I believe TFS says that Facebook is looking further into this, suggesting that they think the evidence is valid but inconclusive. They may be able to conduct an experiment by running code by other people with randomized male and female names on the reviews.
Alternatively, the women that are determined to get into software careers are going to be more determined and more talented and more passionate, and therefore will be better at it. I've seen that effect elsewhere.
My experience is that there are fewer female developers than male, typically, but that the female ones are at least as good as the male ones. That's my anecdotal evidence, and I'm sticking to it.
Thing is, we have several processes for software quality. Testing is one of them, and code review is another. They are different activities, serve different purposes, and so we have different terms for them. If someone said "test the code" I would take it to mean something considerably different from "review the code". You're using precise terms loosely enough to appear that you don't know what you're talking about.
When I was making money contracting, I wrote down what I'd been paid and subtracted my expenses, and that's what I was taxed on. The cost of making the revenue is directly deductible. There's deductions for stuff you're required to get (safety glasses, uniforms, etc.) for people who work on a W-2 basis (regular employees). If you spend enough work-related money in a year to offset what you made, you don't pay taxes (although you have other problems).
Income taxes mean that you get somewhat less money than you otherwise would. Normal income taxes don't punish you for working.
What punishes workers is things like lower tax rates on capital gains and FICA payroll taxes, as well as ways to avoid taxes on income that don't work when you just do things for somebody and they pay you money for it. Progressives are, I think, not as happy about the capital gains tax breaks.
I live in a heavily Democrat area, and the free and open election is the Democratic primary. It excludes only people who aren't going to win the general election anyway*. The question of who was going to replace Marty Sabo in the House was decided when Keith Ellison won the primary. Democracy in action.
*Non-Democrats are welcome to run in the general election, of course, and they have the same chance as the Democratic candidate to influence voters and get votes out. They haven't succeeded as long as I've lived here.
Okay, name a political philosophy you like. Should I feel free to ascribe every facet of that philosophy to you, or would you insist on being able to make up your own mind without carefully checking into what people in your political movement have said? I describe myself as a liberal, progressive, or leftist as shorthand. I'm also strongly in favor of nuclear power plants, which is somewhat unusual for leftists.
How about I ascribe distorted versions of your philosophy's views? I don't know progressives that are actually in favor of illegal immigration. Do not confuse this with how people want illegal immigrants treated. Typically but not universally, progressives are for larger scale legal immigration and admission of refugees, and would rather give illegal immigrants a way to become legal than crack down on individual illegal immigrants.
The "base rate fallacy" is, essentially, disregarding the prior probabilities of things. I can establish that illegal discrimination is at least plausible, so it's not like it has a vanishingly small prior. The rest of my reasoning is essentially Bayes' Law.
And what is even more reprehensible about your view is that you basically think of employees as interchangeable cogs and deny that we have the capability of making our own choices.
Again, you completely fail at reading my mind. Ideally, people would get hired, promoted, etc. on the basis of what they can do for the company, not any irrelevant or proxy factors. Ideally, people would be treated as individuals with their own individual strengths and weaknesses. If an employer doesn't hire a guy because he's black, or gay, or was considered female at birth, they're treating that guy as an interchangeable part of a group the employer doesn't like.
However, statistically, I'm just another experienced software developer working in C++ for employment purposes. My individual strengths and weaknesses are ignored. Statistics is a way of throwing away information until you've got something comprehensible. If Joe is hired or not, or Jane is or is not promoted, there's no valid conclusions we can draw. If we see that one group is hired disproportionately to the percentage of qualified applicants, or that the only people promoted are of one group, that's strong evidence that management is judging people on the groups they belong to (typically involuntarily) rather than as individuals.
There are limited resources. Offering a physical venue for a Flat Earther means the institution can't offer it to someone rational who has ideas that may be useful and thought-provoking. How to allocate limited resources is always a problem.
The Web is effectively unlimited, and idiots should and do make their own websites to disseminate their stupid ideas. This is as it should be. I assume there are several websites that push Flat Earth ideas, although I haven't looked.
In other words, instead of addressing any part of the science, you're going to pick out individual climate scientists and base your opinions on bad things you hear or read about them.
Currently, we're working on heavy lift rockets, which we're going to need. The US currently doesn't have an acceptable method of launching people into space. We'll have those things working well in a few years, but that's not going to give us a Mars landing by 2021, and if there's significant unexpected delays likely not by 2025.
We also can't just land people on Mars and let them die quickly. We either need to bring them back, which means sending enough stuff to Mars to support a large space mission, or keep sending supplies (and we need to decide on the tradeoff: how much stuff do we send to get partial self-sufficiency?).
The 4GLs that I saw were all specialized to one domain. It's not a bad idea, but they weren't going to eliminate the need for 3GLs. For a while, the Japanese were pushing Prolog as a 5GL.
