I'm not triggered, I just think there's too damn many aspie douchebags who never learned how to BEHAVE like civilized human beings on Slashdot. Spoiled rotten with tech toys by parents. spoiled by their silicon valley employers with techtoys at work and nerf fights and whatnot.
Damn, I can just FEEL the decency and civilization radiating from this comment.
There are no 'Really Terrible Languages', just 'Really Terrible Programmers'
In addition to C++, there's PHP, Javascript, APL, Ada, and BASIC. Off the top of my head and not including novelty languages. (Also leaving off COBOL and pre-66 FORTRAN because nobody could know better then)
Yes it's terrible, no Jai or Rust or D or any other "language of the week" isn't going to replace it. They all fail on something. D has garbage collection. Rust comes with politics and really annoying fans. C++ doesn't even have fans. Plus C++ is well-entrenched; it'll be harder to dislodge than Fortran
And yes, there is a smaller and more elegant language inside C++ screaming to get out. It's called "C".
Google does recruit at HBCUs. The basic problem is not that the HBCUs are "too prole", but that the HBCUs tend to have lousy comp sci programs which turn out students who can't make the cut. Google has actually sent people in to start teaching classes at HBCUs to try to rectify this.
All police officers do. They know the elements of the crime they're accusing you of, so to get a conviction they'll tell a standard story that hits each of those elements (whether true or not), embellishing with details from their notes for verisimilitude.
Single name addresses are no big deal. What's a big status symbol is single-letter addresses; ask Rob Pike, his single-letter address causes "go" afficianados to swoon.
I tend to go by value of stock options and RSUs, but what do I know, I'm a NYC techie, not a Silicon Valley one.
No, it's really easy when it comes to phone calls - Got an illegal spam call? Report and person gets a hefty fine. Can't identify caller? Move punishment to the company that provides the call. Done.
It turns out the company which originates the call is a boiler-room operation which has dissolved by the time the FCC gets to them. Or they're operating out of another country. Your solution is simple, obvious, and wrong.
Very few people lie to employers about having gone to MIT or any other prestigious US school. Very few of those who do go through the trouble of faking any sort of transcript or diploma, because no one ever checks those except maybe for a first job. If the employer (or their background check agency) does check, they do it by contacting the school.
I suspect more lying about international schools, since employers might find it harder to check. (Maybe more lying outside the US about US schools, for similar reasons)
It constantly overestimates the real recidivism rate for black people.
It does not. Take a look at this Washington Post article
Note the first graph. For each risk score, chance of recidivism is approximately the same between blacks and whites.
What ProPublica showed is the reverse, that black defendants who do not reoffend are more likely to receive a high score than white defendants who do not reoffend. Given that black defendants as a whole are more likely to re-offend, this is unavoidable without making the predictor biased against whites instead. The Post article goes into this.
In their example, Black people who would have repaid a home loan and White people who would have repaid it should be denied the loan at the same rate: equality of opportunity, but not of outcome. Adding this constraint reduces the profitability of the bank.
More to the point, adding this constraint requires a race-aware algorithm.
If both prior convictions and the measure of recidivism are biased, the algorithm will correctly use the prior bias to predict the future bias. This is indistinguishable from the case where no bias exists. The case where black people are erroneously and consistently measured as more likely to commit crimes when they aren't produces the same data as if black people are correctly measured as more likely to commit crimes. No useful race-blind algorithm can fix that; either you have to fix the bias in the data (if it exists) or put your thumb on the scale by adding race as a factor and forcing score distributions to be equal between races.
If only prior convictions are biased, black defendants scored as high-risk would be less likely to re-offend than white defendants scored as high-risk; this was not the case.
The COMPAS algorithm, while opaque, does not have race as an input. It was found its accuracy could be matched by an algorithm with just two variables: age and prior convictions. Even this simple model shows the same "bias" that COMPAS is accused of. The bias isn't in the algorithm; it's in the real world.
Someone with "only" 70 days of training is not permitted to wave sharp blades around. That's only for someone who:
"Applies tints or dyes to the hair, shampoos hair, manicures nails, applies cosmetic preparations, antiseptics, powders, oils, clays or lotions to scalp, face, neck or other parts of the body."
To actually cut hair requires 188 days of training.
