They can make you use your fingers, but you don't have to tell them which finger is the right one. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like you can force the iPhone to only accept one attempt before requiring a passcode, so they've got multiple tries at guessing which one is the correct one.
Lots of people can't sleep in moving vehicles, and having a night's sleep partially interrupted by a run for the train isn't exactly conducive to really quality sleep later.
I personally fall asleep on planes and trains just fine, but the quality of the sleep is so low I count it for about half of what I manage to get. She's going to work, not back home from a trip; a good night's sleep is going to be important to doing her job properly for the rest of the day.
Antifa has existed for decades. Antifa is not new, the only reason why you're hearing about it now is that there are a lot more fascists coming out of the woodwork at the moment because there's a friendly federal administration that somehow manages to consistently weasel out of condemning nazis unless someone pushes a prepared statement under his nose and tells him to stop talking once he's done.
It really isn't. Left wing groups do not call for genocide or the removal of the rights of these groups that you're talking about. You're making the worst kind of false moral equivalence.
Nazis are looking to *kill* people. They tried very hard to extirpate an entire group of people, and these new groups are neo-Nazis. They have swastika flags and tattoos, and they seig heil the same as nazis did.
Genocide is not a valid side of an argument. Ban them, ban their speech. There is no moral value to keeping them around.
And on top of that, being intolerant of intolerance is entirely consistent. It is necessary for a tolerant society to push back against that which would undermine it.
So no, we don't have to let hateful organisations say whatever they want; the act of speaking such things is itself a kind of violence to our society. This doesn't mean that we should ban speech that makes us uncomfortable, or is unpopular. It DOES mean that speech that implicitly or explicitly advocates for genocide or violence is not worth protecting and is in fact speech that we should be actively attempting to limit by whatever means we can.
"Not every peace is better than the war it prevents." There's a certain peace to permitting all speech, even the worst kind of speech, but it's not worth it.
That Australian study is interesting. I'm just looking at the opening summary of results, and I'm wondering if they're at a point where the people in hiring positions are actively looking to close the gaps on minority hiring, so they're actively working against their own biases, or formed new biases to manage that.
The percentages are pretty small for men and women, but huge for minority ethnicities. I'm looking forward to reading this more, thanks.
But yes, you make a good point. The real trick is to get them in the door, and at least in North America, it seems that the sticking point is unrecognised and possibly (probably?) unintentional sexism or racism.
Until there are blind resume reviews and tests, the myth of the meritocracy is just so-much garbage spouted by people that are worried they'll lose their jobs to someone ACTUALLY qualified.
This was exactly the same thing that happened at symphonies. When you ACTUALLY care about a) diversity and b) hiring the best people for the job, it turns out that the first thing you have to do is leave your biases at the door, and virtually nobody is good at doing that. So remove the doubt: blind auditions.
Most interview processes are garbage anyway. I've been a programmer for 15 years and I'm still asked to talk about certain kinds of language specific minutia that are super irrelevant in daily programming. (That is, I've answered questions and literally never, ever seen those features used in the games we ship. It's essentially a trivia contest.)
And here's the thing about programming when you're at a game company: AT LEAST half your job has nothing to do with programming—at least if you're any good. You HAVE to play the game you're making, make suggestions, think about the comfort of the player. I would take a junior programmer with a good feel for gameplay than a veteran rockstar programmer that has great technical chops but doesn't have any suggestions to improve the game. Even for engine and graphics programmers.
So yeah, coding can be hard, but I can teach you what you need to know. If you're working with me and I can trust you to make good gameplay decisions, that's a LOT more important to me, and I CAN'T teach you that.
Nearly all of our wasted time comes from trying to navigate a context switch. Sometimes it's unavoidable—the code is compiling, and so unless you're only waiting less than 15s, you're going to start doing anything else, and that 15s is suddenly 15m. But that's how it goes, and we all learn to navigate this to greater or lesser degrees.
