Did you read his essay? Nowhere in it does he claim that women are inferior engineers... neither does he dismiss the issues that they face.
What he did was propose ideas on why women and certain minorities may be underrepresented in tech and how he believed Google's current policy for dealing with this perceived imbalance might not be the best approach for Google or its employees.
Why do you and others continue to misrepresent his ideas like this?
According to TFA, problem is that once inefficient purveyors (ie local retailers) are driven out by Amazon, locals are fucked over when Amazon decides it isn't worth their dime shipping to the sticks anymore.
Once available locally at price X --> Next available via Prime for X - Y --> Now available nowhere
It's undercutting the competition in order to let the locals starve... perhaps not Amazon's original intent, but a potential dark outcome for those who live in remote parts.
Perhaps a tad gauche replying to my own post, but...
Give me a centralized, well-indexed collection of all the education available and let me be the curator.
Netflix, Spotify, and Reddit curate in such an oppressive manner that I cannot imagine such a model being good for anyone who likes to direct his own habits. And for one who doesn't like to direct his own habits... education curated in such a manner sounds downright dangerous.
Netflix and Spotify (ostensibly) show you what they think you want to see. The curation is perhaps somewhat accurate but I end up feeling like a browsable index would suit my needs far better than having so much content hidden, even inaccessible, behind what they divine my "tastes" to be. As an example: Netflix no longer displays a category for anime on my account because it has decided I don't like anime. Simply not true! I want that category back! Their curation makes my self-direction more difficult because they have forced me to spend extra effort locating the content I really want to see.
Imagine this applied to education: You want to learn about Japan? Well our AI doesn't think you really do, so we'll present options to learn about how great USA is instead! How is this good?
And Reddit? Well... Reddit is curation by an angry mob. Has OP ever even been to Reddit?
In short: Make educational content easily available? Absolutely. Use some fancy AI or groupthink to do so? Probably not the best approach.
CNN should have ignored the information. Someone poked fun at their biased reporting and CNN responded by announcing to the world that they were willing to trample on the rights of a private citizen in an apparent attempt to protect their brand image. If they get any amount of public support or brand image boost from this move I will be shocked.
Not only is what they did legally questionable(looks like extortion to me,) but it isn't even close to good PR. Whoever said heads will roll at CNN over this is right.
Desktop experiences suffer at the hands of managers looking to cut costs and develop one site for all platforms.
It is an absolute travesty of utility. At least we know there are hundreds of other places to get news that have thus far retained their desktop appeal.
The battery issue is really an unrelated issue. Remember the Galaxy Note 7 that so infamously exploded on everyone? Did anyone call for better regulation of smartphones?
Some electronics will be poorly designed. Future iterations will resolve these issues.
This is true. However, it doesn't matter. Former smokers who now vape, like me, know a lot more about vaping and its potential risks and health effects than any article could hope to cover. It is our health and therefore our responsibility.
I must admit it is irritating that only the bad news hits the front page... but it is more than offset by the good news that doesn't.
The best news: at this point the cat is out of the bag. Neither big tobacco nor the FDA's asinine regulations can stop it. Millions of people have switched from smoking to vaping and we know we aren't going back. We only continue to spread the love.
Also there's the fact that there have been zero reported cases of popcorn lung outside of the popcorn plant in question... which is to say e-cigarettes have as far as we know caused zero cases of popcorn lung.
No, benchmarks do not become a double-edged sword. They are simply misused and misunderstood.
An automated software benchmark has value only to a developer or development team evaluating their own code. Anyone using such a benchmark for any other purpose (like comparing the performance of their code to the performance of others' code) is misusing the tool, and in doing so potentially drawing faulty conclusions.
Automated benchmarking tools are not a perfect measurement and they never will be. They are not an and-all solution to anything. They are simply one way to do a quick (and possibly very dirty) analysis of your code. To be useful at all they must be properly understood as such.
The real issue here is this: too many people either believe or like to pretend that some particular benchmark is a god. It isn't, and their naivete or pretension is leading them and others astray.
As a professional developer: if you are coding around a performance benchmark, you are doing it wrong.
