skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are a lot of emotions involved in a startup, and everyone can be close to a breaking point (a lot of people thought Musk was falling apart during a low point for Tesla).

Being the bearer of bad news or unwelcome advice carries social risk, period.
You get support, and you may have a greater say on features.
Fast Fourier transform can be used to identify the pitches in a sounds sample. There are other methods but FFT gets the most press.
US law procedure is very good at defending the powerless. That's almost always never the case elsewhere.

It was Chevron who wanted the case heard in Ecuador. It was originally filed in NY (Chevron's HQ at the time). US courts agreed Ecuador had jurisdiction and exacted a promise from Chevron to abide by the Ecuadorian court's ruling, which Chevron promptly ignored.
The law prefers letting some who are guilty escape punishment over punishing the innocent.

Mob vigilantism does just the opposite. It does not trust the law to punish all who are guilty, so it punishes on mere accusations without concern for the innocent.

The difference between the two may be the reason fear is so powerful here.
Yes, and I'm sure the Dutch robotically compute such numbers, and there is rarely or never any subjectivity in their decision making that is justified ex post facto by clever accounting.
"Make healthier meal choices" is also vague, esoteric and for most people, will not result in weight loss. CICO is simple, effective and for the common person, a completely acceptable way to lose weight.

Communicating healthy eating, how your metabolism works, how each body reacts different to different kinds of foods, etc is a full time job. In a country (US) where attention spans are constantly being torn in every direction, educating people on the depths of how to correctly lose weight (minimizing muscle loss, maintaining energy levels, efficiently leveraging your body's metabolism) is a losing battle. Yes, jaded and cynical but its reality.

Sure we can be optimistic and _want_ people to lose weight correctly but if you're overweight or obese, the pros of CICO VASTLY outweigh the cons you described.
All I know is the flatter (beefeater tomato shape) don’t need to ripen (soften before eating), the heart-shaped ones are fussy and you need to let them get soft before eating. I prefer the former type.
I think the core point missed in this thread is: developers write software for a living. They do not want to pay for something they would love someone to pay them to write.

You see this in other professions. A car mechanic doesn't want to take there car to someone else. A doctor tries to avoid general checkups with other doctors. A realitor will sell their own house. A grass cutter doesn't hire someone to cut his lawn. The person who makes lawnmowers doesn't buy one he makes one even if it takes longer.
The problem isn't sexism/racism/etc per-se, and more the current culture of airing dirty laundry in public, amplified by hungry mobs and social media companies who profit off the resulting dumpster fire ("engagement" as they call it).

Furthermore, beyond the media (whether social media or traditional media - print, TV, etc) industry profiting off it, some people's careers are entirely based on this problem persisting. Dedicated "diversity & inclusion" roles have appeared, even though addressing any issues should be the job of any competent HR department - but now these specific roles would obviously become irrelevant if this problem is solved.

Racism, sexism and general "being an asshole" were always a problem (though the latter is now often - maliciously or otherwise - mistaken as the former) but back in the day humans successfully dealt with that in private, and the police and the law dealt with anything serious enough to warrant its efforts. Nowadays however, it's commonplace to turn it into dirty laundry and air it on social media and wait for the mob to jump in, which also allows false accusations and witch hunts to emerge.

---

I think this problem is mostly specific to the tech/media industry. There are plenty of other industries where racism & sexism are no doubt present, but overall people in these industries seem to be busy working and making money (which is the end-game of work at the end of the day) instead of constantly being offended.
I don't normally read the Washington Post, but this old article [1] has one memorable quote from Ben Rhodes (whom I also don't like overly much, but that doesn't matter in this case), and I can fully believe what he is saying:

“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-officia...
I don't think GP is saying that your comment by itself can be reduced to "damned if you do, damned if you don't". I think the point is that your position might lead to a Morton's fork in general.

I interpret it like this: On the one hand, there are people (many of whom with good intentions) instantly assuming that any criticism a man might give to a woman is rooted in sexism, to wit, what TFA mentions that investors are cautious about. On the other hand, there are people, also with good intentions, saying that "men being cautious in what they say to women" is also sexism.

Now, I don't know the solution either, but I do believe that a good first step would be not saying that people who are merely cautious (precisely not to come across as sexist) are sexist anyway.
She has a good point, and it's not one that can be easily addressed. I doubt there's any way for a "one size fits all" approach. I have had to manage both men and women, and the gender wasn't always a good indicator of the need to be careful in what I say.

