skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A lot of people simply don't want to live in a crowded city in an apartment crowded on every side with other apartments. I'd prefer a location in a low-density suburban area (with a lot of forest around me) where I could get to the city in a few minutes.
Who ever said the earth was not round? Very cool effect, Looks like it would make a trippy video game.
I think businesses that are giving retail me not a commission are largely throwing their money away.

As described the vast majority of sales being generated are from people that have already started the purchasing process on your website and are looking for a discount coupon. Without having any hard numbers from my experience in ecommerce I think the majority of these people are going to purchase anyway, regardless of whether they find a coupon. There is a good chance the people actively trying to find a coupon have already checked out the competition and are relatively satisfied with your offering.

Price discrimination can be good but I don't think throwing away 10% to companies like this is the way to do it. I also dislike how they end up ranking really highly on a lot of your brand terms where I'd prefer my business, pages we control and 3rd party reviews to rank. Ideally you could get a coupon page of your own to rank well for the "x coupon" search to get the same effect without having to give up the 10% or whatever the commission level is.
It was the title of the article.
As far as I can tell, Type Providers are just a slicker way of having external codegen tools. So instead of "SoapToVBCode.exe" you have it wrapped up in a type provider and can just do "type MySoap = SoapProvider<http://wsdl>".

It seems like a useful feature but far from the power of having full macros.
Gender is a social construction. Sex dimorphism on the other hand is a real phenomenon that allows humans (as well as other mammals) to reproduce and evolve over time. The essay "Doing Gender" by Zimmerman and West is a good place to start.

Everyone agrees on this except for the dubious Queer Theory camp, and maybe a few surgeons making money off of sex transition surgery.
Google upgrades ancient RedHat to Debian Live [pdf]
I'm 31 with a Ph.D., married, two kids. I've had 3 employers in the last 7 years since I graduated. I can relate to the bit about most other parents being older, my son is 8; and we are probably at least in the bottom quartile as far as age of the parents in his class.
Royal Society of Canada says Wi-Fi appears safe, exposure limits fine
This was exactly the angle I was looking for. I am still not entirely satisfied with this, as it does not flat out state why better gearing couldn't achieve some increase.

That is, my naive understanding is aligned with what a sibling post said. That there is an "ideal" torque rating of my engine. Seems that if my cruising speed isn't stuck at that number, than some gearing changes could be made to put me there. Why does that not work? (Adding a 7th gear, for example, seems to be a natural idea.)

I'm curious to hear that the ideal speed would actually be below 55. Do you have good references on that?

Also, I'd assume the "switching out of the 4-wheels-on-ground" refers to such as trains and friends?
That may or may not make sense, but I was just cracking a joke.
I used to work for a company that did simulated driving tests. When looking at the class reviews, more women than men would complain of SAS (simulator adjustment syndrome). I can also say that I get the same problem if I play video games too long or if the lighting is wrong (game and/or room). I know it's anecdotal, but after reading hundreds of class reviews it's interesting to see some science behind it.
> The simplicity of the code ... makes it unlikely that spiped has any security vulnerabilities.

Famous last words :)

On a serious note - this looks like a really useful addition to the toolbox of "low-level unix flavored tools". I can see this being a simple basis for connecting infrastructure together without exposing potentially sensitive data.
I didn't downvote you, but I don't think you made a convincing case for flagging this article.

Moreover, there's an entire disclaimer section in the OP that addresses this.

> 2. The language of gender

I ruffled a few queer feathers by using the terms “transsexual” and “biological male.” I completely understand why contemporary transgender activists (especially in the American context) would react strongly to that language, but I also think it’s important to remember that I’m referring to a study from 1997 in a Dutch gender clinic. The term “cisgender” didn’t even exist. And at that time, in that setting, the women and men that I met adamantly deplored the “transgender” label. They wanted to make it crystal clear that they were transsexual, not transgender. To them, the latter signaled a choice.

I made a choice in this essay to use the language of my informants. When referring to men and women who had not undergone any hormonal treatment (whether they be cisgender or not), I added the label of “biological.” This was the language of my transsexually-identified informants (who, admittedly, often shortened it to “bio boys” and “bio girls”). I chose this route because the informants for my experiment identified as female and male without any awareness of the contested dynamics of these identifiers.

Finally, for those who are not enmeshed in the linguistic contestations over gender and sex, I want to clarify that I am purposefully using the language of “sex” and not “gender” because what’s at stake has to do with the biological dynamics surrounding sex, not the social construction of gender.
The article is a good read with the assumption that Oculus is not aware of these facts and is not trying to solve the problem she poses. The problem with that assumption is that nowhere in article does she mention talking to anyone at Oculus. She doesn't even mention if she has even used the Rift. For all we know Oculus could be at the forefront of this issue. We don't know because she didn't ask.
Not at all; it's just a matter of dwelling on a subject long enough to begin attaching aesthetic notions to it, I think.

