If I put objects in objects in objects in classes in python or java it can blow up in my face. I don't know if Rust is genuinely "zero cost", but at least if there's any slowdown from my compulsive OO and encapsulation habits it hasn't been nearly as bad.
There are some one-in-a-lifetime trades where people pour in really high stakes, like the one made by Soros in the GBP crash last century. On the other hand, stuff like brexit and Trump's win were really good bets even if you predicted their odds to be 50:50 - because disproportionately few people bet money on the alternative outcome.
I agree with GP - a lot of these roles would benefit from the increased productivity aided by good statistical tools, where one equity researcher has to work with or become a so-called data scientist to produce better insights.
I think "polymaths no longer exist" is a good enough practical usage, just to piss off know-it-alls. The way it's used carries a weird notion that mastering many mathematical fields simultaneously is "narrower" than someone who does both biology and history at an amateurish level.
That said, I believe there is definitely a very small fraction of people that can achieve true mastery of that sort in multiple disparate fields. They're just too hard to notice - they likely won't be at the top of any of their fields, and most people have a hard time telling them apart from dilettantes.
> it's a F-to-M and that the hormones make the person stronger. Are you saying there are no M-to-F people
In contrast to F-to M, M-to-F bring along all the risks being transgender but none of the physical fitness benefits of being a man. A M-to-F must be truly exceptional to be as reliable as an average man in combat...
Combat conditions are much worse than what you imagine - one can run out of supplies for weeks and even months. No, the testosterone difference between the average man and woman is so significant that it can't be compensated for by working out. There are also short term effects when there's a quick hormone drop (think andro/menopause). People lose muscle mass more quickly in combat conditions, which can be significantly slowed down by testosterone.
There are also compelling studies as well as arguments made by ex-military women that mixing women into combat units has been a bad idea; and the US military already had to tone down the fitness standards to attract women. I mean, the army disqualifies a man who just has one testicle; what about a man who has none? I'm not saying the entrance requirements are all sane, but you have to make a much more thorough argument than that to change the system.
What you said aren't completely true. The army is utilitarian first and foremost, and there are highly specialized role that can't be expected to be filled if they required the same standards as combat roles. Maybe not for operating radars (not so sure if it's a role that requires significant engineering skill), but they do grant waivers more often for non-combat roles such as science and medical officers - even waivers on nationality - and those waivers do bar people from entering certain other roles. And physical fitness standards aren't that high just for entrance, what's high is the expectation to remain fit for combat conditions.
If that's a women turned man, it means "his" strength and stamina could go away rather quickly, within weeks. It reduces "his" ability to support his teammates, thus poses a risk to others. It's not such a big one on top of the many other risks, but I can appreciate cost issues - accommodating individual minority needs can significantly drive up the management overhead, not a good thing at resource-constrained frontlines.
On the other hand, all the talk about these sort of physiological differences are essentially strawmen when it comes to "any capacity" - there are plenty of army jobs that require something other than enduring shitty conditions for the long term, like if you operate radars at a nice coastal city or work on technology far behind the borders.
Not really. What you would also have is low end businesses undercutting each other to save costs on hygiene, imposing health costs that probably overcome the savings of not taking care of hygiene. Businesses and customers don't have, and can't afford, perfect information, and don't make the most rationale decisions for themselves.
Let's compare to other industries and the general public, across all gender ratios. I bet 6 vs 3 percent is far on the small side. Heck, an average model agency is mostly women and probably a much larger percentage of them has received "unsolicited sexual advances". Citing this as a major reason that women aren't in tech is pathetic flamebait.
In many cases, if a company would fall apart by having one extra team member to take care of workload surges, it would also fall apart by having one team member hit by a bus.
I think the part you quoted is exactly what's said by GP. From that quote, freeze-drying is indeed often not a good way to preserve sperm (check), but at least they could inject it into the eggs (check), and the main advantage is that the samples are "very light and occupy a small volume" (check) and easily launched into space. The last part can indeed be added retroactively, but at least GP's initial claims check out.
Everything you say can be countered by one word that is Bing.
Barrier of entry does make something evil per se; is Albert Einstein evil for the huge barrier for others to be the pop culture genius reference? It's only bad when there are barriers that are created for no reason but to reduce consumer choice and competition. Such as in Bell's case.