Slashdot Mirror
It's almost like the market is segmented.
Another lesson in civility from an obvious master of the subject.
Damn, I can just FEEL the decency and civilization radiating from this comment.
Naa, it's the new Clinton dime. Anything can reproduce on it.
No case or controversy; SCOTUS is going to tell the administration not to bother them with this.
In addition to C++, there's PHP, Javascript, APL, Ada, and BASIC. Off the top of my head and not including novelty languages. (Also leaving off COBOL and pre-66 FORTRAN because nobody could know better then)
Yes it's terrible, no Jai or Rust or D or any other "language of the week" isn't going to replace it. They all fail on something. D has garbage collection. Rust comes with politics and really annoying fans. C++ doesn't even have fans. Plus C++ is well-entrenched; it'll be harder to dislodge than Fortran
And yes, there is a smaller and more elegant language inside C++ screaming to get out. It's called "C".
So, like indenture?
Exactly, without the one, exclamation points are weak sauce. You gotta show you were so excited you lost track of the SHIFT KEY!!1
No, there isn't.
I'm guessing their discriminatory hiring programs accelerated that trend even more.
Two -- the Supplemental Headcount Program for industry hires and another program which affected new grads.
Michael Jackson was black when he first did the moonwalk.
Google does recruit at HBCUs. The basic problem is not that the HBCUs are "too prole", but that the HBCUs tend to have lousy comp sci programs which turn out students who can't make the cut. Google has actually sent people in to start teaching classes at HBCUs to try to rectify this.
All police officers do. They know the elements of the crime they're accusing you of, so to get a conviction they'll tell a standard story that hits each of those elements (whether true or not), embellishing with details from their notes for verisimilitude.
Single name addresses are no big deal. What's a big status symbol is single-letter addresses; ask Rob Pike, his single-letter address causes "go" afficianados to swoon.
I tend to go by value of stock options and RSUs, but what do I know, I'm a NYC techie, not a Silicon Valley one.
Live a little, use Devuan BAUDOT.
By the time it gets to UNICODE (if it does), it'll have grown into the bloated monstrosity that will be its namesake, so it's all good.
Very few people lie to employers about having gone to MIT or any other prestigious US school. Very few of those who do go through the trouble of faking any sort of transcript or diploma, because no one ever checks those except maybe for a first job. If the employer (or their background check agency) does check, they do it by contacting the school.
I suspect more lying about international schools, since employers might find it harder to check. (Maybe more lying outside the US about US schools, for similar reasons)
They could make it easy on themselves and just take everyone on Google Plus.
It does not. Take a look at this Washington Post article
Note the first graph. For each risk score, chance of recidivism is approximately the same between blacks and whites.
What ProPublica showed is the reverse, that black defendants who do not reoffend are more likely to receive a high score than white defendants who do not reoffend. Given that black defendants as a whole are more likely to re-offend, this is unavoidable without making the predictor biased against whites instead. The Post article goes into this.
More to the point, adding this constraint requires a race-aware algorithm.
If both prior convictions and the measure of recidivism are biased, the algorithm will correctly use the prior bias to predict the future bias. This is indistinguishable from the case where no bias exists. The case where black people are erroneously and consistently measured as more likely to commit crimes when they aren't produces the same data as if black people are correctly measured as more likely to commit crimes. No useful race-blind algorithm can fix that; either you have to fix the bias in the data (if it exists) or put your thumb on the scale by adding race as a factor and forcing score distributions to be equal between races.
If only prior convictions are biased, black defendants scored as high-risk would be less likely to re-offend than white defendants scored as high-risk; this was not the case.
The COMPAS algorithm, while opaque, does not have race as an input. It was found its accuracy could be matched by an algorithm with just two variables: age and prior convictions. Even this simple model shows the same "bias" that COMPAS is accused of. The bias isn't in the algorithm; it's in the real world.
No, all the tech firms provide meals with sufficient soy and other estrogenic compounds to reduce aggressive impulses.
Someone with "only" 70 days of training is not permitted to wave sharp blades around. That's only for someone who:
"Applies tints or dyes to the hair, shampoos hair, manicures nails, applies cosmetic preparations, antiseptics, powders, oils, clays or lotions to scalp, face, neck or other parts of the body."
To actually cut hair requires 188 days of training.