Lakisha and Jamal aren't just 'black' names, they're ghetto names (with all the bad stuff that implies). Comparing them to British-sounding middle-to-upper class names is disingenuous to say the least.
Try this mindgame on yourself to note the difference. Create a person in your mind named Sir Richard Thornton. Does he seem employable? Can he drive? How is he dressed?
Now create a person named Billy-Bob-Joe Darlin. Does he seem employable? How is he dressed?
Names convey far more than just the color of their holder, and the so-called "scientists" that performed this study either knew that but wanted a specific result (they didn't care about the actual study they just wanted to publish high, which requires the "right" conclusions) or they are utterly incompetent. I don't know which reason is worst.
If they tried the study again with 'black' names that did not indicate a ghetto upbringing (like Stephen Rasami-Greenberg or Erica Harrison) the results would not be the same.
If anyone "feels" this is untrue they are ofcourse free to name their own children Laqueefa and Buttsex-boy. After all, since it's all about skin color it won't impact their future careers at all.
Wow, are you telling me that when you give the reins for extortion over to a private and unscrupulous hive of money-grubbing extortionists, they are going to use them exactly as everyone predicted? It's almost as if everyone not part of the copyright lobby was right when they said this is what's going to happen...
(This might be a non-sequiteur, but also fuck you, Trudeau)
Deep learning does not constitute all of, or even a significant chunk of, machine learning. It is merely the latest fad, much like personalized medicine in medical informatics or nano-machines in biochemistry.
(I'd even go as far as to say that it's one of the worst parts of the field since neural network models are prohibitively hard to interpret and draw conclusions from)
I don't know what's gotten into this new FCC, but I love it. I can't think of a single organization that is currently doing more for the consumer than these guys. It's like a consumer friendly tiger, or baby-safe Harambe if you will.
I wonder how long it will take until the Comcast/Verizon/AT&T lobby shuts them down via congress.
Great job, now if only Wikipedia could deal with the blatant bias and astroturfing of its upper editing class it would be back to its 2005 status.
Ever since I first saw the inner workings of Wikipedia I have become more and more enamored with the old style of expert-based (and accountable) encyclopaedias rather than the internet-warrior crowdsourced one. People tend to write very differently when their professional reputation is on the line.
I see far more women in professional roles in mining than in I.T. these days when it used to be the other way around. The decline is so blatantly obvious that it's hard to see that things like the posts here denying it are anything other than agenda pushing lies.
Why would you say something as blatantly false as that? As of 2014, the percentage of female employees in American mining was 13 ( http://minesmagazine.com/8749/ ). African mining was at 15% in 2015 ( https://www.enca.com/south-afr... ). TFA states that women in computing is currently at 24%. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see which number is bigger.
As for decline being blatantly obvious, I certainly wouldn't be able to perceive a 2% decrease over 9 years, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
"The ban could cause a great problems for the drone industry within Sweden and the UAS Sweden has taken a stand against the ruling because of how it "... strikes against an entire industry that employs thousands of employees."
So, it shouldn't be illegal because it generates a lot of money? What about sex trafficking, cocaine smuggling, or ransomware? Is it fine to break the law if you get rich doing it?
I for one would hope that the judicial branch does not set the bar by what makes the most money.
No, not really. Both accusations are silly, completely inaccurate, and based on nothing at all. Name-calling says nothing about the subject but a lot about the speaker.
There's a very important distinction between the two, since the color of your skin is not considered to have an impact on you as a person whereas growing up in a specific culture (int this case Mexican culture) absolutely does have an impact on your personality. What you are describing could be considered xenophobic, i.e. the irrational fear of foreign groups, but not racist.
"We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence,"
Is it just me or is she actually saying "We shouldn't fire people for political beliefs, but let's fire people for their political beliefs" ? As head of a company focused on making money off diversity and inclusivity, Pao doesn't seem very inclusive of diverse views.
