If your company is hiring 10000 people and the race demographics are really skewed, there's a problem there. If the number of positions you're filling is in double digits, trying to enforce percentages is total BS. It's like using quantum mechanics to get a 100% accurate prediction for 20 atoms.
When I looked up "ethanol fuel cell" it seems Nissan is working on those. So now I have this vision of rural people with lots of solar, an ethanol reformer and a Nissan.
If they converted 1160 "qualified on 'paper'" applicants to (say) 205 next round of interview applicants and eliminated all of one ethnicity in that process then statistics are a fine way to show bias. 25 and 7 ultimate positions aren't enough to use statistics alone to make the case, particularly when 11 out of the 25 and one out of the 7 were asian. So, the number of cases where they claim bias did the decision making are 10 or fewer. I'm not saying that the department of labor is wrong. But, I am saying that it's idiotic to use only statistical mathematics to argue about 10 decisions. They need additional evidence of bias.
When I had physics lab class, they taught me that the math for statistics doesn't really apply when the sample size is smaller than 200 or so. When the Labor Department starts talking about percentages where the pool of qualified applicants is only 130, I think they might ought to have at least one "we don't want you because you're asian" anecdote to go along with their percentages to form their lawsuit. Of course, if they have a law written so that the sample size doesn't matter, then they win, regardless. I suppose in that case, Thiel might want to move his startup offshore.
Thanks very much for taking the time to provide this information. I suppose any legislation that permits content based prioritization would first have to require content type labeling, and what legislators would come up with for content types would be scary, I'm sure. Doubtless one content type they'd want would be "spam" and another would be "porn."
So, if legislators said that it's not allowed to prioritize one video stream over another, but it is allowed to prioritize anything that isn't video over anything that is video, it would be realistic to expect that internet providers could distinguish well enough to operate in this manner?
It sounds like, in order to perform the sort of optimization you describe you have to be aware of the intended use of the data being transmitted. If some legislative organization made a regulation that is dependent on this awareness (eg: "video gets lower priority than everything else"), how hard would it be for an organization transmitting from their server to their application on the recipient's computer (or perhaps also having their applications on end users computers additionally transmit to one another) to fool a professional like you? Does this sort of optimization depend on them identifying to you the use of the data and trusting you to have their best interests at heart, or can you reliably tell the use of the data, regardless? I'm just wondering what sort of legislation is actually practical, and what would be a pointless exercise in demonstrating a lack of understanding of the technology.
The GeekWire article says that these stores will be exclusively available to Amazon Fresh subscribers. This makes the use for them look to me like a place to keep Amazon Fresh deliveries when the recipient can't be home to accept them during delivery hours.
Are these new markets all South of the Mason-Dixon line because it'll soon be too cold to dig easily further North, or are there other reasons as well?
this requirement, then it sounds like the reporters should pass the bill on to the Commission. The members of this commission are the same fine individuals who always decide for us that we shouldn't hear the voices of any third party candidates. So, now I learn that they don't want me to hear live data that doesn't pass through their own network. I wonder what they'll decide I shouldn't hear next.
I was thinking that same thing - also: converting live performance into electrical signals; recording electrical signals digitally in a manner amenable to transmission over a packet switched network; the whole concept of exchanging currency for goods and services instead of having to barter. And, lets not forget the artists themselves. If they wouldn't produce a desirable performance, no one would want to pirate it, and so anti-piracy efforts would be much more successful.
What they need to do is have each person desiring a copy of a performance attend the live performance and only encode the electrical signals in the brain of each listener, so that playback only works if it's played back into the brain from which it was recorded. Then, piracy will be more challenging - at least until the telepathy brain-mods that allow direct brain-to-brain sharing come out. I'm sure it'll eventually be illegal to even remember a copyrighted performance without paying an additional fee. In fact, this could be the reason people think elves and fairies don't exist. It's not that no one's encountered them, it's just that no one can afford the fees for remembering the encounter.
Thanks for that information the suicide rate for youths. It's new to me. Interesting that it's pointing to a wider gap in mental health care as the reason. I wonder what the difference is among older people and whether a similar gap in physical health care leaves rural older people with an unacceptable quality of life resulting in suicide.
Perhaps because the people committing suicide have survived other ways the world might have killed them. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the suicide rate increases with population density.
I read that the one that killed a guy did so because the camera was fooled. Perhaps they could use radar to back up the cameras' perceptions in more directions than just the front.
Slashdot Mirror
If your company is hiring 10000 people and the race demographics are really skewed, there's a problem there. If the number of positions you're filling is in double digits, trying to enforce percentages is total BS. It's like using quantum mechanics to get a 100% accurate prediction for 20 atoms.
I'm sorry, the missus can't do launch today. It's laundry day. Clippy says she might have time to come round at 11:45 tomorrow. Would that work?