But feedback is important. One of the things that I've learned, over the years (not just in tech -long story), is how to give feedback.

I have made some mistakes, and I rapidly learned that I only get one strike, as a manager, and not even that, if I'm not careful.

I have also been in the position of delivering feedback to someone I don't want to piss off, if at all possible (think green, with spandex pants), but it's vital that they absorb what I have to say.

I've learned that electronic communication is best avoided, when delivering feedback; especially negative feedback. Sometimes, I have no choice, but, for example, if we have FtF meeting in a week or so, maybe that is a better time for me to mention that I need to see a better burndown rate, as opposed to sending an email, or Slack message.

Also, in my experience, I've found that it's important to allow "pushback." This is especially important, when talking to smart, self-driven people. I have had people tell me to go piss up a rope, after giving them feedback, didn't react, and they ended up taking the feedback to heart, after cooling down. Sometimes, people just need to feel they got to say something, and giving them a safe place to say it, is important.
Adam Neely released a pretty in-depth video recently with the opinion that Hey Joe is straight-forwardly in the key of E, as long as you don't get stuck trying to fit it into a diatonic, traditional Western framework. It's a good watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvmALPu5TU

I had an unanswered question after the video -- are there listeners who don't feel that sense of "home" when arriving at the E chord? I certainly do feel "at home" on the E, but I'd be curious to hear others' opinions.
What cultivars would you recommend? I planted a szukis, john rick, and mohler this past year. Not sure what else I should be looking into.
If I understand correctly, "certainly new physics" is not correct. It makes the results very substantial, but you still have systemic things to consider at that point, like misapplication of a mathematical concept that no one has caught, or instrument error.
A thing which made Jetbrains successful probably was their deal.with Google. By making AndroidStudio free they got a large userbase. This also was my first direct encounter with them.
It’s interesting because there’s also the meta question of why your comments are being downvoted. I think possibly because on HN you’re not supposed to comment specifically about up or down votes, but like you I am also curious.

I wonder if there should be a policy where you can only downvote if you leave a comment on it first. And somewhat relatedly I think the policy should extend to flagged posts.
Yeah, I guess that's one way of looking at it; I guess on my first read of the comments I saw it as a related rates problem where "the act of climbing the stairs adds a velocity away from the Sun", but yeah, the second comment makes the case that at certain times of year the sum of the Earth's velocity and your stairs could still be positive in the "towards sun" direction.

(Sigh) this is why I'm poorly suited for Twitter...
Aha, so humans have reduced the diversity of species on the planet. That seems plausible to me (and even compatible with the original "reduced inhabitants" phrase that was used by the other poster earlier). Thanks for the all the information.

I wonder if we will be remembered by future biologists as cyanobacteria are remembered by our biologists today.
Two anecdotes:

I started a small company making software components. It was tough getting people to pay for them. A few years later big companies started doing the thing for free so that was the end of that.

Back in the job my employer bought Rational Rose, it was super expensive and one of the worst designed slowest pieces of junk I've ever used.

Now there were so many free libraries and tools around I'm never paying for anything again.
The Turing Challenge – GCHQ puzzles released for the Turing banknote
yeah good thing for dilithium crystals though
Nope. I for one doesn’t worship any God, any State, and certainly not myself. Everything is flawed to some degree. Nothing is perfect. However there is still beauty and good intentions in this world.
How does this play out in American companies with lots of employees from Europe and other places?
In some ways, it reminds me of incel-style thinking. You pick up on some signals that you're facing discrimination. Some or many of them are real. But then you elevate that discrimination into the primary component of your identity: you're a victim, and all your failures have nothing to do with things you have agency over and everything to do with how society is out to get you. Entirely unrelated things get pigeonholed into the paradigm you view the world through. And as a result you never recognize that you can potentially get better results by self improvement and assuming the people you meet are operating in good faith.
I am not sure how the person you are replying to feels but one could easily say that whatever is true of climate change, "doom" has not happened.
Awesome. So what key is Revelation Song by Phillips Craig and Dean in?
There are aspects of NVC that can apply. In particular, speak first with observations, in a manner that can be corrected. Once a dialogue is established, look for signals the other party is willing to receive feedback. Conversely, if they are not engaged, backoff politely.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Com...
> It didn't used to be a spectrum and it's a terrible innovation that it's viewed that way today by so many. Racist used to refer to people that believed in the inferiority and superiority of certain races. Only recently has it become socially acceptable to accuse someone of racism or sexism at any sign of prejudice. This is a major cause of the divisiveness in the culture today and if you're doing it, you're part of the problem.