TFA title uses the word 'critic' which implies someone versed in the field and knowledgeable about all aspects. TFA itself talks about lobbyists, ISP-employed shills, and financially incited opponents of the bill. These are not 'critics', they are PR- and marketing- people every step of the way with limited to no understanding of society's needs outside their own profit margins. Please define these two very distinct groups separately.
And what would be so bad about that exactly? You just don't like it because it expresses a point of view you despise. But nothing would be stopping someone from freely distributing Liberalpedia.
It seems strange you would say this while knowing absolutely nothing at all about me. You have no idea what my thoughts are on anything, including Rationalwiki (which I assume is what you mean by Liberalpedia). Furthermore, that you would conflate point of view with the issues of Conservapedia is mildly troubling from a psychological perspective.
Like others have said, it is hard to tell if the reduction in complaints come from the police officers being on their best behavior when they wear body cameras or if it's simply harder for the complainants to fake an accusation. It's very possible that both of these are significant factors.
It seems that body cameras are a hit, though one possible snag immediately comes to mind. Cameras are replacing trust in police officers, and trust in the servants of the law is a very good thing. It correlates directly to trust in the other branches of government and a healthy democracy.
That is not to say that body cameras are bad, I think they are an absolutely positive step. Just keep in mind that building respect for the judicial institution is also a worthwhile goal.
Yes, cause that is exactly why grandma doesn't use Facebook.
On the other hand, I'd wager that the personal information stealing is what really sucks up the bandwidth when using Facebook. Has that part been remedied as well? No?
Slashdot Mirror
I was hoping it would be Denmark.
I'd have enjoyed a sensible chuckle if South Park had been spot on yet again.
I don't see anything newsworthy here at all. Did some sneaky little marketer pay for someone's lunchy-lunch yesterday?
Bad Slashdot, bad!
What the fuck happened to "Don't be evil" ?
This is a return to McCarthyism plain and simple.
Well no, Jeeves is the butler.
Fergus drives the Bentley for him, and 'the boy' drives the golf cart and caddies.
Lakisha and Jamal aren't just 'black' names, they're ghetto names (with all the bad stuff that implies). Comparing them to British-sounding middle-to-upper class names is disingenuous to say the least.
Try this mindgame on yourself to note the difference. Create a person in your mind named Sir Richard Thornton. Does he seem employable? Can he drive? How is he dressed?
Now create a person named Billy-Bob-Joe Darlin. Does he seem employable? How is he dressed?
Names convey far more than just the color of their holder, and the so-called "scientists" that performed this study either knew that but wanted a specific result (they didn't care about the actual study they just wanted to publish high, which requires the "right" conclusions) or they are utterly incompetent. I don't know which reason is worst.
If they tried the study again with 'black' names that did not indicate a ghetto upbringing (like Stephen Rasami-Greenberg or Erica Harrison) the results would not be the same.
If anyone "feels" this is untrue they are ofcourse free to name their own children Laqueefa and Buttsex-boy. After all, since it's all about skin color it won't impact their future careers at all.
maybe if uber let it's drivers C & C they would pickup / go to more rough areas
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to Command & Conquer in the greater Seattle area (not sure about Boston).
Wow, are you telling me that when you give the reins for extortion over to a private and unscrupulous hive of money-grubbing extortionists, they are going to use them exactly as everyone predicted? It's almost as if everyone not part of the copyright lobby was right when they said this is what's going to happen...
(This might be a non-sequiteur, but also fuck you, Trudeau)
Deep learning does not constitute all of, or even a significant chunk of, machine learning. It is merely the latest fad, much like personalized medicine in medical informatics or nano-machines in biochemistry.
(I'd even go as far as to say that it's one of the worst parts of the field since neural network models are prohibitively hard to interpret and draw conclusions from)
I don't know what's gotten into this new FCC, but I love it. I can't think of a single organization that is currently doing more for the consumer than these guys. It's like a consumer friendly tiger, or baby-safe Harambe if you will.
I wonder how long it will take until the Comcast/Verizon/AT&T lobby shuts them down via congress.
Great job, now if only Wikipedia could deal with the blatant bias and astroturfing of its upper editing class it would be back to its 2005 status.