When I looked up "ethanol fuel cell" it seems Nissan is working on those. So now I have this vision of rural people with lots of solar, an ethanol reformer and a Nissan.
If they converted 1160 "qualified on 'paper'" applicants to (say) 205 next round of interview applicants and eliminated all of one ethnicity in that process then statistics are a fine way to show bias. 25 and 7 ultimate positions aren't enough to use statistics alone to make the case, particularly when 11 out of the 25 and one out of the 7 were asian. So, the number of cases where they claim bias did the decision making are 10 or fewer. I'm not saying that the department of labor is wrong. But, I am saying that it's idiotic to use only statistical mathematics to argue about 10 decisions. They need additional evidence of bias.
How many positions?
When I had physics lab class, they taught me that the math for statistics doesn't really apply when the sample size is smaller than 200 or so. When the Labor Department starts talking about percentages where the pool of qualified applicants is only 130, I think they might ought to have at least one "we don't want you because you're asian" anecdote to go along with their percentages to form their lawsuit. Of course, if they have a law written so that the sample size doesn't matter, then they win, regardless. I suppose in that case, Thiel might want to move his startup offshore.
Thanks very much for taking the time to provide this information. I suppose any legislation that permits content based prioritization would first have to require content type labeling, and what legislators would come up with for content types would be scary, I'm sure. Doubtless one content type they'd want would be "spam" and another would be "porn."
So, if legislators said that it's not allowed to prioritize one video stream over another, but it is allowed to prioritize anything that isn't video over anything that is video, it would be realistic to expect that internet providers could distinguish well enough to operate in this manner?
It sounds like, in order to perform the sort of optimization you describe you have to be aware of the intended use of the data being transmitted. If some legislative organization made a regulation that is dependent on this awareness (eg: "video gets lower priority than everything else"), how hard would it be for an organization transmitting from their server to their application on the recipient's computer (or perhaps also having their applications on end users computers additionally transmit to one another) to fool a professional like you? Does this sort of optimization depend on them identifying to you the use of the data and trusting you to have their best interests at heart, or can you reliably tell the use of the data, regardless? I'm just wondering what sort of legislation is actually practical, and what would be a pointless exercise in demonstrating a lack of understanding of the technology.
The GeekWire article says that these stores will be exclusively available to Amazon Fresh subscribers. This makes the use for them look to me like a place to keep Amazon Fresh deliveries when the recipient can't be home to accept them during delivery hours.
Try Seattle, where you have to buy paper bags, and then the handles come off.
Are these new markets all South of the Mason-Dixon line because it'll soon be too cold to dig easily further North, or are there other reasons as well?
So, perhaps a version of the Noisy Neighbor Disruptor Circuit that runs during the wireless test and makes sure it fails.
The name given to this crime is fraud.
this requirement, then it sounds like the reporters should pass the bill on to the Commission. The members of this commission are the same fine individuals who always decide for us that we shouldn't hear the voices of any third party candidates. So, now I learn that they don't want me to hear live data that doesn't pass through their own network. I wonder what they'll decide I shouldn't hear next.
You're incorrect. Using lots of bogus accounts to tell lies that make your crappy books look cool is a crime.
Underneath the coat, he's got 16 watches on his arms, but he doesn't want to sell you one.
But, if my health insurance finds out how many I buy, they'll each cost $35.
Pushing Netflix and HBO into the same shape. I suppose I'll see Netflix try for stronger DRM, and hopefully HBO gets more edge servers.
I was thinking that same thing - also: converting live performance into electrical signals; recording electrical signals digitally in a manner amenable to transmission over a packet switched network; the whole concept of exchanging currency for goods and services instead of having to barter. And, lets not forget the artists themselves. If they wouldn't produce a desirable performance, no one would want to pirate it, and so anti-piracy efforts would be much more successful.
What they need to do is have each person desiring a copy of a performance attend the live performance and only encode the electrical signals in the brain of each listener, so that playback only works if it's played back into the brain from which it was recorded. Then, piracy will be more challenging - at least until the telepathy brain-mods that allow direct brain-to-brain sharing come out. I'm sure it'll eventually be illegal to even remember a copyrighted performance without paying an additional fee. In fact, this could be the reason people think elves and fairies don't exist. It's not that no one's encountered them, it's just that no one can afford the fees for remembering the encounter.
Thanks for that information the suicide rate for youths. It's new to me. Interesting that it's pointing to a wider gap in mental health care as the reason. I wonder what the difference is among older people and whether a similar gap in physical health care leaves rural older people with an unacceptable quality of life resulting in suicide.
Perhaps because the people committing suicide have survived other ways the world might have killed them. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the suicide rate increases with population density.
I read that the one that killed a guy did so because the camera was fooled. Perhaps they could use radar to back up the cameras' perceptions in more directions than just the front.
A little radar could go a long way in helping with collision avoidance.
Instances of software are like grains of sand.