-age computers informs modern age computing? Sometimes it does, but often it doesn't)

The contra case is: amazingly large number of truisms found in the 50s 60s and 70s hold true today as well.

* Experience (why do experienced people always assume you can explain things to inexperienced people? Some things have to be experienced to be understood)

The contra case is that some uplifts can be done, and don't have to be experienced. But how to decide which ones?

So this men clamming up thing can be at least two other reasons for holding schtum: Maybe its not about mars/venus but is about age and experience concerns?
I think public opinion is pretty clear at this point that no one cares about the specifics of the legal arguments made in any court cases other than lawyers and activists trying to gin up arguments for their side, and perhaps a very small number of people who care about the rule of law for its own sake. Everyone else just cares about the outcome of the case. No credibility is at stake, because 95% of the population has no interest in the contents of legal briefs.
The men are assuming based on the female founder’s gender _alone_ that she might accuse him of sexism.

Are they, necessarily? This could be entirely up to expected value and cost/benefit. Right now, current day, on average, the amount of power and attention wielded by a woman making an accusation of sexism is far larger than that which would be wielded by a man. This gender skew in outcome causes the cost/benefit calculations made by advice givers to also be gender-skewed. As a result, women get one cost/benefit calc, and men get another.

The problem is precisely systemic societal inequality and sexism. It's sexist to automatically value the word of one gender over that of another. However that is essentially what our society does in this context, made worse through social media's amplification of the mob mentality. It's this amplified societal gender skew which is the problem.

The way out of this is to value and respect evidence. The way out of this is due process and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The way out is through principles which we know can counteract the evils and dysfunction of the mob, which we have known and codified, and whose value has been borne out by history, since nearly a millennium ago. Only this time, let's apply these gender neutrally.
Web components = build your own custom HTML elements (in a nutshell). Instead of building complex interactive things with <div> <span> etc. and a mess of styling & JS, you ship a JS file and users create in their HTML <date-picker>, <file-open-dialog>, etc. that you defined.

React = component-based JS single-page app architecture, using a fully virtual DOM and event system, and a new template language called JSX to greatly simplify the dev experience.

React and web components are kinda orthogonal ideas. React gives you a framework for building apps using React's design choices (including breaking your page into small reusable JS components, much like web coomponents allow too). But React goes significantly further and has opinionated choices about how to build your app, how to template your components, etc.

Web components just give you a framework-independent way to ship new elements to browsers and users--that's it. You can (in theory) actually make a web component that wraps around a React component if you were really motivated.

Why you see so much buzz and mention about web components these days is that browsers have improved _greatly_ since React was brand new. Many of the reasons to reach for a big framework like React have gone away. You don't have to rely on a super complex build system, bundlers, webpack, etc. to ship your JS to users anymore--mainstream browsers have support to import JS modules directly. You don't have to template your components in JSX and add all the baggage and complexity of a build transpilation step--you can use ES6 template literal syntax.

And that's where stuff like Ficus appears to fit in. It's for folks who don't want to pull in the complexity of a huge framework like React, but still want to build pages with components instead of a mess of imperative JS, jquery, etc. There's a whole bunch of little micro frameworks like this popping up--check out Haunted for another example.

I think a better comparison if you want to research things further would be comparing React with a web component-based framework like lit-element. Lit-element uses web components for its components, but it adds on a lot of opinionated design choices in a similar vein as React. Is one framework 'better' than the other? Well... it entirely depends on your needs and preferences. They're all capable of building great pages and apps, it's kind of like fussing and fighting over the brand of paint that you might use as a painter.
Oh man, take it from someone who has been in the Navy: that’ll have to be one gigantic and well-functioning spaceship.
I am unsure. I would say maybe if there is a lot of trust there. I offered candid responses before with mixed results. I did get into minor trouble but nothing horrible. Looking back at the experiences though, I still think twice before responding and I am a very talkative person.. In short, I am not sure you could have helped her there. Frankly, the person, whose first reaction is running to HR is not likely to be my best friend.
also if anyone wants to donate to our rescue services they can be found at https://www.rescue.is/

It's all volunteer based and non-for-profit and helps keeps sites like this eruption safe for all visitors.
Communism isn't a synonym for leftism. There is plenty of debate regarding the merits of intersectionalism. I wouldn't call it rigorous or academic, as neither intersectionalists nor many of the people who find it objectionable are particularly analytical, and their resistance to empirical methods isn't particularly inspiring.