Ever since I first saw the inner workings of Wikipedia I have become more and more enamored with the old style of expert-based (and accountable) encyclopaedias rather than the internet-warrior crowdsourced one. People tend to write very differently when their professional reputation is on the line.
I'm guessing too big to fail also means too big for jail.
Sometimes I just lose faith.
I see far more women in professional roles in mining than in I.T. these days when it used to be the other way around.
The decline is so blatantly obvious that it's hard to see that things like the posts here denying it are anything other than agenda pushing lies.
Why would you say something as blatantly false as that? As of 2014, the percentage of female employees in American mining was 13 ( http://minesmagazine.com/8749/ ). African mining was at 15% in 2015 ( https://www.enca.com/south-afr... ). TFA states that women in computing is currently at 24%. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see which number is bigger.
As for decline being blatantly obvious, I certainly wouldn't be able to perceive a 2% decrease over 9 years, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
"The ban could cause a great problems for the drone industry within Sweden and the UAS Sweden has taken a stand against the ruling because of how it "... strikes against an entire industry that employs thousands of employees."
So, it shouldn't be illegal because it generates a lot of money? What about sex trafficking, cocaine smuggling, or ransomware? Is it fine to break the law if you get rich doing it?
I for one would hope that the judicial branch does not set the bar by what makes the most money.
No, not really. Both accusations are silly, completely inaccurate, and based on nothing at all. Name-calling says nothing about the subject but a lot about the speaker.
Except Mexicans aren't a race.
There's a very important distinction between the two, since the color of your skin is not considered to have an impact on you as a person whereas growing up in a specific culture (int this case Mexican culture) absolutely does have an impact on your personality.
What you are describing could be considered xenophobic, i.e. the irrational fear of foreign groups, but not racist.
"We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence,"
Is it just me or is she actually saying "We shouldn't fire people for political beliefs, but let's fire people for their political beliefs" ? As head of a company focused on making money off diversity and inclusivity, Pao doesn't seem very inclusive of diverse views.
Would you like to know more?
TFA title uses the word 'critic' which implies someone versed in the field and knowledgeable about all aspects. TFA itself talks about lobbyists, ISP-employed shills, and financially incited opponents of the bill. These are not 'critics', they are PR- and marketing- people every step of the way with limited to no understanding of society's needs outside their own profit margins. Please define these two very distinct groups separately.
Just make sure to not connect the OpenOffice module to the Microsoft Office module, those two never work together.
What about "giving" free access to Conservapedia?
And what would be so bad about that exactly? You just don't like it because it expresses a point of view you despise. But nothing would be stopping someone from freely distributing Liberalpedia.
It seems strange you would say this while knowing absolutely nothing at all about me.
You have no idea what my thoughts are on anything, including Rationalwiki (which I assume is what you mean by Liberalpedia).
Furthermore, that you would conflate point of view with the issues of Conservapedia is mildly troubling from a psychological perspective.
Except it's not a gift.
What about "giving" free access to Conservapedia? Or that wonky church with all the protesting? Or the Stormfront webpage?
You cannot leave the role of education and exploration to a private interest group.
Like others have said, it is hard to tell if the reduction in complaints come from the police officers being on their best behavior when they wear body cameras or if it's simply harder for the complainants to fake an accusation. It's very possible that both of these are significant factors.
It seems that body cameras are a hit, though one possible snag immediately comes to mind. Cameras are replacing trust in police officers, and trust in the servants of the law is a very good thing. It correlates directly to trust in the other branches of government and a healthy democracy.
That is not to say that body cameras are bad, I think they are an absolutely positive step. Just keep in mind that building respect for the judicial institution is also a worthwhile goal.
Yes, cause that is exactly why grandma doesn't use Facebook.
On the other hand, I'd wager that the personal information stealing is what really sucks up the bandwidth when using Facebook. Has that part been remedied as well? No?
It be time to plunder the competition, yarr!
So we shouldn't use the standard browser anymore?