HoppedUpMenace

I clicked on this and saw that there is a man that bears a striking resemblance to Obergruppenführer John Smith from "Man in the High Castle."

I'd actually recommend against it due to its "domestic spin", as well as its bias, questionable editing, and questionable experts.

I'm not 100% on the rules of Hacker News so I'm curious to know why a similar posting was flagged?

edit: I'm

Just my suggestion, and probably a far out there one...

I offer that people should be put in front of a machine with facial recognition and the most advanced AI available that can conduct a one on one interview with a person to determine if they meet the qualifications for the specific job they are applying to.

This would be controlled by a 3rd party who has no ties to any employer and would be used more as a data gathering tool that produces results of a person's interview and compares it to other people who interviewed as well, obscuring name obviously but providing gender and race breakdowns, among other things. people could possibly view this data after they've had the "real" interview with Google or whomever and compare with what was determined by their interview with the AI system. The 3rd party could provide this data to the public on a monthly or yearly basis so that everyone can know, possibly, if there is an incredible amount of bias that an interviewer may hold toward any particular people or groups of people.

Of course, there's 1000's of caveats to this and companies like Google would have to provide how they conduct their interviews to said 3rd party, as well as techniques and what they expect in a person's personality but wouldn't it at least be better than having people constantly reject the notion that there is a discrimination and bias problem in and out of the workplace? Not to mention it would all but eliminate the need for lawsuits for this kind of thing, unless one disagrees wholeheartedly with 3rd party AI results and actual interview results.

You can come to an understanding as to why the state of things are the way they are through careful research and positing. You cannot, however, use said research to draw an absolute conclusion on any group of people, as to say that X won't ever show any interest in Y because studies show X, on average, will pursue Z.

Additionally, after reading so many comments from the past few days and generally in the past on HN, it seems to me that everyone is desperate to prove either 1 or 0 of any given argument or problem in life, with any number of studies or figures. I feel people here really miss the mark when it comes to social issues, such as those faced by minorities and other groups that have historically felt marginalized by society. It really is not about 50/50 gender ratios or balanced races in the workplace, nor is it about marginalizing "The White Man", its about getting people to understand that there are issues that people face that you may not ever face in your life, but they do exist, whether you want to believe it or not, and it does not help when people dismiss those issues by pointing to studies or personal anecdotes, the world really does not revolve around any one person or group or thought perception.

Just because there is science and studies that indicate that women and men are "X", on average, it does not mean you can immediately dismiss people's grievances with the fact that some people are under-represented in one area or another.

My wife certainly does not fall under what the studies would deem a woman to be on average (nor that of which the author of the blog describes). Therefore, she would most definitely protest any notion that the reason why she is not "X" is due to her biology and scientific studies and take issue with anyone in the workplace trying to frame her current position as "she is in that job role due to her biology."

People strive for things based on personal and perceived expectations around them, biology has nothing to do with it, unless you are speaking of one's personal talents, which is gender neutral anyway.

Establishing or assuming anything about anyone based on one's biology is very misguided and ignorant. It is very similar to any number of times anyone has approached me to ask if I knew how to speak Spanish because clearly, since I look the part, I am assumed to know how.

So by agreeing, you are basically saying you believe in the idea of biological differences playing a role in the gender imbalance at Google? Or to put it another way, you believe women don't strive for the same things as men due to genetic makeup?

May not be a popular opinion but I'd have to say that I value the idea of having space between me and my neighbors, so I'm definitely not in favor of maxing out the land for homes to the point where the houses might as well be attached and labeled condos or apartments.

I can understand where the people are coming from in wanting to maintain what they've invested into. I'd hate to see a sudden boom in population and sudden traffic spikes due to the knee jerk reaction of building 100's of more houses in an area that wasn't even planned to support more than what is existing.

People do need housing but people also need to be realistic about where they live and how they plan to keep on living there.