But being interrupted by someone else's random conversation is largely avoidable when you don't work in an open plan office, and largely impossible when you do. You're killing the productivity of your programmers if you put them in these open plans. Want to increase productivity and decrease costs without firing OR hiring anyone? Give them offices, or at least spacious (i.e., can fit 2 people and a white board) cubicles. It's like friggin' magic.
In that case his LinkedIn page is *deliberately* misleading. It shows his BSc and then his PhD, with no mention of a Masters. Normally, you only list the education that you *completed*. If he didn't finish his PhD and took the Masters instead, I would expect him to list a Masters.
I have a 16GB iPhone 6. It was a mistake to go for the lowest tier of storage, and I regret it, but it DOES make me choosy about my apps. I have a 32GB 5th Gen iPad and just by the nature of what I do on my phone vs. my iPad, that's actually just fine. I install the big games on my iPad, aggressively delete anything I'm bored with, and that's great.
On my iPhone, I'm now ultra vigilant about what I use, which means I don't have facebook installed, which is GREAT. (I still use it, just in the browser.) I've gotten rid of the apps that are huge and distracting, and while I'm still always toeing the line with regards to storage, I'm happier with this low-storage situation than I expected. And when I finally get a new phone with more storage, I think I'm going to TRY to keep the same mindset, and keep my phone's installed app base nice and lean.
People can get fired for showing up to work late too often. Fomenting strife and pissing off nearly every woman working at your company is certainly a bigger disruption to business than tardiness.
Viewpoints that effectively call into question the capability or humanity of women arenâ(TM)t viewpoints you should be debating. A womanâ(TM)s worth as a person or employee (by reason of her gender) is not something you can deliberate, and itâ(TM)s toxic for the company to pretend like it is. It undermines the entire meritocracy ideal, if thatâ(TM)s indeed what you believe in (women working with or under this guy will get bad reviews merely for being women in contact with a biased man) and itâ(TM)s going to make what proportion of your workforce that IS women feel like theyâ(TM)re disposable and unfairly treated. Indeed, thatâ(TM)s what theyâ(TM)re saying on social media right now.
This is a PR and HR disaster. If this guy isnâ(TM)t fired, Google will be tacitly admitting that diversity is something that they care about only until it hurts somebodyâ(TM)s fee-fees, and then theyâ(TM)ll happily give up and allow some employees consider and treat other employees as second class for reasons completely unrelated to their work.
The least they can do is fire him. They also need to make sure nobody like him is ever hired again.
That's not how change works. The system, as it stands, discriminates at the very beginning. Black women have higher maternal mortality rates, schools in black neighbourhoods aren't as well funded, services are less available to black people, etc., etc.
(Or from a Canadian perspective, First Nations people start incredibly disadvantaged; some reservations have been on boil water advisories for 20 years, and so on.)
They're STARTING from a worse place. Affirmative action type programs are theoretically temporary. Once you've elevated enough of a disadvantaged class, it should be self sustaining, but nobody's there yet. Privilege endures.
It's really disingenuous of you to use that MLK quote; he understood that you have to fight for equality, and that it isn't just handed to you. It doesn't just happen on its own, or he wouldn't have had to march and be thrown in jail or give speeches or be assassinated.
Uh, the entire A-series of SoCs is pretty strong proof that they still do a lot of tech really well. They don't just outperform Qualcomm's chips, they make a mockery of them.
iOS is a great OS. It may not be your cup of tea, but it's not deficient in any meaningful way.
It's obnoxious and blind to claim that Apple doesn't do tech. They do great tech, it just happens that they also do the BEST marketing. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The administration is actively seeking this. The actual repercussions and results don't matter as long as it can appear like they're doing something. They've spent the entire last 8 months spinning their wheels doing nothing.
So Foxconn clearly doesn't NEED to build a plant in Wisconsin. They're doing fine with what they have, and presumably they could've built this plant in China where wages are lower.
So that really raises the question of how much this must've been worth to them politically to help Trump out. They must be getting a really sweet deal to do this. I love Apple and generally agree with their politics, but let's be totally clear here, they're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. And Foxconn is DEFINITELY not doing it for the enrichment of American workers because that's a thing they really feel committed to.