Suffice it to say that I don't think you're on as solid intellectual footing as you think you are.

I have stairs in my house, too, by the way. SA has always had a pseudo-leftist bent, even when we were passing around videos of 9/11 set to the tune of Benny Hill. I have a few photoshop friday entries, in fact, if that's still a thing. D&D is the self-absorbed, ego-driven SA analog of stoners marveling over their own hands at 1am at the local Denny's. No thanks.
I wanted to point out the same thing, I'm counting six authors on this piece of science complaining there aren't any doers around. At this point we have reached peak papers, there is more truth to be found in a HN thread and thats saying a lot.
This is my experience as well. If you've ever worked in a field that's reported on consistently, or a field you're an expert in, you'll see it is about 30% is accurate and 70% is completely made up. Many times it was like "I didn't say that" or "that didn't happen at all" while I was standing next to the person who wrote the story. The media in the US is in sorry shape. They definitely earned, and deserve, their place at the bottom of those 'most respected profession' surveys.

Now, extrapolate that to reporting on fields you aren't an expert in and form your thoughts accordingly.
> If I ask you "why might my business fail?", and your gut reaction is "your personal life is a mess", do you tell me this?

Fair enough. I'd only tell if you were a good friend and even then it would probably take a drink or two at the pub.
The contract literally says, above the language we're talking about, that if they choose to refund you in Bitcoin, the Bitcoin they refund you may be worth less in USD than the value of the car. If you pay 2 BTC for a Tesla, you will get 2 BTC back, even if (probably especially if) BTC plummets to $1/BTC.

The other direction is not true: if BTC skyrockets up to $100k/BTC before you ask for a refund, you're getting $50k/USD back.
The day a good, decent, respectful man giving a woman honest feedback is considered by the majority to be “some toxic male getting their just desserts”, we’ve gone way, way beyond where we are now. That destination is only possible if we capitulate to a loud minority making unfair accusations.
nothing nearly as heady, mate. Just pointing out the obvious trope about wish spells backfiring because unambiguous wording is absurdly difficult. It's all throughout media -- so your argument must be something that people should be able to easily intuit.

I'm agreeing with you.
> An important part of any utopia, presumably, is freedom. While probably no-one’s dying of an overdose (they can treat that!) it’s made fairly clear that a lot of people don’t make optimal choices with that freedom.

Well perhaps so. But I think it would take the sheen off the whole utopia thing if, when describing one of the cities on one of their Orbitals, they said, oh yeah, that neighborhood is where all of the people who went psychotic from constantly glanding Meth live, you don't want to go there. But don't worry, we're still definitely better than those nasty Azadians!
Personally I found that with age, the ‘excitement’ you mention gave way to a deeper level of understanding and satisfaction (50’s here).Sure over the years some things were more interesting than others, buts its what you make of it. Software development provides an endless set of challenges, generally pays well and from my own observation it is also possible to work well into later life.
Why was LibreOffice forked? Wouldn't it be beneficial to roll these changes directly upstream?
Developer tools need to be open source, but creating a business model to support open source developer tooling is difficult to impossible.
> There is a nonzero risk in any social interaction that involves giving critical feedback.

Which leads me back to GP's point: there are only two choices. I take it that you're saying that the risk of the second choice can be ignored if taking some steps, but the consequences remain the same, and GP didn't speak about the thresholds or ways to improve the odds. He only mentioned that the risk exists and isn't worth it for him, and you disagree, but that's not much to go on.

> I’m not quite sure what to say to you. Living life involves risks. It sure seems like one of those risks is being deliberately amplified to be used as an excuse to “not even bother” with female founders.

Conversely, I'm not sure what's being implied here so I don't know how to reply.

For what it's worth, TFA isn't saying that investors aren't bothering with female founders. They are, but are being careful with the feedback they give.