The first moon landing took place after the end of what could have been Kennedy's second term. The Mars mission may take longer. We know much more and have much better technology, but it's a vastly more difficult mission. Putting an aggressive deadline on a mission like this is just inviting disaster.
You aren't going to get a third party. One of the current parties might self-destruct (my money is currently on the Republicans) and be replaced, but the political dynamics mean two large parties, one of which will be whining, and one of which will be doing all sorts of unproductive things.
The problem with Trump's announcement is that nobody has any faith that he's going to follow through. If he increased NASA funding for this, and kept it up even when it became clear that he wasn't going to be President when it happens, that would be good. It would also be astonishing, as Trump has a short attention span and says a whole lot of things he doesn't mean a month later.
The atmosphere will be gone again very fast in astronomical terms. If we can spend a century and get it to a usable state that would last a tiny fraction of a cosmic eyeblink, like a thousand years, that would work.
We've had people on the ISS for lots more than 150 days without gravity. It's definitely not good for them, but if we're going to do it any time soon we have to accept that the astronauts will not arrive in tiptop condition.
If Trump carries through and increases funding for manned space exploration, including sending people to Mars, and is comfortable with the fact that he won't be President when it happens, that's one thing. We associate moon landings with Kennedy rather than Nixon. If he's just going to mouth off some and demand totally unrealistic deadlines while cutting funding, what good does that do?
Given unlimited money, how much of a metric fuckton of rockets that can carry a significant payload to Mars could we manufacture by April 2018, which is less than a year away? We could probably make a lot of useful payload by then, but can we get much to the surface of Mars? The impression I have is that big rockets are not only expensive but take time to build, and we don't have mass production facilities available.
In which case delivery companies just stop servicing the place, because they can't make a profit. City taxpayers notice that they can't get stuff delivered, and vote out the idiots who passed that stupid ordinance.
The military makes a lot of mistakes, but the US Armed Forces are extremely effective, far more so than a decentralized militia. If a neighboring town sent regular troops to attack your home, getting locals together to fight will mostly get them killed or driven off.
Nobody's got a right to your property except you (except through exceptional legal situations). You don't, however, have the right to conduct commercial operations without restriction. If you publish availability, you can't limit it in certain ways.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe TFS says that Facebook is looking further into this, suggesting that they think the evidence is valid but inconclusive. They may be able to conduct an experiment by running code by other people with randomized male and female names on the reviews.
Alternatively, the women that are determined to get into software careers are going to be more determined and more talented and more passionate, and therefore will be better at it. I've seen that effect elsewhere.
My experience is that there are fewer female developers than male, typically, but that the female ones are at least as good as the male ones. That's my anecdotal evidence, and I'm sticking to it.
Thing is, we have several processes for software quality. Testing is one of them, and code review is another. They are different activities, serve different purposes, and so we have different terms for them. If someone said "test the code" I would take it to mean something considerably different from "review the code". You're using precise terms loosely enough to appear that you don't know what you're talking about.
No, we don't do it for people. We tax net income.
When I was making money contracting, I wrote down what I'd been paid and subtracted my expenses, and that's what I was taxed on. The cost of making the revenue is directly deductible. There's deductions for stuff you're required to get (safety glasses, uniforms, etc.) for people who work on a W-2 basis (regular employees). If you spend enough work-related money in a year to offset what you made, you don't pay taxes (although you have other problems).
Income taxes mean that you get somewhat less money than you otherwise would. Normal income taxes don't punish you for working.
What punishes workers is things like lower tax rates on capital gains and FICA payroll taxes, as well as ways to avoid taxes on income that don't work when you just do things for somebody and they pay you money for it. Progressives are, I think, not as happy about the capital gains tax breaks.
I live in a heavily Democrat area, and the free and open election is the Democratic primary. It excludes only people who aren't going to win the general election anyway*. The question of who was going to replace Marty Sabo in the House was decided when Keith Ellison won the primary. Democracy in action.
*Non-Democrats are welcome to run in the general election, of course, and they have the same chance as the Democratic candidate to influence voters and get votes out. They haven't succeeded as long as I've lived here.
Okay, name a political philosophy you like. Should I feel free to ascribe every facet of that philosophy to you, or would you insist on being able to make up your own mind without carefully checking into what people in your political movement have said? I describe myself as a liberal, progressive, or leftist as shorthand. I'm also strongly in favor of nuclear power plants, which is somewhat unusual for leftists.
How about I ascribe distorted versions of your philosophy's views? I don't know progressives that are actually in favor of illegal immigration. Do not confuse this with how people want illegal immigrants treated. Typically but not universally, progressives are for larger scale legal immigration and admission of refugees, and would rather give illegal immigrants a way to become legal than crack down on individual illegal immigrants.