These kinds of tools exist for developers to evaluate the performance of their own code. Anyone who uses them in any other fashion (like to evaluate the performance of someone else's code, for example) needs to take the results with a grain of salt, and that will always be the case for any automated software benchmark.
That Google feels the need to retire Octane over this is almost unbelievable... there must be some ulterior motivation.
The vast fiber networks that exist today under big telecom's control were built largely with federal government subsidies... which is part of the reason the telecoms were classified as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act several years ago. They are expected to treat all content carried over their networks as equal as part of their common carrier status.
Giving big telecom cart blanche to police traffic (and on a publicly funded physical network?) can only lead to unfair pricing and prioritization. Telecoms are already allowed to prioritize content based on its type(for example streaming content may be given priority over email content, because data streams are needed in real time whereas email is not.) What big telecom is not allowed to do as a common carrier is examine where a data packet is coming from or going to and charge/prioritize based upon that information.
Why, in a free and open society, should a telecom have the expectation of deciding whose data gets delivered? There is no argument for allowing this other than censorship and price gouging.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is either uneducated or pro-authority. We the people should demand Ajit Pai's removal from his post as he quite clearly does not represent our interests.
DOJ: "Your free online course materials are not accessible to blind people. Make them accessible." UCBerkeley: "Uhhh... how about we just make them inaccessible to everybody?" DOJ: "That's fine."
In what world does this logic compute? DOJ absolutely does not care about accessibility... just look at the result of this travesty of an order.
This is 100% about reducing public access to information. No other interpretation even makes sense. DOJ and the rest of Washington should be ashamed of themselves for the serious and ongoing damage they inflict upon our society.
He never said he wanted to do this... as another poster pointed out in a thread above, certain people are being startled by the strawmen that were deployed against Trump during the run-up to the election.
Just because some news outlet says X about Trump doesn't make it true. You would think after all the recent hullabaloo over "fake news" that people would realize they just can't blindly take the media at face value, and that goes for establishment approved news like CNN and FOX and the Washington Post just as much as any other source.
NEWS FLASH: bias exists in reporting. Everybody has an agenda. Trump is not the devil, he's just the latest wanker to have been elected president. None of this should be surprising to anybody.
First of all, Google Search is a search engine. Search engines were not designed to evaluate the veracity of content. They simply find other websites with content relevant to your search terms.
This is the Internet and it has always been incumbent upon Internet users to exercise discretion with regard to the quality of content that can be discovered. How is this confusing?
Secondly, removing USA Supreme as the number one search result would only replace one bias with another. CNN can publish slanted material just as easily, and given their viewership is so much larger... you might almost think they have the better incentive to do so.
Limiting search results to approved news sources sounds like totalitarian philosophy to me.
Two degrees of warming is expected to cause an average global sea-level rise of 8 inches, but virtually all coastal areas will see more of a rise, [researcher and lead author of the study Svetlana Jevrejeva], found.
If virtually all costal areas will see more of a rise, then 8 inches isn't the average.
What has Pokemon Go has got to do with this? The driver in question was playing Pokemon Go. He wasn't texting or doing some other action. He was Playing Pokemon Go. That makes Pokemon Go directly relevant to this incident.
It's cute to pretend that the details leading up to the accident aren't important and that the only important fact is that the driver is a fuckup, but doing so makes you a fool. We must recognize that the irresponsible behavior he was engaging in has a certain allure, that others are doing it, and that it is potentially harmful or fatal for both the participant and those around him.
Just because the driver is ultimately responsible for his actions doesn't mean we should ignore the circumstances that led him to make those poor choices. That would be short-sighted, irresponsible, and frankly dangerous.
Who cares? Facebook sucks. I haven't used that site in eight or ten years and I haven't missed it in the slightest.
I imagine anyone who cares enough to go through the trouble of opting out of advertising might just opt out of Facebook entirely if they are going to be pricks about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone is overlooking the data aggregation... it is simply irrelevant to the topic of discussion in this thread.
Did you read his essay? Nowhere in it does he claim that women are inferior engineers... neither does he dismiss the issues that they face. What he did was propose ideas on why women and certain minorities may be underrepresented in tech and how he believed Google's current policy for dealing with this perceived imbalance might not be the best approach for Google or its employees. Why do you and others continue to misrepresent his ideas like this?
