Re home: Maybe split it into two: an "uncategorized" tab and an "all" tab
2,962 karma · joined September 4, 2014
That's why we need unions in the software industry. Via collectivized action, the power differential between employer and employees is leveled. This is not only about collective bargaining, being able to enforce adequate labor standards (e.g. no/less/compensated "crunch" time), but also about being able to force company policy. If the majority of employees would strike/walk out and any negative repercussions against individuals would be met with more strikes, Blizzard would very quickly change.
Live instance can be found here: https://we.riseup.net/
>In California, the legislation will affect at least one million workers who have been on the receiving end of a decades-long trend of outsourcing and franchising work, making employer-worker relationships more arm’s-length. Many people have been pushed into contractor status with no access to basic protections like a minimum wage and unemployment insurance. Ride-hailing drivers, food-delivery couriers, janitors, nail salon workers, construction workers and franchise owners could now all be reclassified as employees.
Also, classifying them as employees doesn't mean that flexibility is gone:
>Uber and Lyft have repeatedly warned that they will have to start scheduling drivers in advance if they are employees, reducing drivers’ ability to work when and where they want.
>Experts said that there is nothing in the bill that requires employees to work set shifts, and that Uber and Lyft are legally entitled to continue allowing drivers to make their own scheduling decisions.
>In practice, Uber and Lyft might choose to limit the number of drivers who can work during slow hours or in less busy markets, where drivers may not generate enough in fares to justify their payroll costs as employees. That could lead to a reduced need for drivers over all.
>But Veena Dubal, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, said it would still generally be advantageous for Uber and Lyft to rely on incentives like bonus pay to ensure they had enough drivers on the road to adjust to customer demand much more nimbly than if they scheduled drivers in advance.
Not true. From the article:
> The city of Fremont started developing a proposal for a new navigation center, and asked residents for input. Elected officials and staff organized three public meetings about the proposal, accepted comments online, and heard from hundreds of residents at city council meetings. Fremont residents wore white to city hearings to express support for the proposed center; others wore either red or blue, to express their opposition to specific proposed sites.
The article also talks about how we wants the houses people decide whether and where it's built. I think anybody will recognize the ridiculousness of holding a whole referendum on whether one small service center is getting built (especially with Grant money on the line, this will effectively kill the proposal)
> But according to a new study published in Royal Society: Open Science that attempted to replicate the findings of the original, practice alone doesn't account for mastery. In the study, deliberate practice only accounted for a quarter percentage of the skills difference, which doesn't account for what makes someone an expert.
> Brooke Macnamara, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University, and researcher Megha Maitra interviewed three groups of 13 violinists, each rated as less accomplished, good, and best. The violinists were told to keep a diary to log practice hours, and those hours were then tallied. While the less accomplished violinists had logged an estimated 6,000 hours by age 20, the good and best had both logged around 11,000 hours.
> That is to say: The good and best violinists saw no huge difference, as opposed to the not so good violinists, who didn't practice as much. The implication: practice didn't account for all the differences in performance.
And the abstract:
> We sought to replicate Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer's (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer 1993 Psychol. Rev.100, 363–406) seminal study on deliberate practice. Ericsson et al. found that differences in retrospective estimates of accumulated amounts of deliberate practice corresponded to each skill level of student violinists. They concluded, ‘individual differences in ultimate performance can largely be accounted for by differential amounts of past and current levels of practice’ (p. 392). We reproduced the methodology with notable exceptions, namely (i) employing a double-blind procedure, (ii) conducting analyses better suited to the study design, and (iii) testing previously unanswered questions about teacher-designed practice—that is, we examined the way Ericsson et al. operationalized deliberate practice (practice alone), and their theoretical but previously unmeasured definition of deliberate practice (teacher-designed practice), and compared them. We did not replicate the core finding that accumulated amounts of deliberate practice corresponded to each skill level. Overall, the size of the effect was substantial, but considerably smaller than the original study's effect size. Teacher-designed practice was perceived as less relevant to improving performance on the violin than practice alone. Further, amount of teacher-designed practice did not account for more variance in performance than amount of practice alone. Implications for the deliberate practice theory are discussed.
Can someone explain to me why this was called an "excellent move"? https://imgur.com/a/Fyg4PuW I eliminated a night but I feel like the pawn could eliminate my bishop easily. See also the second picture for another (to me) inexplicable situation.
> Something being a thing doesn't justify it morally. Slavery is a thing, you know? Murder is a thing, etc.
Instead of taking the contrarian route and coming up with wild theories, how about you first engage with any material from centuries of philosophy of law and jurisprudence? With any existing understandings? Your argument is extremely far out there and just demonstrates an utter lack of knowledge. It's not very respectful to then put the burden of "proof"/argument on all your discussion partners.
Where does this distinction between physical and "digital" actions come from? Breaking into a server is an action, it's not speech. There's a big difference between sending a chat message (x no. of TCP packages) and sending C&C commands (also x no. of TCP packages). Just because you're technically only sending "information", doesn't demolish the action-speech distinction. Heck, there are theories in physics basically stating that our whole physical world is best understood as only a bunch of information. But that doesn't make the action-speech distinction mute.
There are already various theories of the (moral) foundations of law (see philosophy of law, jurisprudence). Talking about an "objective" foundation (whatever that means) that somehow needs to specify the speed of projectiles seems utterly impractical. We can just check whether harm has been done and what the intention of the perpetrator was (mens rea): Don't you think there should be a big legal difference between someone accidentally ramming a car and someone trying to murder the driver by ramming?
