Evolution is slow, but a million years (or a hundred million, if we include simpler neural networks) is a long time. Intelligence is incredibly pro-survival, so I'm not sure what your point was there.
It's fairly well known that Google lowered their standards for women to meet quotas. That must really suck if you're a top-notch woman working there, since there will always be that suspicion. What he wants is to change the job description such that you don't have to lower the standard, and yet engineers will be just as productive for Google. Sounds worthwhile to me, if you can pull it off.
We all know engineering is a fairly collaborative process. When I interviewed at Google it was all "design this, code that", with a marked lack of discussion or back-and-forth for the interviewer. Creeped me out. Everywhere else I've been, you ask design questions in an interactive design session that is as much about "is this guy OK to work with" as the actual design, but Google wasn't that way at all.
Evolution has been "throwing mud at the wall" with complex neural systems for millions of years, and yet we have only the only positive result for sapience. I wouldn't worry about it happening by accident.
Also worth noting: we have zero evidence that disembodied intelligence is even possible - hard to have self-awareness without a self. Something like a self-driving car, with visual processing logic, a 3D model of the world centered on itself, and the need to model/predict actions before taking them - that looks like the human brain, our only example of how to make general intelligence happen. Based on the only actual evidence we have to work-with, that's the sort of platform from which machine intelligence could emerge, not the far wider set of "commercial AI". And that's an area where there's already regulatory oversight and lots of thought about just how autonomous the software should be.
They are worse than Fascists: they are Communists. Hitler was a piker and killed fewer than 10 million. Stalin and Mao killed around 160 million between them.
Both groups are brutal totalitarian statists with a history of killing millions, but you can have anarcho-communists, while fascists celebrate order. You could really see the difference between the two mobs this weekend - the Fascists looked much better organized. But don't let that deceive anyone, Communists are far more dangerous.
The junior engineer doesn't do things by the book, because he understands the risk. The mid-career engineer does thing by the book, because he does. The senior engineer adds to the book - or he would have, but your linter blocked him.
So now you should just go with that, and say "in my daughter's restroom with a wang? The last sound that you hear will be bang!" You'll be hated either way, so might as well be forceful.
Rust is better known for its tyrannical Code of Conduct and oppressive Rust Moderation Team than it is for its technological innovations! This has also driven away potential users and developers who aren't interested in engaging in pointless identity politics, resulting in a community that is quite insulated and limited. What could have potentially been the most important and innovative programming language since C++ has ended up becoming what's essentially a joke.
Identity politics will destroy whatever they touch.
Highlighting AC's point here. It doesn't even matter whether identity politics really is important to the Rust community - identity politics is so toxic that just the reasonable assumption that it might be is enough to drive away a lot of nerds. Some of us had enough problems with social acceptance before all this BS - the last thing we want is even more arbitrary social rules to cope with where we expected technical engagement.
Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.
Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.
Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.
I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):
Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong). http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4
To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â
He might well be right. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have seen this coming.
He was certainly right - at least to whatever extent the science was right. The core of his memo was a survey of the current scientific literature, with citations. Of course, this stuff isn't physics, but it is repeatable measurements with known (if limited) predictive ability.
He's pretty young though, and a PhD, so I suspect he was quite naive. "Should have" seen it coming, sure, I agree, but understandable that he didn't. An engineer addressing an unknown by studying the science behind the problem, and using that as a basis to ask some obvious questions. Sort of what you want an engineer to do.
Fonts, scents, colors, the rules to games, there's a whole list of stuff you can't copyright. The rules were probably laid down during the "British copyright don't apply in America" stage, early on, to screw over particular English vendors.
A Model S is 2x as heavy as most stripped down club cars. Unless you're talking mostly-straight-line street racing, I can't imagine it doing well. And, heck, for that price you can just get Godzilla and have an actual supercar.
Fair enough, though it's usually a small % except for developing nations. Germany has a trade surplus (meaning they consume less than they produce), but it's only about 6% of GDP.