There have been some pretty good advances in natural language processing beyond keyword matching, and computers can be used to assist a lot of work. A big bank just devloped a system that could review certain types of contracts; the technology of parsing text for meaning is slowly inching towards useability. In the examples you raised, the time you need to spend and certain forms expertise required can be reduced so there will be less work. There still need to be human lawyers, but in the future the number of lawyers one needs to staff in one class can be cut down drastically depending on the task. However, that doesn't mean the legal field needs to be so much in trouble as that picture suggests - the commodotization of legal services may actually result in a much expanded market.
I did a quick search and it turns out trumpet players in top orchestras are overwhelmingly male. Same for double bass. Female percussionists are still very rare. That's some nice lying through statistics you've done there. Now before you talk about a systemic male bias - the search also showed violinists in top orchestras are overwhelmingly female.
I won't outright say females can't do well with trumpets, double basses and drums; apparently there are some very good ones, and some of the imbalance might still be driven by stereotypes, there are exactly very good physical reasons that it's more likely a male can play or take interest in some instruments better than a female, and maybe vice versa.
Maybe females double bassists shouldn't be outnumbered by male at 1:20, but I wouldn't be surprised that minus all sexism the "ideal ratio" is not going to be 1:1 - it could be 3:7 for all I care about, and some people would be calling that sexism.
Ads are tried and true so it's hard to argue against it. Technology is often overlooked but making a scalable product at low cost is still highly non-trivial and that has driven internet businesses more than anything else. Yes these inane apps started up in SF really suck off open source and scalable technology and don't contribute much back, but that just proves how low-cost they are and thus how easily they can be profitable as long as they get enough eyes... When it come to business models it's hard to argue with money.
I've heard a long time ago that they hired CMU robotics researchers with very attractive pay (1m+) to do driverless cars. While they still lagged behind Google, due to the transparency in academic research (i.e. everyone knows the core ideas) and the fact that cutting edge research moves much more slowly than people can copy it, their disadvantage isn't that high. But even that it's not very probable they can corner the market - if they're lucky they'll become the best but likely not a monopoly.
There's also this fact that at these levels, large companies in China can really compete quite well with a mixture of technical capability and strong governmental support. Even if Uber dominates US they'll have a hard time conquering the rest of the world.
I tried to stream some clips from my Samba share, and basically every app forces you to use both its own file manager AND video player at the same time. I don't know if it's a limitation of iOS but it killed off any chances I'm leaving Android.
You mean faster computers that actually power incredible computing pursuits? You know, those that actually run difficult algorithms for science rather than spending most of their CPU time on GUIs and making SQL queries in run-of-the-mill business software that you're probably writing for food. You mean recent advances in machine learning, including a wide variety of applications in computer vision and natural language processing, more or less due to increased architectural support (improved database systems, distributed computing) and better algorithms? You mean the considerably less-wasteful Bitcoin alternatives that can actually be better than a large part of the bloated and widely inefficient banking infrastructure? You mean the abundance of information and knowledge on the internet, coupled with ever increasing capabilities to sift through useless content, and much easier scientific dissemination and collaboration? You mean Linux that had very specific hardware requirements, but actually gained enough commercial support to get actual drivers? You mean the better awareness of IP issues and maturing business models that support open source software?
I'm not saying it's a good state that a lot of these businesses rely on advertising and foolish VC money, which IMO are on the decline. But let's not equate advancing technology to running businesses. Looks like somebody just couldn't catch up with the world.
Bitcoin without the decentralization mechanism is just a very clumsy database of transactions. You may as well just make something from a MySQL database and the development costs would be cheaper.
Child prostitution can be triggered by paying a senior high school student for sex. Basically it's a part of the rule of illegal to have sex with people under 18, consensual or not, already quite controversial. Moreover these are not rape charges, I don't except the man to be a threat of he leads an otherwise normal life. Ditto for pornography. If anything, continued harsh persecution is more likely to force him cause harm by being a mass killer.
Slashdot Mirror
Earnings per share is not revenue per share. Get your basics straight before pretending to know finance.