According to TFA, problem is that once inefficient purveyors (ie local retailers) are driven out by Amazon, locals are fucked over when Amazon decides it isn't worth their dime shipping to the sticks anymore.
Once available locally at price X -->
Next available via Prime for X - Y -->
Now available nowhere
It's undercutting the competition in order to let the locals starve... perhaps not Amazon's original intent, but a potential dark outcome for those who live in remote parts.
Perhaps a tad gauche replying to my own post, but... Give me a centralized, well-indexed collection of all the education available and let me be the curator.
Netflix, Spotify, and Reddit curate in such an oppressive manner that I cannot imagine such a model being good for anyone who likes to direct his own habits. And for one who doesn't like to direct his own habits... education curated in such a manner sounds downright dangerous.
Netflix and Spotify (ostensibly) show you what they think you want to see. The curation is perhaps somewhat accurate but I end up feeling like a browsable index would suit my needs far better than having so much content hidden, even inaccessible, behind what they divine my "tastes" to be. As an example: Netflix no longer displays a category for anime on my account because it has decided I don't like anime. Simply not true! I want that category back! Their curation makes my self-direction more difficult because they have forced me to spend extra effort locating the content I really want to see.
Imagine this applied to education: You want to learn about Japan? Well our AI doesn't think you really do, so we'll present options to learn about how great USA is instead! How is this good?
And Reddit? Well... Reddit is curation by an angry mob. Has OP ever even been to Reddit?
In short: Make educational content easily available? Absolutely. Use some fancy AI or groupthink to do so? Probably not the best approach.
CNN should have ignored the information. Someone poked fun at their biased reporting and CNN responded by announcing to the world that they were willing to trample on the rights of a private citizen in an apparent attempt to protect their brand image. If they get any amount of public support or brand image boost from this move I will be shocked.
Not only is what they did legally questionable(looks like extortion to me,) but it isn't even close to good PR. Whoever said heads will roll at CNN over this is right.
Desktop experiences suffer at the hands of managers looking to cut costs and develop one site for all platforms.
It is an absolute travesty of utility. At least we know there are hundreds of other places to get news that have thus far retained their desktop appeal.
Slashdot is 6 times more likely to post shitty astroturf...
The battery issue is really an unrelated issue. Remember the Galaxy Note 7 that so infamously exploded on everyone? Did anyone call for better regulation of smartphones?
Some electronics will be poorly designed. Future iterations will resolve these issues.
This is true. However, it doesn't matter. Former smokers who now vape, like me, know a lot more about vaping and its potential risks and health effects than any article could hope to cover. It is our health and therefore our responsibility.
I must admit it is irritating that only the bad news hits the front page... but it is more than offset by the good news that doesn't.
The best news: at this point the cat is out of the bag. Neither big tobacco nor the FDA's asinine regulations can stop it. Millions of people have switched from smoking to vaping and we know we aren't going back. We only continue to spread the love.
Also there's the fact that there have been zero reported cases of popcorn lung outside of the popcorn plant in question... which is to say e-cigarettes have as far as we know caused zero cases of popcorn lung.
Don't trust The Intercept with your leaked documents--those fuckers will rat you out to the NSA.
Journalists have a moral responsibility to protect their sources when necessary, and The Intercept fails.
The Intercept wants everyone to know: "We won't break your story. We'll turn you in."
No, benchmarks do not become a double-edged sword. They are simply misused and misunderstood.
An automated software benchmark has value only to a developer or development team evaluating their own code. Anyone using such a benchmark for any other purpose (like comparing the performance of their code to the performance of others' code) is misusing the tool, and in doing so potentially drawing faulty conclusions.
Automated benchmarking tools are not a perfect measurement and they never will be. They are not an and-all solution to anything. They are simply one way to do a quick (and possibly very dirty) analysis of your code. To be useful at all they must be properly understood as such.
The real issue here is this: too many people either believe or like to pretend that some particular benchmark is a god. It isn't, and their naivete or pretension is leading them and others astray.
As a professional developer: if you are coding around a performance benchmark, you are doing it wrong.