Secondly, these programs are there to counteract long-standing structural discrimination of women in those fields. Mere legal equality and lack of blatant discrimination does not mean equality is achieved. These programs help push toward a society that may give women equal standing not only in the legal but also in the political, social, cultural, and economic spheres. (Outcomes can speak to existing inequalities in society [1])
Women are paid less than men, are much less represented in well-paying jobs, and barely hold any jobs in many academic fields and decision-making (funding) bodies. Computer science is still a hostile environment for many women [2]. You might common with the continuously disproven "it's due to personal choice" but it ain't that easy: These choices of e.g. working less hours are strongly influenced by our social surroundings and the fact that e.g. working less earns you a lower hourly wage is too. For example, in Germany the share of female academics suddenly drops as they move up the ladder because that happens at an age, when many women might choose to become mothers [3]. However, limiting career progression because of a possible pregnancy is definitely not their choice. Also, the idea that women are just naturally less assertive doesn't hold as studies show that when the social pressure wanes (e.g. by advocating for someone else) they become comparable assertive [4]. The idea that women choose not to work in high-paying professions is also wrong, looking at the historical change in CS [5] or at countries like India or Turkey [6]. Also, pay drops when women move into an industry [7]. Stuff like long working hours also factor in [8].
Third, you are merely offering some anecdotal evidence without providing any case for why women are more advantaged now. The existence of positive discrimination doesn't show equality is achieved and by stating that women are evena dvandatged now, you're going against the scientific consensus.
That doesn't detract from the original point: Your whataboutism regarding funding earmarking has nothing to do with sexual harrassment and bullying. It's still interesting how all the comments piling up ere are based on anecdotes of shock "discrimination" - probably the first time they experience something like that.
[1] For the case: Phillips, Anne. 2004. “Defending Equality of Outcome.” Journal of Political Philosophy 12(1): 1–19.
[2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/the-tech-indus...
[3] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildun...
[4] Amanatullah, Emily T., and Michael W. Morris. 2010. “Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women's fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others.” [eng]. Journal of personality and socialpsychology 98 (2): 256–67.
[5] https://gender.stanford.edu/news-publications/gender-news/re...
[6] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/5/186026-decoding-femini...
[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over...
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/upshot/women-long-hours-g...
Every single sentence in your comment is without a factual base - and you still manage to make massive leaps of logic between them. It is clear that you are motivated by an anti-feminist standpoint that has little connection with actual reality or contemporary feminist thought. And for some reason, you deem it justified to harass users for it. If a substantial portion of Wikipedia's user base is like you, then that's pretty unhealthy.
One of the reasons why they should have communicated better is seen in the following abstract. It also demonstrates how toxic the community is and reminds me a lot of how GamerGate started: The ex-boyfriend of the game developer of "Depression Quest" alleged, in a very long rant, that she was sleeping with a game journalist for a good review in order to profit from it. Of course, that was complete bullshit as, even believing she slept with him, (a) he did not write a review for the game and (b) the game is for free. It is and was never about actual misconduct on the side of the victim of harassment but rather about their identity and how that upsets the community because they're an "Other" in "their" space (here, a woman and a transgender editor)
> Those dynamics are central to Fram’s ban. Egged on by Fram’s insistence that the foundation had actually banned him because of a grudge, and stymied by the foundation’s refusal to name the complainant, Wikipedians began to scour his history on the platform, looking for someone to blame.
> Much of that blame fell, perhaps predictably, on a woman and a transgender editor. In 2017, a fledgling Wikipedian accused Fram of monitoring her activity on the site to such an extent that felt like harassment. The editor, whose contributions focused on women athletes, lesbian history, and abortion rights, felt that Fram’s pattern of correcting her spelling and deleting her stubs — short, unfinished articles that are culled when they sit dormant for too long — demonstrated a lack of good faith.
[...]
> More recently, Fram had an acrimonious semantic debate with a high-profile transgender editor over whether referring to them as “xe” constituted misgendering. It culminated in an ugly claim by Fram that he would not be misracing a black person by calling them the n-word, only being racist. "Please, stop being cruel to individuals whose names have come up in the course of this issue"
> On Wikipedia and in the forums of Wikipediocracy, a site where Wikipedians gather to discuss and criticize Wikipedia, users speculated about a secret romantic connection between the woman editor and a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board and about whether the trans editor might’ve been pretending to be trans to win a fight with Fram. The vitriol toward those two users grew so intense that Risker chastised some Wikipedians in her critical note about the ban.
[...]
> According to the researchers, women used “narrower” words that are “highly concentrated in a small number of topics.” Male applicants, on the other hand, tended to use “broad” words, which “appear at similar rates in all topic areas,” the study stated.
> Women’s use of topic-specific words lowers their chance of getting a high score from reviewers compared to men.
> "Even after accounting for the quantity and quality of male and female applicants, there is still a disparity in outcomes that favors men over women,” Kolev said. “This is a problem not only because of the general issue of underrepresentation of women in science and technology, but also because this disparity strongly suggests that the reviewers are allocating funding inefficiently and failing to make the best use of their organization’s resources."
> In fact, the researchers found that women who received grants during the time of the study “may well generate a greater ‘return’ on resources compared to their male counterparts."
> Murray said the burden lies equally with funders and applicants. Kolev said while female applicants could alter their communication style in pursuit of grant funding, doing so carries the potential risk of undermining the quality of their research.
> “Tesla provides owners with clear guidance on how to properly use Autopilot, as well as in-car instructions before they use the system and while the feature is in use,” a Tesla spokeswoman said Friday. “If a Tesla vehicle detects that a driver is not engaged while Autopilot is in use, the driver is prohibited from using it for that drive.”
So far, I've only discovered Typora, which is an application unfortunately plagued with performance and interopability issues - and I even had some data loss bugs. So, are there any alternative, "rich" (i.e. pictures, tables, math, code) WYSIWYM note-taking applications?