Whether a given standard of living is sustainable, given borrowing to fund a trade deficit, is a different question, but not one particularly relevant to Germany. The US, OTOH, has been getting away with it for decades because our economic growth swamped our long-term debt. If we've fallen to socialist levels of economic growth (as seems likely), it's concerning.
There's not a shortage of candidates. There's an inflation of employer desires. They want nothing but the absolute best and will not settle for someone rough around the edges but enthusiastic. Employers aren't interested in investing in employees. They will continue having labor and work quality problems until they change their perspective and value employees again. Their work doesn't happen without employees.
This is certainly true at the entry-level. Every employer tries to have higher standards than everyone else, resulting in a few people getting hired at the big companies at near six figures first year, and most potentially competent young coders left out in the cold. Tragedy of the commons, really.
But that's only entry-level. Mid career and senior engineers need to bring the proven skill at coding (in some vaguely-related language and problem domain, but the big employers are actually pretty flexible on that). And there's definitely a shortage of experienced candidates.
GDP is an indicator of productivity, not economic well being or standard of living.
Unless there's a trade imbalance, GDP is exactly standard of living. What you have is what you make. Sure, it's measured in some units of currency, by that's just a distraction: the goods and services a nation consumes must be equal to the goods and services it produces, or there must be a trade imbalance to explain that.
It's as simple as conservation of momentum or energy; I don't get why people are confused by this.
It doesn't mater how close you are to one another: you can't talk without going somewhere else or you'll disturb everyone else. With offices, you and a colleague can discuss anything at one of your desks, with a whiteboard, and without disturbing others.
Plus, you're not being treated like fucking cattle. Maybe that doesn't matter to enough people, but it should.
"transform the smartphone landscape" means they were good at marketing, not that their product was anything special. They discovered that people would but phones as a new kind of jewelry - really amazing marketing.
Heck, you probably also think Google is something other than an advertising company.
There will be a new kind of enthusiast driver for electric cars, eventually. It's weird, when gas cars were new and primitive, enthusiasts and "modders" were most of the market, but electric cars as a whole do nothing for drivers yet. They're for an odd sort of tech enthusiast who doesn't want to tinker - perhaps "geek posers"? Well, it's a sizable market, whatever it is.
Cars with the tach front and center, but an automatic transmission are the most humorous, of course. We'll never see the end of "sedan with spoiler".
Any time you shoot someone, no matter how justified, you're still playing courtroom roulette - and those 12 jurors could decide anything (not to mention the wrongful death lawsuit). And, no, that burglar you scared off won't be coming back any time soon (and especially the drunk teen who stumbled into the wrong house won't be coming back, or all the other scenarios). Heck, just for the cleaning bill you're better off not needing to shoot.
You seem eager to kill someone. That's a bad place for your head to be.
Of course you don't own an assault rifle, they're illegal for almost everyone. An assault rifle is not a "scary black gun", but a rifle or carbine with "select fire", that is, the choice between semi-auto and burst fire (or, occasionally, full auto, but most militaries don't want that waste of ammo). Guns that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull are very highly regulated.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution is slow, but a million years (or a hundred million, if we include simpler neural networks) is a long time. Intelligence is incredibly pro-survival, so I'm not sure what your point was there.
It's fairly well known that Google lowered their standards for women to meet quotas. That must really suck if you're a top-notch woman working there, since there will always be that suspicion. What he wants is to change the job description such that you don't have to lower the standard, and yet engineers will be just as productive for Google. Sounds worthwhile to me, if you can pull it off.
We all know engineering is a fairly collaborative process. When I interviewed at Google it was all "design this, code that", with a marked lack of discussion or back-and-forth for the interviewer. Creeped me out. Everywhere else I've been, you ask design questions in an interactive design session that is as much about "is this guy OK to work with" as the actual design, but Google wasn't that way at all.