The "base rate fallacy" is, essentially, disregarding the prior probabilities of things. I can establish that illegal discrimination is at least plausible, so it's not like it has a vanishingly small prior. The rest of my reasoning is essentially Bayes' Law.
Again, you completely fail at reading my mind. Ideally, people would get hired, promoted, etc. on the basis of what they can do for the company, not any irrelevant or proxy factors. Ideally, people would be treated as individuals with their own individual strengths and weaknesses. If an employer doesn't hire a guy because he's black, or gay, or was considered female at birth, they're treating that guy as an interchangeable part of a group the employer doesn't like.
However, statistically, I'm just another experienced software developer working in C++ for employment purposes. My individual strengths and weaknesses are ignored. Statistics is a way of throwing away information until you've got something comprehensible. If Joe is hired or not, or Jane is or is not promoted, there's no valid conclusions we can draw. If we see that one group is hired disproportionately to the percentage of qualified applicants, or that the only people promoted are of one group, that's strong evidence that management is judging people on the groups they belong to (typically involuntarily) rather than as individuals.
There are limited resources. Offering a physical venue for a Flat Earther means the institution can't offer it to someone rational who has ideas that may be useful and thought-provoking. How to allocate limited resources is always a problem.
The Web is effectively unlimited, and idiots should and do make their own websites to disseminate their stupid ideas. This is as it should be. I assume there are several websites that push Flat Earth ideas, although I haven't looked.
In other words, instead of addressing any part of the science, you're going to pick out individual climate scientists and base your opinions on bad things you hear or read about them.
Currently, we're working on heavy lift rockets, which we're going to need. The US currently doesn't have an acceptable method of launching people into space. We'll have those things working well in a few years, but that's not going to give us a Mars landing by 2021, and if there's significant unexpected delays likely not by 2025.
We also can't just land people on Mars and let them die quickly. We either need to bring them back, which means sending enough stuff to Mars to support a large space mission, or keep sending supplies (and we need to decide on the tradeoff: how much stuff do we send to get partial self-sufficiency?).
The 4GLs that I saw were all specialized to one domain. It's not a bad idea, but they weren't going to eliminate the need for 3GLs. For a while, the Japanese were pushing Prolog as a 5GL.
The first moon landing took place after the end of what could have been Kennedy's second term. The Mars mission may take longer. We know much more and have much better technology, but it's a vastly more difficult mission. Putting an aggressive deadline on a mission like this is just inviting disaster.
You aren't going to get a third party. One of the current parties might self-destruct (my money is currently on the Republicans) and be replaced, but the political dynamics mean two large parties, one of which will be whining, and one of which will be doing all sorts of unproductive things.
The problem with Trump's announcement is that nobody has any faith that he's going to follow through. If he increased NASA funding for this, and kept it up even when it became clear that he wasn't going to be President when it happens, that would be good. It would also be astonishing, as Trump has a short attention span and says a whole lot of things he doesn't mean a month later.
The atmosphere will be gone again very fast in astronomical terms. If we can spend a century and get it to a usable state that would last a tiny fraction of a cosmic eyeblink, like a thousand years, that would work.
We can send lots and lots of rovers for the cost of one geologist.
We've had people on the ISS for lots more than 150 days without gravity. It's definitely not good for them, but if we're going to do it any time soon we have to accept that the astronauts will not arrive in tiptop condition.
If Trump carries through and increases funding for manned space exploration, including sending people to Mars, and is comfortable with the fact that he won't be President when it happens, that's one thing. We associate moon landings with Kennedy rather than Nixon. If he's just going to mouth off some and demand totally unrealistic deadlines while cutting funding, what good does that do?
With unlimited money, and nine women, you still can't get a newborn baby in a month. Some things take time.
Given unlimited money, how much of a metric fuckton of rockets that can carry a significant payload to Mars could we manufacture by April 2018, which is less than a year away? We could probably make a lot of useful payload by then, but can we get much to the surface of Mars? The impression I have is that big rockets are not only expensive but take time to build, and we don't have mass production facilities available.
What Capek predicted wasn't really robots as we envision them now, more like an artificial subservient race.
In which case delivery companies just stop servicing the place, because they can't make a profit. City taxpayers notice that they can't get stuff delivered, and vote out the idiots who passed that stupid ordinance.
The military makes a lot of mistakes, but the US Armed Forces are extremely effective, far more so than a decentralized militia. If a neighboring town sent regular troops to attack your home, getting locals together to fight will mostly get them killed or driven off.
My reader uses e-ink. That's at least close to reading paper books, and is better than reading them on a tablet.
Nobody's got a right to your property except you (except through exceptional legal situations). You don't, however, have the right to conduct commercial operations without restriction. If you publish availability, you can't limit it in certain ways.