Archio

I'm curious, did anyone on your team raise any ethical concerns in regards to the potential privacy violation? If not, how was the topic handled by employees/management?

If Company A (40 people) buys Company B (20 people) to become Company C with 60 people, Company B doesn't continue to operate and suddenly need to hire 20 people.

NJ/NY transplant here, currently living in SF. I went skiing regularly as a kid in the Adirondacks in upstate NY (~4-5 hour drive from NYC). And fantastic Quebec skiing is another 2-4 hours past that.

Valid on the surfing and wine country, but there is skiing in the East :)

It's certainly possible to build a gender-equal tech team. But to argue that all tech companies could build a gender-equal tech team, with the current hiring pool, is a hell of an assertion.

Two years ago, the university I went to (top engineering school in the Northeast US) hosted a big panel for computer-field majors at the annual admissions event. Any students remotely interested in technical majors were invited to attend - you didn't even need to be accepted to the university.

The marketing for the event makes it as clear as possible that no prior programming experience is required, they just want to get people excited about computing. When I served on the panel as a CS student, I looked out the audience and saw a fully packed room (300+ people) of almost entirely white/Asian male prospective students and their parents. At that point, how does the industry recover and get a 50/50 gender ratio? The problem seems to start way before industry, as much as some would prefer to think otherwise.

>Women who are logical/mathematical go into medicine or law instead of programming because frankly it sucks to be the only woman in a room full of men

Medicine or law used to fill rooms with men, but like most other fields, that changed in the past few decades. The question is, what is the differentiator with CS that has led to the severity of the current imbalance?

I liked all of the steps taken except this one:

>They developed a compensation philosophy that was conscious about not rewarding aggressive negotiators, nor punishing those who were conflict averse.

I'm all for compensating employees fairly, but being able to negotiate and advocate for oneself is an incredibly important skill both in the workplace and in life. I think we as a society need to focus on reversing any cultural pressures that lead women to be conflict averse, as opposed to dumbing down the process for everyone. The way this is worded seems to imply "women aren't good at negotiating for themselves, so we take that out of the process to keep things equal".

Do keep in mind that smoking is probably the most harmful of the many common ways marijuana is consumed. Vaporizing or eating cannabis renders zero carcinogenic chemicals from smoke.

To me, Ruby feels like this ex-girlfiend I was completely infatuated with and eventually broke up with because I was too young to pay attention to the fact that her flaws were in all the right places instead of the ones that truly matter.

I don't disagree that this law could be passed. I'm asking, in regards to this specific bill, why you feel that porn being an "obscene" activity means that it should be blocked by a state-controlled censorship paywall.

Explain to me how your view that porn is obscene (morally? religiously?) necessitates a government-mandated censorship that can be removed with a $20 bribe. You have absolutely no business telling adults what content is unwholesome and what is not, as long as that content does not break the law. Framing this as an effort to stop the funding of human trafficking seems ridiculous to me given the context of what this law will actually do in effect.

What will happen when someone decides that a controversial political belief you have, or activity you participate in, is something they "would prefer not to see"?

What would be the point of photographing the driver?

This is fantastic news, especially if this fork is well maintained and/or gets merged upstream. Safari has the lightest battery usage and fastest speed by far of any browser on my Macbook, but it sucks that the best extensions aren't always available.

If you don't mind me asking, where in Ghana were you?

Do you mind if I inquire what your career is? I would love a technology-related job that allows me to travel like that.

The armed forces route makes sense. Could you elaborate examples regarding the journalist path?

The pattern I've sensed is that for most drugs, one death or injury is too much. However for alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, motorcycles, even peanuts for those who are allergic - hey, that's life.

What is your point? I didn't say Kratom is harmless. All drugs can cause harm and all drugs have the potential for abuse.

What I said was that Kratom is far less addictive and dangerous that typical opioids. A Kratom overdose is most likely to result in nausea and stomach irritation, not in death, and quitting a daily Kratom addition is far easier than quitting a daily oxy habit.

The article you said linked there were a few hundred calls to poison control centers around the nation during a year. Just last week, 174 people overdosed on heroin derivatives in Akron, Ohio in six days. Twenty one people died. Ohio's Governor just declared a medical emergency in the state the epidemic has gotten so bad.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-he...

This is an abomination. Schedule I, for a plant that is far less addictive and harmful that traditional opioids, and is used in treatment for opioids, while the country is in the midst of a full blown opioid addiction crisis? Sounds about right. Let's put some more people in jail. That'll solve the problem. If additional proof was needed that the DEA is at a complete disconnect from reality, this would be it.

Your background information of the previous administration is much appreciated. However, I don't think that that excuses any of the actions of the current administration.

We do have tons of alcohol deaths. But the idea here is that no one dies from alcohol today because their alcohol dealer slips in unknown amounts of toxic potentiators to cut costs (which is effectively what is happening with heroin et al. today).

Netflix has blocked VPNs for at least a few months now. Unless she uses VPNs for other things, she won't be using one anyway.

That's precisely my point. Most people avoid heroin because they don't want to destroy their lives, not because it's illegal.

Why have you never tried heroin? I am struck by how often the response to that question is not "because it is illegal".

San Francisco has some of the highest property values in the world. By what definition is that a success? "Don't fuck with success" sounds here like "dont fuck with lowering obscene property values because then homeowners might be slightly less loaded than they already are".

I understand that many politicians are woefully illiterate about what they think are "assault weapons", and I sympathize greatly with how annoying it must be to constantly be accused of being "sexually inadequate" and other ridiculous insults that distract from the real issues. The main problem with this author's argument, as I see it, is that while the AR-15 is very convenient, making it easily accessible for any adults who wants one is not worth the price for society as a whole. That is - would it really be an infringement on the author's rights, if as the author points out, he would need to have 3 separate guns for sporting, hunting, and use of force?

When discussing gun control, I often personally consider my own opinions on the proposed banning/legal control over encryption in public debate. Specifically, I wonder whether it is hypocritical to want to limit the sale and use semi-automatic weapons, while simultaneously arguing that encryption must be fully legal and "everyone shouldn't be punished for a few bad apples". My conclusion is usually that banning/compromising encryption would fundamentally destroy the security and privacy of critical software for everyone on a massive scale. However, I don't think the impact would be nearly as severe for gun owners that might need to pass a few ID checks and own several weapons if needed for different uses.

So my question is, to gun owners that support existing laws regarding semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15- would limiting its sale really be really as devastatingly harmful to society at large (as to warrant those existing laws)?

Mildly interesting observation: the suicide prevention team is 100% female.

>That's my tattoo for a reason having nothing to do with the philosophical concept, actually. Each person has his or her own reason for picking a tattoo, often publicly unknown and personal -- this is one of the cool things about tattoos.

I'm not the parent commenter. However, I think he/she might mean that the media is 100% culpable, not necessarily that the media is to blame for 100% of the problem.

Right, but over age 75 one would expect both men and women to be facing the same pressures of potentially (a) stopping work and (b) losing a spouse due to death. It appears that both of those can disproportionately affect males in our culture as men are pressured to work hard and provide for their family [0] and when a spouse dies, men do not have the same "social and familial connections" as women for support [1].

[0] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00406-003-0397-6#p...

[1] http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/352844