I'm sure there's a name for this but a modern day label could be the "Facebook Syndrome", where seemingly endless goals of altruism is at its core, motivated by self interest and feeling good about oneself, to the detriment of the people you profess to be helping.

There's a quip in the show "Archer" (forget exactly the words) where Mallory tells everyone something along the lines of "move up to my tax bracket and see if you keep spouting that socialist propaganda". I found it hilarious because it is true for many out there that if you suddenly find yourself moved from your minimum wage job with Obamacare insurance into a position of making a huge salary with legit benefits, you suddenly shift your position on the fairness of Capitalism and whether or not people are getting too much from the government and how they should do what you did to get ahead.

Additionally, while it certainly appears that the richer get richer and it does nothing to help those that are struggling, you have to ask yourself whether or not you'd do anything different if it were you in the position of wealth and power to change how people earn money for the work they contribute. Then you'd have to wonder if people could truly come together and share everything under extreme government over site, but why wonder when there is decades of data to prove that it doesn't work?

America is driven toward having the information of the world encapsulated and fed to the masses as quickly and as often as possible. In my experience, this reflects any conversation I've ever had with most people in real life, give the bullet points, spare the details. If people really wanted details, they'd have to actually care about what is being discussed instead of looking to be mildly entertained, for example, 2 people conversing in real life:

"Trump is de-funding planned parenthood, that really sucks." "Wow... Really? Did you hear about his Covfefe tweet this morning? What an idiot!"

Imagine what our country would look like if the guy who owns every bit of people's digital legacy and information is now running the country of people who depend on his services? Now imagine if someone like Trump, who appears just a bit upset anytime he is criticized, had access to everyone's Facebook account in this country and others?

Just my two cents but, would anyone truly believe that Zuck has the public's best interest in mind? If so, what if his interpretation of the public's best interest is built around a growing dependence on platforms he's created?

Consider a young child, maybe 5 or 6, who loves animals very much. Now consider that this child is living in the year 1991 and watching a documentary about Zebras on the National Geographic channel. Now consider that during the course of this show, a Zebra has an unfortunate encounter with a lioness or 5, which the kid never expected and is likely very upset by what they see. Should there now be a nationwide discussion/outrage about how National Geographic portrays nature? Or should parents rethink their parenting habits by actively monitoring what their kids watch on TV, in 1991? Same goes for the Youtube and the Internet in general, why would you let your kid have free reign on either platform knowing the potential for bad content? Maybe if a parent could pre-watch the videos on Youtube before letting their kids watch it to insure its legit, then kids wouldn't be tricked by the fake stuff.

Well said! Way better than my over extended rant trying to convey similar points.

Yeah I've thought about that too, people are just being entertained by all the crazy stuff on FB like they would be with National Enquirer.

Before deleting my FB account, friends and family would post stuff non-stop all day long like any typical user, including photos, videos, live-stream, ect... When it came to sharing news stories, friends and family would share the most BS and ridiculous news stories and information imaginable, like "weed cures cancer" or "FB will start charging soon!" or those "like" farm posts that had some stuff you'd probably only see on rotten.com (is that still a thing?) but because they were asking for prayers and such, it was given a pass and "liked".

Anyhow, its funny how stuff like that got the most shares and likes from friends and family while anything remotely related to reality and grounded in truth was always looked over, such as anything reported by any legitimate news agency. Basically, anything that was written by some random fake news website was the most shared news by FB friends and family and taken seriously as fact (I know cause of people's comments on shared posts) cause everyone on FB trusts their friends and family and they help each other to boost their narcissistic narratives and world views.

Anyhow, moral of the story is, when you got a huge following and you post like crazy the most personal stuff, people support you no matter what you say, especially if you're family. You can spread whatever rumor you want and everyone will be on board every single time because shared news is always true and FB friends are just as smart as you are, so you trust them.