I'd argue that people now are still treating it as a binary situation and not including the nuance that is requisite of a spectrum in determining their response. As an exaggerated example we can't treat a grand wizard who burns crosses on lawns the same as someone who touches someone else's hair. If we react the same then the reaction is not acknowledging the continuum but rather lowering the threshold for the binary classification.

> When we talk about people's prejudices it causes us to examine potential solutions in a productive way. When we accuse someone of being racist or sexist, we imply that they're beyond redemption, and we can skip right to hating them and feeling superior about ourselves.

I think we actually have a lot of agreement. Reading your response I think a lot of our disagreement comes down to diction, not philosophy. When you say

> Everyone else, and I mean everyone else, is just a mixed bag of good and bad prejudices that can, with work, be improved over time

I fully agree, I just use different words because that's the words used around me. Words only mean what society uses them to mean. This is a big part of why I mentioned intention being an important component. I don't view someone that is racist/sexist as being nonredeemable, this includes Neo Nazis and Grand Dragons of the KKK (I know this is an unpopular belief, but it is one I hold). This is part of why I said that we need safe spaces to fail. I do think how we react needs to be tempered and thought out because my goal is to fix behavior, not punish. But if you lump me together with those that seek punishment (I believe this is a minority, but highly sensationalized minority) we're going to have a hard time discussing. Because I don't have major qualms with what you've said and I don't understand how you read my comment as such.
You can say the exact same thing for Keto, IF or any other alternative meal planning. There are pros and cons to eating in different ways. Throwing out CICO with the bathwater is excluding potentially millions of people who don't have the time, money or opportunity to "just eat healthier".

We have to be realistic on how we communicate how to lose weight _for the masses_. Trust me, I ventured into dietetics only to be jaded at various national and multinational attempts at building watered/dumbed down meal planning advice but throughout the years I realized that you have to have simple and easy to follow guidelines (everyone can understand CICO) so that on the whole, we're getting people to lose weight.

I'm not saying CICO is the silver bullet, far from it, but it WORKS.
But they also feel like they don’t “personally” need to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

If you dig deep enough, for far too many of them, this amounts to either taking away certain means of speech from people they disagree with, or exercising pressure through getting people fired, or through nasty allegations.

This is exactly the same sort of extra-legal thing which homophobic societies did to homosexuals. It's the same thing that used to happen to Jewish people, even in the 20th century in the US. It's the same thing that used to happen to Chinese in San Francisco, when they as good as let Chinatown burn down. It's underhanded stuff that happened to my immigrant parents. It's not that far removed from unsavory things that happened to me in locker rooms and on the street because of my perceived race or my perceived sexual orientation.

Forcing people to not speak through fear or through unconsented force isn't winning an argument. It's oppression through extra-legal means. It's using exactly the ugliness practiced by bigots of the past. It's what I find that far too many young people advocate, and strangely label as "virtuous." How is it, that people can be like this, then be surprised when there's no societal unity? Does that even make sense?

Principles aren't legalisms to be followed by the letter of the law. They should be reflected in the attitudes and manifestly practiced values of a truly virtuous society.
Now sure if anyone saw this before, but here is a link interviewing the lawyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5RZLyLCTo0
There's that, and there's also the apparent belief that every other country besides the USA is a 3rd world country.

And where the assumption that the US legal system is infinitely better than every other country's, comes from, I'm not sure.
They have some awesome artists, there, but I have had bad luck getting through to them on DeviantArt. There's a couple of artists that definitely could have made some money from me, but couldn't, because I couldn't contact them (or they ignored my contacts).
600 days.
If he wanted he could've easily hacked the tracker and remove it. That's a lot of time to tinker with a box
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/03/were-... posted on the same day??
It's not a public vs private thing.

I've been in plenty of panel discussions where I have offered advice to female founders publicly. I was in a semi-open mentoring session just a few days ago when I did so. In fact, I've been called out in the pas for not being sensitive to women's perspectives. (No twitter mobs, thankfully)

Giving good feedback is a skill. Giving good feedback to people of different races, genders, ages, nationalities, etc is an important subset of that skill.
What in the world? The former guy said, on a real, not fake recording "I just want to find 11,780 votes". This has not been retracted. Where are you reading this?
You just have to phrase them differently:

Argument 1) I didn't do what you're accusing me of, or

Argument 2) What you're accusing me of isn't illegal

If you can establish the second one, I don't see why you wouldn't. It seems like it would save you a bunch of effort for this and any future cases.
You're attacking a straw man of things I never said.