If I put objects in objects in objects in classes in python or java it can blow up in my face. I don't know if Rust is genuinely "zero cost", but at least if there's any slowdown from my compulsive OO and encapsulation habits it hasn't been nearly as bad.
But it doesn't want to pay the money. So people choose what's better for their lives.
And to most people who do AI/ML, it's probably the biggest break in their lifetime.
There are some one-in-a-lifetime trades where people pour in really high stakes, like the one made by Soros in the GBP crash last century. On the other hand, stuff like brexit and Trump's win were really good bets even if you predicted their odds to be 50:50 - because disproportionately few people bet money on the alternative outcome.
I agree with GP - a lot of these roles would benefit from the increased productivity aided by good statistical tools, where one equity researcher has to work with or become a so-called data scientist to produce better insights.
I think "polymaths no longer exist" is a good enough practical usage, just to piss off know-it-alls. The way it's used carries a weird notion that mastering many mathematical fields simultaneously is "narrower" than someone who does both biology and history at an amateurish level.
That said, I believe there is definitely a very small fraction of people that can achieve true mastery of that sort in multiple disparate fields. They're just too hard to notice - they likely won't be at the top of any of their fields, and most people have a hard time telling them apart from dilettantes.
> it's a F-to-M and that the hormones make the person stronger. Are you saying there are no M-to-F people
In contrast to F-to M, M-to-F bring along all the risks being transgender but none of the physical fitness benefits of being a man. A M-to-F must be truly exceptional to be as reliable as an average man in combat...
Combat conditions are much worse than what you imagine - one can run out of supplies for weeks and even months. No, the testosterone difference between the average man and woman is so significant that it can't be compensated for by working out. There are also short term effects when there's a quick hormone drop (think andro/menopause). People lose muscle mass more quickly in combat conditions, which can be significantly slowed down by testosterone.
There are also compelling studies as well as arguments made by ex-military women that mixing women into combat units has been a bad idea; and the US military already had to tone down the fitness standards to attract women. I mean, the army disqualifies a man who just has one testicle; what about a man who has none? I'm not saying the entrance requirements are all sane, but you have to make a much more thorough argument than that to change the system.
What you said aren't completely true. The army is utilitarian first and foremost, and there are highly specialized role that can't be expected to be filled if they required the same standards as combat roles. Maybe not for operating radars (not so sure if it's a role that requires significant engineering skill), but they do grant waivers more often for non-combat roles such as science and medical officers - even waivers on nationality - and those waivers do bar people from entering certain other roles. And physical fitness standards aren't that high just for entrance, what's high is the expectation to remain fit for combat conditions.
If that's a women turned man, it means "his" strength and stamina could go away rather quickly, within weeks. It reduces "his" ability to support his teammates, thus poses a risk to others. It's not such a big one on top of the many other risks, but I can appreciate cost issues - accommodating individual minority needs can significantly drive up the management overhead, not a good thing at resource-constrained frontlines.
On the other hand, all the talk about these sort of physiological differences are essentially strawmen when it comes to "any capacity" - there are plenty of army jobs that require something other than enduring shitty conditions for the long term, like if you operate radars at a nice coastal city or work on technology far behind the borders.
Not really. What you would also have is low end businesses undercutting each other to save costs on hygiene, imposing health costs that probably overcome the savings of not taking care of hygiene. Businesses and customers don't have, and can't afford, perfect information, and don't make the most rationale decisions for themselves.
Just in a small market like Hong Kong there is a 100+ team that purely does marketing. This really can't last...
Let's compare to other industries and the general public, across all gender ratios. I bet 6 vs 3 percent is far on the small side. Heck, an average model agency is mostly women and probably a much larger percentage of them has received "unsolicited sexual advances". Citing this as a major reason that women aren't in tech is pathetic flamebait.
In many cases, if a company would fall apart by having one extra team member to take care of workload surges, it would also fall apart by having one team member hit by a bus.
No, it'll kill Google.
I think the part you quoted is exactly what's said by GP. From that quote, freeze-drying is indeed often not a good way to preserve sperm (check), but at least they could inject it into the eggs (check), and the main advantage is that the samples are "very light and occupy a small volume" (check) and easily launched into space. The last part can indeed be added retroactively, but at least GP's initial claims check out.
Everything you say can be countered by one word that is Bing.