For instance many car buffs have well-developed notions of when a car's handling or responsiveness is 'beautiful' (see any car review or episode of 'Top Gear' if you don't believe me) which I also find preposterous! But I bet if I spent nearly as much time as the Top Gear people dwelling on car stuff, I would grow a similar aesthetic appreciation for how the drive handles some curve or whatever they are moaning about in those reviews.
from the title of the article, i thought this was going to be about the fact that there are a lot of tech jobs to distribute among a small number of people (male and female) compared to some other industries...

... immediately realizing that the article is about a very real difficulty (gender imbalance) for many lines of work, i immediately stopped reading, because based on the title alone, i suspect it's more of the (unfortunately) usual points.

for my two cents, i certainly would like to see more female programmers &/or mathematicians out there and am completely baffled about why, especially in academia, where it can be significantly easier to get into some math programs as a grad student, there aren't more women trying it out. perhaps because of articles talking about how problematic math and programming can be for women rather than about successful female mathematicians and programmers? i mean, there are definitely negative experiences that need to get out there, but i hope they don't obscure the fact that there are women in math/cs areas that have positive experiences as well.
This article seems to argue that automation isn't killing jobs, it's just killing jobs for a certain type of people, nudge nudge. It then proceeds to go pretty much nowhere with the thought.

I can't figure out if this is some political propaganda piece or just thrown together by someone who can't put together a coherent argument.
The thing is, the title isn't linkbait from the perspective of modern feminist discourse and its usage of the word "sexist".

In radical feminism (the ideology that the term "feminism" most frequently refers to in contemporary usage), virtually the entirety of human interaction is viewed from the lens of the patriarchy model, the notion that society is governed by "a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women" (Wikipedia). Such feminists define any act as "sexist" if it reinforces, or even if it is the product of, what they see as the patriarchy. Similarly, liberal sociologists and critical race theorists define "racism" as the characteristic of any action that results from the oppressive power the dominant group (most contiguous with the class of straight white males, at least in Western society) has over minorities. (This is why those on the far left often make statements like "there's no such thing as reverse racism/sexism." They're right based on their usage--it's just a matter of definition.)

So anyway, when feminists use the term "sexist", they're not usually using it in the colloquial sense of "you're a bad person" but rather in the sense of "you're saying or doing something that results from the patriarchal society that governed your upbringing, and it would be really good if you start questioning the assumptions that led you to this action." In fact, I've heard quite a few feminists describe an action of their own doing as "sexist" and immediately set out to unlearn whatever caused them to say or do that. If only more feminists were as open to entertaining discussion regarding alternatives to their patriarchy hypothesis, but I digress!
This article's definitions of "motion parallax" and "shape from shading" are quite different from my understanding. Can anyone shed any light on this? Specifically:

"Motion parallax has to do with the apparent size of an object. If you put a soda can in front of you and then move it closer, it will get bigger in your visual field. Your brain assumes that the can didn’t suddenly grow and concludes that it’s just got closer to you."

Whereas I believed "motion parallax" to be moving one's head so as to compare an object's displacement against a more distant background. Size is irrelevant.

"Shape-from-shading is a bit trickier. If you stare at a point on an object in front of you and then move your head around, you’ll notice that the shading of that point changes ever so slightly depending on the lighting around you. The funny thing is that your eyes actually flicker constantly, recalculating the tiny differences in shading, and your brain uses that information to judge how far away the object is."

"Shape from shading" I believed to be simply recreating a 3d structure from the way light falls on it, a depth cue that occurs even without motion. The quoted description seems like it is referring to specularity, which does play a role in shape from shading, but also seems well handled by (many) rendering engines.
>it seems an unlikely mechanism for me

I was struck by the same thought. The fact that this woman has a PhD, and has been thinking about this problem for 17 years, and still produces something like this that is so thin on substance and so saturated in rhetoric says something, which I find to be rather discouraging.
"There is also a special problem for some young men, namely those with especially restless temperaments. They aren’t always well-suited to the new class of service jobs, like greeting customers or taking care of the aged, which require much discipline or sometimes even a subordination of will."

Did the above line from the article strike anyone else as flagrantly sexist?
Thanks, I appreciate the discussion.
I have been using spiped for years. Works great!
Some math is so elegant that many understandably think it beautiful. To assess yourself, perhaps consider the area of the triangle [1, page 4], explained at a stroke -- not a formula in sight. If any math is beautiful, that is.