I simply said that in Dutch decisions of whom to promote, numbers play a greater sway than in Anglo-Saxon promotions; the claim you are attacking is another altogether.
In a normal distribution, about 3 out of 1000 values will be over 3 sigma just by random chance.

How many measurements do they make at CERN? They probably see random 3 sigma measurements fairly often.
The only rational strategy today is to give absolutely nothing away whenever possible. That includes never posting anything under your name online, not under any circumstances - unless you have no choice, for professional / work reasons.

Every opinion has an easily triggered mob attached to it now, so some mob group will target you if you get any attention upon you.

It's amazing how fast the US became a 99% censored nation (either self-censored, mob cancelled, or censored by big tech), terrified, buried under authoritarian & hyper angry mobs desperate to attack other people. It happened within a single decade.

It's going to get a lot worse yet. I used to tell myself that living in the US was worthwhile despite its flaws because at least we had tremendous free speech protections (and most countries do not), and that's no longer true de facto. The US is arguably now worse - in reality, not the pretend notion that free speech still technically exists - than more speech censoring nations like Canada.
Is it though? What support do you imagine people requiring for an office suite? I pay for MS Office. I can’t really imagine what kind of individual support issues I could raise? If a document I need doesn’t open then it doesn’t open - having the bug fixed a week later is absolutely no help to me, and I’d just ask the sender to send in a different format in the mean time so really what’s the point?
As an engineer supporting researchers I ran into a peculiar problem. If I suggested an idea they often HAD to ignore it, because they couldn't claim it as their own. Especially the grad students who were trying to get a PhD by coming up with a unique idea of their own, but also the profs because it would be an admission that they "the experts" didn't understand what they were doing. So I had to lead them to come round to a perspective so they could think it was their own idea and hence be comfortable adopting it. A lot of time was wasted and ideas thrown away before I figured this out.

Also, if you are ever involved in academic research and you hear the words "that's just engineering" be very wary. It's a strong indicator that 1) the idea is not practical 2) they don't understand what they are doing. 3) you are going to have to make it work, often as an unacknowledged side project "that should only take a few days". I often spent years figuring out these "that's just engineering" side projects. Even worse, we'd build a "proof of concept" that ignored all the engineering, and then try to get other researchers or companies interested in the system as though it was complete.

Yet another thing I discovered is that for engineers one of the most important words they use in discussions is "no". Listen to two engineers discuss a problem and almost every other sentence will start with "no", "no that won't work because..." It's an important part of how they figure out how to make things work, by figuring out what does not work. CS researchers take it as an insult however, as in "no, you're an idiot and here's why". Perhaps because lead researchers are treated as infallible by their grad students they get the idea they can't be wrong, so they are not used to being contradicted. It's a huge problem in getting anything done. It can take months or years and a lot of wasted work to lead them around the circular path back to the original bad decision and try to get them to reconsider it (they are often very proud of it which makes it even more difficult). Saying "no" is somewhat like the mindset that is necessary for computer security work, you have to be able to attack systems or ideas from a ferocious point of view, seeking any weakness, without feeling that attacks on ideas are attacks on you. It's one of the most productive parts of discussion and is not taught directly, only by example and many CS researchers are so intent on building their reputations they will not tolerate it and are highly insulted by it and will defend their ideas to the point of absurdity. Framing a contradiction as a question helps here somewhat, though you still have to be careful in framing the question so it only leads to the contradiction rather than stating it outright.
Can insecurity be ascribed to gender? If it was a man, and they got offended, could we say it's also because he was insecure about not finishing in time? I think it's difficult to say gender as the de facto reason here. I'm not ruling it out, but I don't think it can be labeled a certainty, either.
The article describes men who feel so incapable of expressing themselves in a way that can't be reasonably construed as sexist that they don't say anything. I think this is irrational, demeaning to women, and frankly pathetic.
Not a very charitable interpretation
Yeah, I don't think it was the orig tweet, but a pattern like that statement and similar underlying history that coworkers probably mistrusted them. Walking on eggshells-type stuff.
Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work [pdf]
Thank you for that. I view the case a little more skeptically now. The stakes were high on both sides, and ergo the motivation to distort the process just as high. However, the motivation for Chevron to mitigate environmental impacts in the 70s/80s/90s were negligible, until lawsuits and stories like this provided the PR incentive. So I'm inclined to believe they are responsible for much - but perhaps not all - of the destruction. I think it's a little naive to think otherwise.