These kinds of tools exist for developers to evaluate the performance of their own code. Anyone who uses them in any other fashion (like to evaluate the performance of someone else's code, for example) needs to take the results with a grain of salt, and that will always be the case for any automated software benchmark.
That Google feels the need to retire Octane over this is almost unbelievable... there must be some ulterior motivation.
The vast fiber networks that exist today under big telecom's control were built largely with federal government subsidies... which is part of the reason the telecoms were classified as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act several years ago. They are expected to treat all content carried over their networks as equal as part of their common carrier status.
Giving big telecom cart blanche to police traffic (and on a publicly funded physical network?) can only lead to unfair pricing and prioritization. Telecoms are already allowed to prioritize content based on its type(for example streaming content may be given priority over email content, because data streams are needed in real time whereas email is not.) What big telecom is not allowed to do as a common carrier is examine where a data packet is coming from or going to and charge/prioritize based upon that information.
Why, in a free and open society, should a telecom have the expectation of deciding whose data gets delivered? There is no argument for allowing this other than censorship and price gouging.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is either uneducated or pro-authority. We the people should demand Ajit Pai's removal from his post as he quite clearly does not represent our interests.
This is the only sane way to look at the issue. I paid you for product X; now it's mine. I do with it as I please.
I want to pay someone to modify it? That's my right. It's mine now, remember?
DOJ: "Your free online course materials are not accessible to blind people. Make them accessible."
UCBerkeley: "Uhhh... how about we just make them inaccessible to everybody?"
DOJ: "That's fine."
In what world does this logic compute? DOJ absolutely does not care about accessibility... just look at the result of this travesty of an order.
This is 100% about reducing public access to information. No other interpretation even makes sense. DOJ and the rest of Washington should be ashamed of themselves for the serious and ongoing damage they inflict upon our society.
20 years later and there's still no solid evidence that online "piracy" actually financially harms anybody.
Information wants to be free and that is never going to change. How many times do we have to go over this?
He never said he wanted to do this... as another poster pointed out in a thread above, certain people are being startled by the strawmen that were deployed against Trump during the run-up to the election.
Just because some news outlet says X about Trump doesn't make it true. You would think after all the recent hullabaloo over "fake news" that people would realize they just can't blindly take the media at face value, and that goes for establishment approved news like CNN and FOX and the Washington Post just as much as any other source.
NEWS FLASH: bias exists in reporting. Everybody has an agenda. Trump is not the devil, he's just the latest wanker to have been elected president. None of this should be surprising to anybody.
First of all, Google Search is a search engine. Search engines were not designed to evaluate the veracity of content. They simply find other websites with content relevant to your search terms.
This is the Internet and it has always been incumbent upon Internet users to exercise discretion with regard to the quality of content that can be discovered. How is this confusing?
Secondly, removing USA Supreme as the number one search result would only replace one bias with another. CNN can publish slanted material just as easily, and given their viewership is so much larger... you might almost think they have the better incentive to do so.
Limiting search results to approved news sources sounds like totalitarian philosophy to me.
If virtually all costal areas will see more of a rise, then 8 inches isn't the average.
What has Pokemon Go has got to do with this? The driver in question was playing Pokemon Go. He wasn't texting or doing some other action. He was Playing Pokemon Go. That makes Pokemon Go directly relevant to this incident.
It's cute to pretend that the details leading up to the accident aren't important and that the only important fact is that the driver is a fuckup, but doing so makes you a fool. We must recognize that the irresponsible behavior he was engaging in has a certain allure, that others are doing it, and that it is potentially harmful or fatal for both the participant and those around him.
Just because the driver is ultimately responsible for his actions doesn't mean we should ignore the circumstances that led him to make those poor choices. That would be short-sighted, irresponsible, and frankly dangerous.
Came here to say this... it is literally impossible for Uber to prevent this extra cost from impacting their business model.
if (!realtime) { // unassailable truth of the universe
text > voice
}
Who cares? Facebook sucks. I haven't used that site in eight or ten years and I haven't missed it in the slightest. I imagine anyone who cares enough to go through the trouble of opting out of advertising might just opt out of Facebook entirely if they are going to be pricks about it.