I agree with the author, especially the part about what students are getting from universities, and especially what they're not getting. Narcissism is definitely a problem in this country, further exacerbated by the ignorance people seem to enjoy having for the things they'd rather not discuss nor explore, for fear of disrupting the ideal world they have created for themselves. The difference is whether or not someone's level of narcissism is getting to the point of unhealthy and if they can acknowledge it as such or continue thinking themselves as "normal". That being said, there is a huge difference between ignorance and willful ignorance, seems though like there is plenty of both to go around in many social circles on and offline.

J5 Hyper V Tactical Flashlight. Was really bright as advertised. No complaints but its hard for anyone to understand how bright a flashlight is until you actually use it, but youtube videos definitely help and so do legit reviews.

Yep, super sketchy to say the least.

Its ridiculous the amount of energy and effort you have to waste in order to find a product that you don't suspect as being counterfeit on Amazon these days. The other day, I wanted a super bright flashlight that ran on AAA batteries and was of decent quality and price. I had to pour over the millions of listed flashlights, most looking physically identical, with the exception of the brand name printed on the flashlight itself. Then I read about how these flashlights are all mass produced by the same manufacturer and re-branded after distribution, so essentially 100 different flashlight brands are essentially the same flashlight (sorry, did a google search on this, don't remember exact link).

Anyways, I used Fakespot on a lot of these listings and it was pretty interesting to see just how many had questionable and outright blatantly fake reviews. Found the one I wanted, almost $20 and a couple of hours later. The flashlight definitely lived up to what it promised but I can't help but wonder if it would've just been easier to do this at a brick and mortar retail spot, like Fry's Electronics.

So basically increase the cost of goods for everyone so more people can be employed at a higher wage?

The Immigration you speak of is likely doing more good than bad, what American wants to work a low paying, back breaking job in the fields or in some factory where the second they complain, they are fired?

I definitely agree with this. I like the guy, seriously genuine and far from corrupt. However, offering "free" anything doesn't solve anything and I don't believe neither he or his supporters can see, nor do they want to see, the bigger picture of such policies.

What institution was this if you don't mind me asking? I can't say that I much enjoyed the CS courses I had to take as part of the computer engineering program myself, as it was mostly taught from power point and definitely the material in lecture was mostly useless for projects and such. MIPS architecture, though, was really fun and the instructor was great but kind of a jerk at times.

What I got from this was that you got your job because you learned to say the right things and show off the right stuff to the person(s) interviewing you, after 100's of failed attempts. I guess statistically, you were bound to get a hit eventually.

"Do a huge volume of work. It is only by going through a volume of work that you’re going to catch up. And the work you’re making will be as good as your ambitions."

- Ira Glass

Yeah well... That doesn't necessarily translate into quality work in the real world now does it? I'll even go as far as saying that that quote in particular is the TLDR of this story.

Nobody should be making shitty comments to begin with, nor should there be a "brogrammer" culture in the workplace, this isn't a frat. Dismissing the problem by comparing with a similar but worse problem doesn't do anything but ignore the problem all together, think you may want to read up on a fallacy called "Relative Privation"

Everyone has a bias, plain and simple. You don't overcome the bias with programs or incentives, it takes a fundamental change of attitude among the people perpetuating the bias. Its something that should be acknowledged and pointed out but not forced down people's throats.

With the way people process the world today, you'd think everyone is living in their own version of "Man in the High Castle." The extreme left and right leaning people likely see themselves as comparable to the resistance in the series, careful to hide their true origins and intentions, orchestrating, in their minds, the downfall of an oppressive society that would rather see them fall into a one size fits all policy of obedience.

The public at large, mainly due to time constraints, have no time for critical thought these days, nor have they ever, so anytime the world looks like its on fire, people are driven ever more into a fantasy narrative of "tomorrow you will die if you don't act today", paving the way for normalization of extreme views of the world and people.

The point is being made that free speech is being suppressed by the very people who should wholeheartedly support and debate it, being that college is the appropriate place to do such things. The author is also pointing out that it has far greater negative implications on the world at present than any other current issue facing college campuses.