Evolution has been "throwing mud at the wall" with complex neural systems for millions of years, and yet we have only the only positive result for sapience. I wouldn't worry about it happening by accident.
Also worth noting: we have zero evidence that disembodied intelligence is even possible - hard to have self-awareness without a self. Something like a self-driving car, with visual processing logic, a 3D model of the world centered on itself, and the need to model/predict actions before taking them - that looks like the human brain, our only example of how to make general intelligence happen. Based on the only actual evidence we have to work-with, that's the sort of platform from which machine intelligence could emerge, not the far wider set of "commercial AI". And that's an area where there's already regulatory oversight and lots of thought about just how autonomous the software should be.
They are worse than Fascists: they are Communists. Hitler was a piker and killed fewer than 10 million. Stalin and Mao killed around 160 million between them.
Both groups are brutal totalitarian statists with a history of killing millions, but you can have anarcho-communists, while fascists celebrate order. You could really see the difference between the two mobs this weekend - the Fascists looked much better organized. But don't let that deceive anyone, Communists are far more dangerous.
The junior engineer doesn't do things by the book, because he understands the risk. The mid-career engineer does thing by the book, because he does. The senior engineer adds to the book - or he would have, but your linter blocked him.
So now you should just go with that, and say "in my daughter's restroom with a wang? The last sound that you hear will be bang!" You'll be hated either way, so might as well be forceful.
Do we suddenly care what all the science-deniers think? Or are we going to focus on scientists expert in the field?
Your obsession with some imagined danger of link shorteners suggests you spend a lot of time in very sketchy parts of the internet.
But, hey, if I had managed to smuggle a goatse link into an upmodded comment, it would be a proud Slashdot tradition.
Worst excuse ever in an attempt to silence an opponent instead of presenting an argument.
[chan]You better click that shit.[/chan]
Rust is better known for its tyrannical Code of Conduct and oppressive Rust Moderation Team than it is for its technological innovations! This has also driven away potential users and developers who aren't interested in engaging in pointless identity politics, resulting in a community that is quite insulated and limited. What could have potentially been the most important and innovative programming language since C++ has ended up becoming what's essentially a joke.
Identity politics will destroy whatever they touch.
Highlighting AC's point here. It doesn't even matter whether identity politics really is important to the Rust community - identity politics is so toxic that just the reasonable assumption that it might be is enough to drive away a lot of nerds. Some of us had enough problems with social acceptance before all this BS - the last thing we want is even more arbitrary social rules to cope with where we expected technical engagement.
Also important to remember that he was a computer scientist addressing the "science" behind an issue outside his area of expertise.
Fair enough. Here's Dr Jordan Peterson's interview with the guy https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU . tl;dw: he got the science right.
Here's four other actual scientists commenting on the memo: http://quillette.com/2017/08/0... tl;dr: he got the science right, x4
Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.
Everything he claimed about the (statistical) differences between men and women regarding the "big 5" personality traits represents the current state of the science.
Fun fact: in the Scandy countries, where a huge effort was made to level the playing field for men and women, these differences are more pronounced. Science.
I can hear a "citation needed" in the wind, so I'll steal this from Jordan Peterson's interview with the Google guy (all should be links to full papers):
Sex differences in personality:
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx
Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4
(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things:
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru
The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS
Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE
Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0
Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh
http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8
http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6
To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. âoeThis is true for human adults in many cultures, both âmodernâ(TM) as well as âprimitiveâ(TM) (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).â Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: âoeFor females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.â
Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r
Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP
http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)
He might well be right. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have seen this coming.
He was certainly right - at least to whatever extent the science was right. The core of his memo was a survey of the current scientific literature, with citations. Of course, this stuff isn't physics, but it is repeatable measurements with known (if limited) predictive ability.
He's pretty young though, and a PhD, so I suspect he was quite naive. "Should have" seen it coming, sure, I agree, but understandable that he didn't. An engineer addressing an unknown by studying the science behind the problem, and using that as a basis to ask some obvious questions. Sort of what you want an engineer to do.