ETA: Forgot to mention, the way you're suggesting investors to "manage" the risk not only doesn't remove the risk for investors, but it also leaves female founders at a disadvantage anyway: male founders can get critical feedback right away, female founders have to wait until a rapport is built.
So, another problem with the WHO team investigating this, is that if it came from a lab it not only makes China look bad, it also makes scientists look bad. Regardless of whether it should or not (and I am certainly in favor of researching potential threats), it clearly will. If I'm a Dutch, Canadian, Indian, or any other kind of researcher who looks at viruses (or anything else really) that comes from wild animals, I would have a really big emotional block in the way of any suggestion that this came about because of my profession.

1) it wouldn't feel good

2) it wouldn't do good things for my prospects of getting more funding for my lab

3) it would cause a bunch of new onerous regulations to come down on the way I get to work in my lab

4) it would make me wonder if friends and family and neighbors and etc. now regard my profession as the cause of a disaster

I don't think we can expect bankers to decide that excess financial complexity was the cause of the 2008 Fiscal Crisis, or intelligence agencies to decide that excessive meddling in other countries fueled terrorism. It is expecting quite a lot to think that scientists will decide that scientific research is what caused this problem.
The other thing here, is "second system effect" I do believe the women founders are getting gazumped, but sometimes, the gazumping will be somebody like Amazon doing it badly at scale, for a price you can't match and with Amazon backed guarantees. Your elegant solution got second-systemed.

Or maybe, it's the double-whammy? They second-systemed you and ghosted you and clammed up all at the same time?

I have experienced sitting in an international research workshop hearing my work played back to be by a PhD student. They're going to be first-to-file because they got peer review and in a commercial research domain, I didn't bother validating my idea properly in the peer-set. It was a lesson in dotting the I and crossing the T if you want recognition for prior work.
This is a really important point, and it highlights a pattern that humanity is all too familiar with: overcompensation.

The dominant view on social issues swings like a pendulum. When one extreme falls out of disfavor, there is a shift toward the other extreme.

I hope that one day we can settle on something sane. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
Pears, too, only ripen properly several days off the tree.

Took me too many years to discover this with my pear tree in the back yard.
> AssertionError: CUDA must be available in order to use Deep Daze

And here I was hoping to generate extensive phallic imagery on this most auspicious of nights.

This “CUDA” is Nvidia only if memory serve, correct?
As a woman, I adopted this solution about a year ago. I will literally tell new teammates, "Look, I'm new to this career, I have a TON to learn, and I would love to be critiqued and given advice on how I can improve. I operate under a good-faith policy, so I will always assume you're being helpful and not condescending, unless you're overwhelmingly insulting (ie: telling me women aren't made for leadership roles.)"

I do not exaggerate when I say that the amount of meaningful advice I've been given since I adopted this technique has increased 5x.

Another perk--due to my vocal policy on this, I had an autistic colleague tell me that I'm the only woman he feels comfortable working with. He struggles to read social situations, and he frets that women will interpret his bluntness as him being dismissive or "mansplaining." It made me very sad to think he's missing out on good relationships with so many talented women in our office, just because of this environment of fear. But he's a wonderful friend and colleague, and I am so happy to have his advice and support.
From a totally personal/non-policy perspective:

On one hand, I feel I might be selfish for supporting something that’s obviously in my interest given I’m vaccinated. And hey, if I’m vaccinated, I shouldn’t be so worried about being in a room with people who aren’t, right?

But then I consider the anti-vaccination crowd are perfectly happy to let me take on all the risks of what they think is dangerous/bad/whatever, so why shouldn’t I also reap the rewards?

Though I do feel bad about those who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons caught up in the middle.

Ultimately I suppose on balance I would let businesses decide, and maybe have the government grant them some kind of immunity for it.
> The same with class Math, such as Math.floor and Math.ceil.

I still want to group them somehow and this "somehow" better have name "Math" so other people would see what it is.

Why are people so attached to name "class". Call it "namespace with state capabilities" if you're annoyed by "class" so much. Or just use namespaces like in C#. You still want namespaces, that's the point.