What is less appreciated is that such elegance is not limited to math. Many (all?) fields in science and engineering and technology are striving for a similar moment of clarity.

[1] A Mathematician’s Lament by Paul Lockhart, http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsL...
Sexism as in discriminatory based on sex in some manner, not necessarily intentionally or maliciously discriminatory. That is defined in the article itself, by the way, so there isn’t really much to add here. Maybe I can help make the point more explicit.

The hypothesis is that VR tech uses depth cues that work better for one sex (seems the more appropriate term than gender in this case) than the other. This would make the tech discriminatory, hence sexist as defined in the article.

The important part is that sexism as defined in the article does not ascribe intent or maliciousness to those who made the tech. It does not accuse those who made the tech of being intentionally or maliciously sexist, it just describes the tech as sexist. The author even makes it explicit that in her opinion there is no intention at all to be sexist by those who made the tech, no intention to make the tech work worse for women.

Now, some people who use the world sexist mean to strongly imply intention and many people who read it understand it as assigning blame. However, that is not necessarily how all people use the word. I certainly don’t use it that way and I know many other people who don’t. These two uses of the word – one ascribing intention, one not – is potentially confusing, so it’s good that she explicitly defined the word in her article and explicitly excludes intent from the definition.

You could argue that this is a very exotic use of the word. I can’t speak to how common the different uses are, but I do know that for many people it has long been important to divorce intent from effect because in many ways the effect is the only thing that matters.
I've always found that having a good project manager on my projects has been a huge help. It lets me focus on the task at hand. I've stepped into the PM role occasionally, I find it to be difficult and stressful. Trying to minimise the time that people are blocked while protecting the team from direct client stress.

Appreciate your project manager ;)
Rust is definitely most worth learning. Everything else will then be pretty much a subset (perhaps with the vague exception of C++).
I live in Brazil. Where I am, it gets colder in the winter, but never less then 10°C in the morning.
Basic Guide to Remote Engineering / Management
In the defence of the original title, the wikipedia[1] entry for sexism:

Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.

The article is 100% about a technology partly discriminating female users. The way people understand the term is tinted by the fact that 'sexism' is rarely pointed out for anything else than malicious behavior, but there is no fault in someone using a term in an more literal way than usual, putting it as linkbait doesn't do it justice.

[1] for the record, just any other resource has the same definition (i.e the Oxford dictionnary)
If you're a visual thinker, you may have better luck with geometrical theorems and proofs (such as for pythogoras theorem or fractals or topology).
Labeling a company and its engineers as sexist...

She did not do this. She assigned a label L to X and then provided an explicit definition of L. You are fallaciously taking an alternate definition of L from a different context and acting as if she used that definition.

But I suppose misunderstandings like yours are the price of cheap clickbait.
Beverly Hills Court Reporters | LA Reporters | Court Reporting California
>The problem is that if your audience is potentially "all humans", the ratio is 50/50.

True, however my guess is that real user data would not be anywhere close to that, at best 80/20. So in that case, do you design for the larger percentage? There is probably a way to make it so it works for both genders.

I think it's a great example of why having diversity in your development process is useful.
And yet in this article in The Atlantic we have a guy who discovers that people who want just ONE neighbor out of four to be the same "color" as them (everyone is red or blue) can wind up segregating entire neighborhoods.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/04/seeing-a...

The difference between active discrimination like "we don't need any women baby-makers working here!" and ostensibly subconscious passive discrimination like "man it sure would be nice to have a male co-worker" is gigantic. The first is reprehensible and should be fought for sure. The second is innocent and not sexist but can seemingly end up with roughly similar outcomes to the first.
I wonder about the feasibility of using this idea to create Google street view equivalent with fluid movement between each point...
There's a crazy dynamic in the main Columbia University library that I don't think exists anywhere else, and always shocks other people when I tell them about it.

Columbia is super space constrained, and during heavy study times there simply aren't enough chairs in the library for everyone who wants to study there to do so. People get up early just to take their books and their laptop to set them on a table or desk. You can walk through the library and though every single spot is occupied with stuff piled up, you'll generally only see about half of them with actual people there, sometimes way less.

And are you going to move someone's stuff and put your own down? What if they just stepped out? What if they come back while you were doing it? You know most people are being assholes about it, but clearly you shouldn't have to pack up to get a drink of water. It's a bad bit of game theory.

And people leave laptops all the time, for days on end. You going to mess with someone's laptop just to get a seat?
All too often, systems get shipped with discriminatory byproducts and people throw their hands in the air and say, “oops, we didn’t intend that.”