Fonts, scents, colors, the rules to games, there's a whole list of stuff you can't copyright. The rules were probably laid down during the "British copyright don't apply in America" stage, early on, to screw over particular English vendors.
Thar's a nice salary for a "sanitation engineer".
A Model S is 2x as heavy as most stripped down club cars. Unless you're talking mostly-straight-line street racing, I can't imagine it doing well. And, heck, for that price you can just get Godzilla and have an actual supercar.
Fair enough, though it's usually a small % except for developing nations. Germany has a trade surplus (meaning they consume less than they produce), but it's only about 6% of GDP.
Whether a given standard of living is sustainable, given borrowing to fund a trade deficit, is a different question, but not one particularly relevant to Germany. The US, OTOH, has been getting away with it for decades because our economic growth swamped our long-term debt. If we've fallen to socialist levels of economic growth (as seems likely), it's concerning.
There's not a shortage of candidates. There's an inflation of employer desires. They want nothing but the absolute best and will not settle for someone rough around the edges but enthusiastic. Employers aren't interested in investing in employees. They will continue having labor and work quality problems until they change their perspective and value employees again. Their work doesn't happen without employees.
This is certainly true at the entry-level. Every employer tries to have higher standards than everyone else, resulting in a few people getting hired at the big companies at near six figures first year, and most potentially competent young coders left out in the cold. Tragedy of the commons, really.
But that's only entry-level. Mid career and senior engineers need to bring the proven skill at coding (in some vaguely-related language and problem domain, but the big employers are actually pretty flexible on that). And there's definitely a shortage of experienced candidates.
GDP is an indicator of productivity, not economic well being or standard of living.
Unless there's a trade imbalance, GDP is exactly standard of living. What you have is what you make. Sure, it's measured in some units of currency, by that's just a distraction: the goods and services a nation consumes must be equal to the goods and services it produces, or there must be a trade imbalance to explain that.
It's as simple as conservation of momentum or energy; I don't get why people are confused by this.
It doesn't mater how close you are to one another: you can't talk without going somewhere else or you'll disturb everyone else. With offices, you and a colleague can discuss anything at one of your desks, with a whiteboard, and without disturbing others.
Plus, you're not being treated like fucking cattle. Maybe that doesn't matter to enough people, but it should.
"transform the smartphone landscape" means they were good at marketing, not that their product was anything special. They discovered that people would but phones as a new kind of jewelry - really amazing marketing.
Heck, you probably also think Google is something other than an advertising company.
There will be a new kind of enthusiast driver for electric cars, eventually. It's weird, when gas cars were new and primitive, enthusiasts and "modders" were most of the market, but electric cars as a whole do nothing for drivers yet. They're for an odd sort of tech enthusiast who doesn't want to tinker - perhaps "geek posers"? Well, it's a sizable market, whatever it is.
Cars with the tach front and center, but an automatic transmission are the most humorous, of course. We'll never see the end of "sedan with spoiler".
BTW, I'm amused you think I smoke or vape - clearly you don't believe anyone could actually value freedom.
Any time you shoot someone, no matter how justified, you're still playing courtroom roulette - and those 12 jurors could decide anything (not to mention the wrongful death lawsuit). And, no, that burglar you scared off won't be coming back any time soon (and especially the drunk teen who stumbled into the wrong house won't be coming back, or all the other scenarios). Heck, just for the cleaning bill you're better off not needing to shoot.
You seem eager to kill someone. That's a bad place for your head to be.
Of course you don't own an assault rifle, they're illegal for almost everyone. An assault rifle is not a "scary black gun", but a rifle or carbine with "select fire", that is, the choice between semi-auto and burst fire (or, occasionally, full auto, but most militaries don't want that waste of ammo). Guns that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull are very highly regulated.