Is it really so hard to generalise the concept that data that claims that one group does X more often than group Y is a multi-faceted problem, and does not merely boil down to X is smarter/more violent/whatever than group Y?
The drug example is one that I happen to know has data for it because it keeps coming up in the news, and I think few people would argue that a lot of the drug trade also involves violence.
The statistics that violent crime is more often committed by black people should not lead us to the conclusion that black people are inherently more violent, merely that given their circumstances, more violence occurs that they are prosecuted for. We saw a white man rape a women behind a dumpster and get 6 months for it; when our standards for conviction and punishment for white people are so bad, it's not really reasonable to believe that our system is fair if your skin is coloured, regardless of the crime.
The military is already, apparently, the largest employer of transgender people in the USA. This is a political decision, not a practical one. How do we know? The DoD is telling reporters to go talk to the WH about this policy change, AND the Secretary of Defence is currently ON VACATION.
This decision has nothing to do with whether the military can handle it or not; they have been.
Fork it after the ad insert, figure out the code that's phoning home, pass it garbage data. It sounds like the analysis is being done non-locally ("in the cloud"), so it sounds like it should be possible to undermine it. If what they're trying to do is build a corpus of data to operate on, poisoned data is going to cost them time and money to filter out.
I'm sure over time they'll evolve more sophisticated ways to make sure the data is clean, or maybe they'll figure out a way to ask developers first whether or not it's okay to turn on the 'feature'. If they've actually got a useful product, maybe people will use it, but the minimum bar is that they should be asking, or promoting their own open source plugin, not co-opting existing ones.
Slashdot Mirror
They can make you use your fingers, but you don't have to tell them which finger is the right one. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like you can force the iPhone to only accept one attempt before requiring a passcode, so they've got multiple tries at guessing which one is the correct one.
Lots of people can't sleep in moving vehicles, and having a night's sleep partially interrupted by a run for the train isn't exactly conducive to really quality sleep later.
I personally fall asleep on planes and trains just fine, but the quality of the sleep is so low I count it for about half of what I manage to get. She's going to work, not back home from a trip; a good night's sleep is going to be important to doing her job properly for the rest of the day.
Antifa has existed for decades. Antifa is not new, the only reason why you're hearing about it now is that there are a lot more fascists coming out of the woodwork at the moment because there's a friendly federal administration that somehow manages to consistently weasel out of condemning nazis unless someone pushes a prepared statement under his nose and tells him to stop talking once he's done.
It really isn't. Left wing groups do not call for genocide or the removal of the rights of these groups that you're talking about. You're making the worst kind of false moral equivalence.
Nazis are looking to *kill* people. They tried very hard to extirpate an entire group of people, and these new groups are neo-Nazis. They have swastika flags and tattoos, and they seig heil the same as nazis did.
Genocide is not a valid side of an argument. Ban them, ban their speech. There is no moral value to keeping them around.
You're already doomed then. Free Speech—even in America—is and always has been a limited right.
(Exceptions to free speech in America.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And on top of that, being intolerant of intolerance is entirely consistent. It is necessary for a tolerant society to push back against that which would undermine it.
(Tolerance is not a moral absolute.) https://extranewsfeed.com/tole...
(Paradox of Tolerance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So no, we don't have to let hateful organisations say whatever they want; the act of speaking such things is itself a kind of violence to our society. This doesn't mean that we should ban speech that makes us uncomfortable, or is unpopular. It DOES mean that speech that implicitly or explicitly advocates for genocide or violence is not worth protecting and is in fact speech that we should be actively attempting to limit by whatever means we can.
"Not every peace is better than the war it prevents." There's a certain peace to permitting all speech, even the worst kind of speech, but it's not worth it.
There is an unfortunate amount of truth to this. :|
I mean, it's definitely a good step forward.
That Australian study is interesting. I'm just looking at the opening summary of results, and I'm wondering if they're at a point where the people in hiring positions are actively looking to close the gaps on minority hiring, so they're actively working against their own biases, or formed new biases to manage that.