Is it just me, or is this kind of OK?

Intentional discrimination isn't, of course. But if your initial release accidentally isn't accessible to people with blue-yellow colorblindness, is that a tragedy of social justice?

No product serves every person equally, and this is especially true early in the product's (or company's) lifetime. You're a little too busy tackling the core problem to have time for fixing every accessibility problem in rev A.

Which seems OK to me. Rev A's are by nature lacking & incomplete, and I would rather they get something out the door, make a profit, and decide to make a rev B- than miss the boat and/or go bankrupt trying to make the product equally accessible all from day 1.

There are plenty of products like that, that I have been unable to enjoy in their early stages, so it isn't like getting the short end of the stick has never happened to me. One of my favorite outdoor gear companies, for example, has started making technical clothing. They don't offer sizes that fit tall, slender me, so I'm pretty much hosed for now. But that's fine. They'll get to it eventually.

(Obviously in this particular case wrt. Oculus Rift & women, the point has now been raised and women are half the globe, so it would seem to be a high priority to address. I'm just addressing the quoted statement, which was much more general)
top 1% is a fucking joke. A cop and a firefighter in SF are top 0.5%. A teacher in Palo Alto and a software engineer are too.

They are for the most part, normal people that aren't even financially independent. The sick wealth is all concentrated at the very, very top.
Why? Apple doesn't DRM any of the music on iTunes. It must DRM the video, just like all other video services because it's mandated by the copyright holders (like Sony). Parts for Apple computers going back many years are readily available (I recently replaced a video card on a 6 year old Mac myself); their support is rated above all other computer manufacturers by people who actually have used it; their computers, phones and tablets work as advertised. Care to explain what you actually mean?
> And frankly, there's really not much more anybody can do to fix it.

Yes there is.

Whenever it happens we can all stand up and say together that it is not appropriate and that it will not be tolerated.
Thx for [2]. It's full of good stuff!

As far as beauty is concerned, I find it difficult compare these equations because they are at very different levels of abstraction. Sometimes vars are numbers, sometimes functions, sometimes groups, etc.
This doesn't take into account males who inherit the Y chromosome wholly from the paternal side. It also does not factor in mutations that occur along the way.
Ubiquiti AirRouter or AirRouter HP. Almost all Ubiquiti gear works completely transparently with OpenWRT, out of the box. In fact their stock firmware is built on top of OpenWRT.
There's a mini-mall near my house where I often eat lunch. Tucked in a corner is a newstand that usually has free local real estate listing magazines.

Last time I was there, I noticed a new free magazine in the rack: http://ybitcoin.net/about/
I'm going to go against the grain here and ask people to consider this: Maybe Twitter doesn't "solve" any "pain point" at all. IOW, maybe this whole analogy with painkillers is flawed and not the best model for looking at the world.

OK, yes, you can pretty much always twist and manipulate semantics and express anything in terms of a "pain", but is something getting lost in translation? I don't have the answer, but I think it's worth thinking about.

"What problem does your startup solve"? Important question, no doubt. But if you go back to the "vitamin or painkiller" analogy, sometimes it's OK to be the vitamin. And sometimes something becomes popular just because it's fun and novel.

All of that said, what made Twitter so interesting? I think originally it was the idea of a "near real time" way of distributing messages to a group, coupled with the knowledge that A. the messages you receive would be short, so you could parse them quickly, and B. the messages you would be composing would be limited, which meant that tweeting couldn't turn into too much work, the way writing a blog post might.
It's the only one that doesn't make my brain hurt xd

Every time I'm confronted with MPG I first have to think what is better and when I calculate I always confuse M/G and G/M.

While always having that 100km distance in mind makes it a lot easier. I'm not suddenly going to think about 100l.
tl;dr: Social engineering won. It was over the moment he got tricked into clicking on a link in an email.
> That's not far from the situation today. The problem really are all the exceptions to this approach (product liability for example) and the fact that nobody actually sues individuals for their personal parts in such things.

The problem is the reason nobody sues individuals for their personal acts is that individuals don't have any real money. Even executives have peanuts compared to the amount of liability a corporation can incur. If you have a claim large enough to bankrupt the corporation, going after the CEO just to get his three year old Lexus isn't worth the trouble. And if you sue the executives then they hire lawyers and by the time you get a judgment the lawyers have burned through any assets they might have had to pay you with, unless they have litigation insurance in which case you can look forward to fighting them in court until the end of time.

It doesn't do much good to make parties liable who pretty much never have the capacity to pay.
Thank you; while in an ideal world people would apply the principle of charity reflexively, the technology scene is occupied by too many men willing to do exactly the opposite for anything women write about sex and gender