Barrier of entry does make something evil per se; is Albert Einstein evil for the huge barrier for others to be the pop culture genius reference? It's only bad when there are barriers that are created for no reason but to reduce consumer choice and competition. Such as in Bell's case.
There have been some pretty good advances in natural language processing beyond keyword matching, and computers can be used to assist a lot of work. A big bank just devloped a system that could review certain types of contracts; the technology of parsing text for meaning is slowly inching towards useability. In the examples you raised, the time you need to spend and certain forms expertise required can be reduced so there will be less work. There still need to be human lawyers, but in the future the number of lawyers one needs to staff in one class can be cut down drastically depending on the task. However, that doesn't mean the legal field needs to be so much in trouble as that picture suggests - the commodotization of legal services may actually result in a much expanded market.
I did a quick search and it turns out trumpet players in top orchestras are overwhelmingly male. Same for double bass. Female percussionists are still very rare. That's some nice lying through statistics you've done there. Now before you talk about a systemic male bias - the search also showed violinists in top orchestras are overwhelmingly female.
I won't outright say females can't do well with trumpets, double basses and drums; apparently there are some very good ones, and some of the imbalance might still be driven by stereotypes, there are exactly very good physical reasons that it's more likely a male can play or take interest in some instruments better than a female, and maybe vice versa.
Maybe females double bassists shouldn't be outnumbered by male at 1:20, but I wouldn't be surprised that minus all sexism the "ideal ratio" is not going to be 1:1 - it could be 3:7 for all I care about, and some people would be calling that sexism.
Ads are tried and true so it's hard to argue against it. Technology is often overlooked but making a scalable product at low cost is still highly non-trivial and that has driven internet businesses more than anything else. Yes these inane apps started up in SF really suck off open source and scalable technology and don't contribute much back, but that just proves how low-cost they are and thus how easily they can be profitable as long as they get enough eyes... When it come to business models it's hard to argue with money.
I've heard a long time ago that they hired CMU robotics researchers with very attractive pay (1m+) to do driverless cars. While they still lagged behind Google, due to the transparency in academic research (i.e. everyone knows the core ideas) and the fact that cutting edge research moves much more slowly than people can copy it, their disadvantage isn't that high. But even that it's not very probable they can corner the market - if they're lucky they'll become the best but likely not a monopoly.
There's also this fact that at these levels, large companies in China can really compete quite well with a mixture of technical capability and strong governmental support. Even if Uber dominates US they'll have a hard time conquering the rest of the world.
I tried to stream some clips from my Samba share, and basically every app forces you to use both its own file manager AND video player at the same time. I don't know if it's a limitation of iOS but it killed off any chances I'm leaving Android.
'nuff said
You mean faster computers that actually power incredible computing pursuits? You know, those that actually run difficult algorithms for science rather than spending most of their CPU time on GUIs and making SQL queries in run-of-the-mill business software that you're probably writing for food.
You mean recent advances in machine learning, including a wide variety of applications in computer vision and natural language processing, more or less due to increased architectural support (improved database systems, distributed computing) and better algorithms?
You mean the considerably less-wasteful Bitcoin alternatives that can actually be better than a large part of the bloated and widely inefficient banking infrastructure?
You mean the abundance of information and knowledge on the internet, coupled with ever increasing capabilities to sift through useless content, and much easier scientific dissemination and collaboration?
You mean Linux that had very specific hardware requirements, but actually gained enough commercial support to get actual drivers?
You mean the better awareness of IP issues and maturing business models that support open source software?
I'm not saying it's a good state that a lot of these businesses rely on advertising and foolish VC money, which IMO are on the decline. But let's not equate advancing technology to running businesses. Looks like somebody just couldn't catch up with the world.
Bitcoin without the decentralization mechanism is just a very clumsy database of transactions. You may as well just make something from a MySQL database and the development costs would be cheaper.
Child prostitution can be triggered by paying a senior high school student for sex. Basically it's a part of the rule of illegal to have sex with people under 18, consensual or not, already quite controversial. Moreover these are not rape charges, I don't except the man to be a threat of he leads an otherwise normal life. Ditto for pornography. If anything, continued harsh persecution is more likely to force him cause harm by being a mass killer.