The percentages are pretty small for men and women, but huge for minority ethnicities. I'm looking forward to reading this more, thanks.
But yes, you make a good point. The real trick is to get them in the door, and at least in North America, it seems that the sticking point is unrecognised and possibly (probably?) unintentional sexism or racism.
Except that's fucking bullshit.
Until there are blind resume reviews and tests, the myth of the meritocracy is just so-much garbage spouted by people that are worried they'll lose their jobs to someone ACTUALLY qualified.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wh...
This was exactly the same thing that happened at symphonies. When you ACTUALLY care about a) diversity and b) hiring the best people for the job, it turns out that the first thing you have to do is leave your biases at the door, and virtually nobody is good at doing that. So remove the doubt: blind auditions.
Most interview processes are garbage anyway. I've been a programmer for 15 years and I'm still asked to talk about certain kinds of language specific minutia that are super irrelevant in daily programming. (That is, I've answered questions and literally never, ever seen those features used in the games we ship. It's essentially a trivia contest.)
And here's the thing about programming when you're at a game company: AT LEAST half your job has nothing to do with programming—at least if you're any good. You HAVE to play the game you're making, make suggestions, think about the comfort of the player. I would take a junior programmer with a good feel for gameplay than a veteran rockstar programmer that has great technical chops but doesn't have any suggestions to improve the game. Even for engine and graphics programmers.
So yeah, coding can be hard, but I can teach you what you need to know. If you're working with me and I can trust you to make good gameplay decisions, that's a LOT more important to me, and I CAN'T teach you that.
Because Safari is significantly faster and significantly better on the battery. It's not really even close.
...has literally never met a programmer.
Nearly all of our wasted time comes from trying to navigate a context switch. Sometimes it's unavoidable—the code is compiling, and so unless you're only waiting less than 15s, you're going to start doing anything else, and that 15s is suddenly 15m. But that's how it goes, and we all learn to navigate this to greater or lesser degrees.
But being interrupted by someone else's random conversation is largely avoidable when you don't work in an open plan office, and largely impossible when you do. You're killing the productivity of your programmers if you put them in these open plans. Want to increase productivity and decrease costs without firing OR hiring anyone? Give them offices, or at least spacious (i.e., can fit 2 people and a white board) cubicles. It's like friggin' magic.
Thumbs up. I have no mod points left, but you nailed it.
In that case his LinkedIn page is *deliberately* misleading. It shows his BSc and then his PhD, with no mention of a Masters. Normally, you only list the education that you *completed*. If he didn't finish his PhD and took the Masters instead, I would expect him to list a Masters.
Sure, but why try to be misleading about it?
I have a 16GB iPhone 6. It was a mistake to go for the lowest tier of storage, and I regret it, but it DOES make me choosy about my apps. I have a 32GB 5th Gen iPad and just by the nature of what I do on my phone vs. my iPad, that's actually just fine. I install the big games on my iPad, aggressively delete anything I'm bored with, and that's great.
On my iPhone, I'm now ultra vigilant about what I use, which means I don't have facebook installed, which is GREAT. (I still use it, just in the browser.) I've gotten rid of the apps that are huge and distracting, and while I'm still always toeing the line with regards to storage, I'm happier with this low-storage situation than I expected. And when I finally get a new phone with more storage, I think I'm going to TRY to keep the same mindset, and keep my phone's installed app base nice and lean.
Harvard confirmed that he does NOT have a PhD. He has a Masters and he CLAIMS he has a PhD.
People can get fired for showing up to work late too often. Fomenting strife and pissing off nearly every woman working at your company is certainly a bigger disruption to business than tardiness.
Viewpoints that effectively call into question the capability or humanity of women arenâ(TM)t viewpoints you should be debating. A womanâ(TM)s worth as a person or employee (by reason of her gender) is not something you can deliberate, and itâ(TM)s toxic for the company to pretend like it is. It undermines the entire meritocracy ideal, if thatâ(TM)s indeed what you believe in (women working with or under this guy will get bad reviews merely for being women in contact with a biased man) and itâ(TM)s going to make what proportion of your workforce that IS women feel like theyâ(TM)re disposable and unfairly treated. Indeed, thatâ(TM)s what theyâ(TM)re saying on social media right now.