And speaking about your example. More often than not, we've got quite a bit of functionality attached to program startup and I'd rather have it focused in one single module "Start"/"Application"/"Runner" whatever you want to call it but I want it to be _focused_ and easily searchable, not floating in a see of function.

And by the way, same argument can be made about functions, why do I have to create "main()" at all, why not just start writing instructions like in bash script or python?
Sometimes, it's better to keep things to yourself, and not give people any ideas.
> An important part of any utopia, presumably, is freedom.

Most utopian visions include some concept of “freedom”, but “freedom” is a pretty infinitely malleable concept that can mean almost anything.
Independent journalists have been moving to Substack. I subscribed to one, for about a year, who charged like $5/month.

I felt that it was good value, this particular solo journalist did a ton of investigative research and posted almost every day.

So, I think there's a business model for it if you can get enough subs to sustain yourself.
>It seems foolish to think that Chevron put the resources into mitigating environmental damage in some poor country for their oil projects in the 70s/80s.

No one is claiming they did as I'm reading it. They did however pay $40 million to fix some damage in 1995 and were granted indemnity by the Ecuador government in return. Other environmental damage was found but it likely happened after Chevron was no longer involved in the project. Together that means they're off the hook legally.
I wonder if any of the OpenBeta/etc data is in OpenStreetMap.
SQLite uses advisory locks but the `cp` command won't adhere to those so you can get a copy that contains only some of the writes from a transaction. If you're lucky, you just get some wonky data. If you're unlucky, you can get a corrupted copy.

Transactions are only atomic from the perspective of other transactions. Other processes or commands on the system can see partial state. This applies to both the rollback journal & the WAL modes.

File copies are also covered in their "How to Corrupt a SQLite Database File" web page[1].

[1]: https://www.sqlite.org/howtocorrupt.html#_backup_or_restore_...
I think it is just a general dynamic of social movements.

As they accomplish their goals the moderate extreme membership drops out and the median voice moves ever towards the radical. "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain" sort of thing. I'm not trying to say that about any specific movement, but it does seem like the "hero" aspect of many movements is on the decline.
Curious, does this support libreoffice base?
My problem with this whole situation is that I'm not sure the mob is angry because of the discrimination problem as opposed to pretending to be angry and virtue-signaling to take advantage of the situation. I'd bet that for every person legitimately angry about the situation and has valuable input, there will be dozens who simply exploit the situation for their own benefit. This isn't limited to people even - companies do this too.

The mob mentality itself supports this theory; a genuine effort to solve discrimination would involve respectful communication in an attempt to understand the problem, iron out any misunderstandings and change minds; but this is not what we see - instead we have witch-hunts, partly because the mere appearance of being human towards the "enemy" would cause the rest of the mob to turn on you, but maybe also because there isn't much willingness to actually solve the problem, or maybe even because there wasn't actually a problem if you drill down into the details?

This reminds me of Daryl Davis, a black man who attended KKK rallies in an effort to understand their racist opinions and change their minds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis - that is a genuine effort to solve a problem, which unfortunately wouldn't be possible today because you'd be attacked by the mob for attempting something like this.

> Perhaps, but that all goes away if discrimination is eliminated from our culture.

I'm not sure this will go away; if certain people (or even entire industries) benefit from outrage they will happily find something else to be outraged about.

> We’ve found ways to combat pandemics in ways our ancestors thought impossible. We’ve found ways to travel to the moon. We’ve found ways to communicate instantaneously across the world. Yet imagining such a casual solution to social issues seems to be naïvely optimistic at best, delusional at worst.

The difference is that there is a major upside for solving these problems and little to no downside. I'm not sure whether mob/outrage/SJW culture will ever disappear instead of just digging even deeper for things to be offended about especially when money or virtue is at stake.
“History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes” – Mark Twain.

In the 1930s, private label was in 80% of American retail and accounted for roughly a quarter of revenue. Amazon copies what retailers did a century ago and does it on the Internet.
It's good to remember that some of Shakespeare is just a more poetic version of texting a peach emoji and eggplant emoji.