MustardTiger

>All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men

Yes, that's the point.

>That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement.

Indeed, that's what we're offering a potential explanation for.

>I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them

Then do so. Saying "I could make a bunch of other arguments but won't because I know they are contradicted by evidence" is not compelling. In fact, I find it inherently dishonest, in that you are trying to rely on the assumption that any other random explanation you could put forth is just as good, but you won't put them forth because then they would be demonstrated to not be just as good.

I am sure that assuming their behavior does not follow the obvious explanation because you simply dislike the obvious explanation is silly.

>Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion

The very article we're discussing? Remember, it shows 7 times as many women give up as men do.

A generalization is not contradicted by one example to the contrary, it would need a majority of examples to the contrary. Obviously some men do give up. But only 1/7th as many as with women. I am simply supporting the explanation someone else offered: that this is because women have inherent value and men's value is purely based on their current level of success. So men have an additional strong incentive to not give up. And when they do give up, it is often just to pursue another avenue where they feel success is more likely, rather than just giving up altogether.

No, that's not how it works, which is the point. As they said, men's value is judged on their current success. Not trying makes you just as valueless as trying and failing, it is the exact same outcome.

You are describing the wrong group of people. The "emotionally justify giving up" you describe is precisely what we observe with the group of people who are not considered failures for doing so: women. For men, that is failure. That is not easy to justify emotionally, it is the very thing they are trying to avoid in the first place. The emotional toll of giving up is the same as the emotional toll of trying and failing: you are a loser and not a real man, you have no worth or value. This is why they try again, because it gives them another chance to succeed, and demonstrate their value and worth.

>What we do know is that current hiring practices aren't inclusive & they aren't successful.

We don't know either of those things, they are baseless claims. Software gets made, it gets shipped, it kinda works. Given the overwhelmingly horrifying incompetence of the vast majority of programmers, I would suggest we're actually going very well at interviewing and finding the rare competent candidates.

>No idea, but I'm more willing to try inclusion than I am riddles for finding my next candidates.

And I am more willing to put thought into it rather than do something likely to produce the opposite effect and justify it with a terrible strawman.

>the cost for rejecting a good applicant is 4-5 hours of my teams time while they interview someone else

The cost seems much higher to me. I have to interview dozens of people to find a single good applicant. Rejecting one good applicant costs me dozens of interviews, not one.

That makes absolutely no sense. By definition, giving up is failure. So the options are "100% chance of failure" vs "less than 100% chance of failure", and you think they are more likely to pick "100% chance of failure" because failure is scary?

So, you have no evidence that this "problem" is actually a problem. You have no evidence that your solution to this "problem" actually solves it. And in fact, the only evidence you present indicates that the thing you are blaming ("technical interviews" which you present as a strawman of puzzles) has nothing to do with the diversity "problem". But we should buy your solution anyways?

It could be much worse. Simply making random changes and hoping it is an improvement rather than making things worse is not sensible.

>No, correctness is not pedantry

Pedantry is though. And that's what that entirely pointless post was.

>Any linking of number of columns to normalization is pure nonsense.

That's what I said, that's the point. Don't jump in to a thread you can't be bothered to read.

>No, relations describe facts, not things.

That is impressively pointless pedantry even for HN, well done.

>Theoretically it's possible to imagine a normalised relation with 50 columns

Yes, that would be what I said. "You're wrong because exactly what you said is correct!"

What are you talking about? A table has as many columns as the thing it describes has attributes to be described. You can have a fully normalized database with 50 column tables in it, and there's nothing unusual or suspect about that.

Or better yet, since you don't care about your data anyways, just don't bother storing it. Infinitely scalable and always blazingly fast.

>I have never seen a properly denormalized table

Do you mean normalized? There's no such thing as "properly" denormalized, anything that is not normal is denormalized.

>The whole article seems to be quite academic from my personal experience a textbook normalized database is slow beyond belief (i did exactly that once and we had to revert it back).

I've seen lots of people say that, but then consistently found those same people don't actually know what the normalization rules are, and all they did was create a different denormalized database that happened to have poor performance for the queries they were using.

Is that site satire or not? I honestly can't even tell any more.

No, try reading it. We do both of those things all the time. Where's the war crimes trials? Those are only war crimes under certain circumstances.

He wants to jail Clinton, because she has committed numerous felonies. And how has he been "actively undermining the legitimacy of the electoral process"? That's what Clinton did, remember? You know those Podesta emails that proved what everyone with a brain already knew? That Sanders never had a chance and the DNC had it rigged from the start?

Ok? Neither of those are war crimes or dismantle US democracy, which are the claims in question.

>There is a difference between firing an employee and continuing to do business with someone that funnels millions of dollars into a racist, sexist, sexual predator that's backed by a foreign intelligence service.

Doesn't having to base your argument on lies like this undermine it?

The fact that these arguments always seem to require one said to make up crazy nonsense is pretty telling. He advocates nothing of the sort.

It may be the case, or it may not. Since we're not discussing how we use facebook, it is both unknown and irrelevant. We're talking about how facebook uses us, not at all the same thing. Facebook curates what you see no matter how you use facebook.

Keeping in touch with your family is not a community. And no, this is not democracy working as designed. Democracy as designed required access to information. This is why hearing everyone was important. You do not hear the voices in your community now, you hear a curated selection of voices intended to give you an impression they want you to get.

>Oh but we do have communities, and we do talk to actual people (also about politics!)

No, we don't. Communities have bonds. Seeing facebook spam is not the same as talking to a person, and joining a group of people who post likeminded facebook spam is not a community. It just scratches the same instinctual itch as a community.

>Blame the invention

Blame has nothing to do with it. Understanding how and why people control information to manipulate the public and undermine democracy is important. Trying to blame dead people for technology they invented is not.

This is why certain groups have such a strong interest in controlling twitter, facebook, google, etc. Most people simply go along with what they perceive as the majority opinion. This used to take the form of doing whate everyone around you does, which is why political views tended to group up so much by community.

But we no longer have communities, we no longer speak to actual people, especially not about anything like politics. So that instinctive conformity is now based on easily falsified information presented though the media. This is why facebook prevents certain topics from trending, and puts others that are not naturally trending into the trending queue.

It isn't the best, you just like it best. Lots of people do not agree. I also used darcs and mercurial. I still do use darcs, and have essentially stopped participating in most open source projects because I find git so unpleasant to try to use.

That's not obvious from your post, your statement clearly says it was. It was even quoted. It is obvious from the original post, but it is equally obvious that nothing else was a slur either, the post contained no slurs.

"Minorities" is not a slur, it is a normal word that means "people who are in the minority". I don't see how that comment is not part of a reasonable discussion. Just because you don't like the fact being mentioned?

Even after re-reading the guidelines, I still don't know which one that post is violating. Which guideline are you referring to?

No it isn't. In fact, almost all of the "diverse" teams I see are a monoculture of opinion. They are all people who buy the standard SJW nonsense fully and hate anyone who doesn't. They actively try to stamp out diversity of opinion.

No, I am referring to innodb, which has a number of known reliability problems which are "wontfix".