This is a PR and HR disaster. If this guy isnâ(TM)t fired, Google will be tacitly admitting that diversity is something that they care about only until it hurts somebodyâ(TM)s fee-fees, and then theyâ(TM)ll happily give up and allow some employees consider and treat other employees as second class for reasons completely unrelated to their work.
The least they can do is fire him. They also need to make sure nobody like him is ever hired again.
That's not how change works. The system, as it stands, discriminates at the very beginning. Black women have higher maternal mortality rates, schools in black neighbourhoods aren't as well funded, services are less available to black people, etc., etc.
(Or from a Canadian perspective, First Nations people start incredibly disadvantaged; some reservations have been on boil water advisories for 20 years, and so on.)
They're STARTING from a worse place. Affirmative action type programs are theoretically temporary. Once you've elevated enough of a disadvantaged class, it should be self sustaining, but nobody's there yet. Privilege endures.
It's really disingenuous of you to use that MLK quote; he understood that you have to fight for equality, and that it isn't just handed to you. It doesn't just happen on its own, or he wouldn't have had to march and be thrown in jail or give speeches or be assassinated.
Uh, the entire A-series of SoCs is pretty strong proof that they still do a lot of tech really well. They don't just outperform Qualcomm's chips, they make a mockery of them.
iOS is a great OS. It may not be your cup of tea, but it's not deficient in any meaningful way.
It's obnoxious and blind to claim that Apple doesn't do tech. They do great tech, it just happens that they also do the BEST marketing. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The administration is actively seeking this. The actual repercussions and results don't matter as long as it can appear like they're doing something. They've spent the entire last 8 months spinning their wheels doing nothing.
So Foxconn clearly doesn't NEED to build a plant in Wisconsin. They're doing fine with what they have, and presumably they could've built this plant in China where wages are lower.
So that really raises the question of how much this must've been worth to them politically to help Trump out. They must be getting a really sweet deal to do this. I love Apple and generally agree with their politics, but let's be totally clear here, they're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. And Foxconn is DEFINITELY not doing it for the enrichment of American workers because that's a thing they really feel committed to.
Is it really so hard to generalise the concept that data that claims that one group does X more often than group Y is a multi-faceted problem, and does not merely boil down to X is smarter/more violent/whatever than group Y?
The drug example is one that I happen to know has data for it because it keeps coming up in the news, and I think few people would argue that a lot of the drug trade also involves violence.
The statistics that violent crime is more often committed by black people should not lead us to the conclusion that black people are inherently more violent, merely that given their circumstances, more violence occurs that they are prosecuted for. We saw a white man rape a women behind a dumpster and get 6 months for it; when our standards for conviction and punishment for white people are so bad, it's not really reasonable to believe that our system is fair if your skin is coloured, regardless of the crime.
I'm male and my partner is female. Though she does find it amusing to call herself my husband, on occasion.
The military is already, apparently, the largest employer of transgender people in the USA. This is a political decision, not a practical one. How do we know? The DoD is telling reporters to go talk to the WH about this policy change, AND the Secretary of Defence is currently ON VACATION.
This decision has nothing to do with whether the military can handle it or not; they have been.
Fork it after the ad insert, figure out the code that's phoning home, pass it garbage data. It sounds like the analysis is being done non-locally ("in the cloud"), so it sounds like it should be possible to undermine it. If what they're trying to do is build a corpus of data to operate on, poisoned data is going to cost them time and money to filter out.
I'm sure over time they'll evolve more sophisticated ways to make sure the data is clean, or maybe they'll figure out a way to ask developers first whether or not it's okay to turn on the 'feature'. If they've actually got a useful product, maybe people will use it, but the minimum bar is that they should be asking, or promoting their own open source plugin, not co-opting existing ones.