TheOperator

> That doesn't happen in human societies where most males will have a chance to breed.

We can get a precise idea about this since it shows up in the genetic record and over the long term it's under half. A lot more men than you think are cuckolds.

People had the same dismissive attitude towards SARS which turned out to be much less deadly than the seasonal flu. I am a betting man and say that this year Coronavirus won't become as big as the flu this year.

>Do you think people from these groups are inherently unable to pass the same interview?

I've had two job search workers insist on those "top of funnel" tactics when I searched for a job and when I refused two separate workers refused to give me an interview through anything but a diversity recruiter. I didn't really want to take a job from somebody who would hire me just because I went over one of their lines and checked the right boxes and not because I was the best.

Don't see how an academic background would help you avoid this it's a skill you're far more likely to learn through practical experience. I don't see bootcampers as being particularly vulnerable to these gaps in knowledge.

My experience in learning computing in school was going through large months long projects where later stages built on early stages but the entire project was throughly documented and paint by Numbers so long as you followed the directions exactly. If you came up with a valid but undocumented solution you would break the assumptions of the documentation and forever be hacking the program to get it to work which was still possible just time consuming and nobody knew how to help you. The end result is students who can follow docs without fucking up but who also don't know how to fix things other than by rolling back to a known good version.

I've found these sorts of problems to be very difficult to solve in academics due to the need to standardize assignments and grading yet a few months doing an original project will infuse you with troubleshooting mojo.

It's not that I don't acknowledge that it's better it just doesn't seem worth it unless specifically buying the 5k iMac. TB3 as a display standard + costs double what a 4k monitor does + lack of guarantee of long term vendor support for either TB3 as an input or 5k.

I also think there are just such economies of scale around 4k as well.

>6 4k monitors How are you driving those by the way? 6x 4k support is an uncommon feature.

I will warn that 4K60 actually has hardware requirements. 4K Netflix requires 3gb dedicated/shared VRAM and really 4gb doesn't hurt. No modern GPUs that I know if will stay in P0 with enough 4K displays attached to them. 4x 4K is also a limit most of the time.

1440p monitors are usually better at the same price point in some way. Maybe refresh rates... Maybe image quality... Well specced 4k displays still cost a decent amount.

Still I would say now is a decent type to leap into the ecosystem. The era of 1080p/1440p has already peaked.

The community? Sure.

The chat standard? Not in the least.

First, how the shit do you select somebody for a job without discriminating? Do you just select at random? Discrimination by skill is extremely legitimate...

Second, OP also clearly is not simply expanding their job search. They're biasing the process in favour of certain identity groups every step of the way.

Third, What annoys me the least is people who try to achieve "diversity" by breaking down barriers to employment. What annoys me moderately is people who use heavy-handed methods like discrimination against certain identity groups justifying it as the only way to achieve fairness due to factors like the power of the majority group and pointing out that the work world without such measures is not a meritocracy. What irritates me the absolute most is cowards who discriminate against others because it's their job, but they don't feel okay with it so they deny that they're even doing it, just so they never have to confront and rationalise what they're doing. If you don't have the moral conviction that what you're doing is okay quit your job instead of participating in discrimination you're so uncomfortable with you deny doing it.

I'm a "diverse" white male and I hate it way way more when I'm considered less valuable due to my appearance only to be considered useful to HR again because I check one of their quota checkboxes... Then if there was no discrimination to begin with. Commodifying identity is so gross it makes want to puke.

Realise a lot of the roadblocks are going to be things like office culture, language barriers, the lack of appeal of being a minority among a majority (ESPECIALLY if the majority is being discriminated against by HR)

Maybe encourage internal hires to recommend and mentor people similar to themselves? If your workplace is located in a "diverse" area than hire locally? Nepotism is less degrading than being subject to institutional discrimination at the hands of the resident HR bigot.

Who is to say the benefit of this algorithm isn't doing such filtering in a nominally neutral way? What if it turned out 40 year old Latino women with vision loss are top performers and the algorithms just naturally selected for them?

Which would imply that people with "average ideal" resumes are overpriced and you can get a steal on people who, for instance, are unusually qualified in specific ways but lack some common HR filter like a bachelor's.

Or the algorithms are actually accurate and people who aren't "average ideal" candidates are lousy hires on average.

Tax incentives are where entrenched power get to take from the collective social good while not pitching in. How are they not handouts? It's like taking food from the lunch lady and paying half the price because your dad is rich.

States fighting amongst themselves to give the most generous handouts doesn't ensure national success. Perhaps that makes sense in regards to national tax incentives but not state ones.

Spinning getting divided and conquered and screwed into offering an unfair tax deal just to get Amazon in your state as the key to economic success is some trickle down shit. Why not have solidarity amongst states and tax Amazon fairly? Instead of having to shoot yourself in the foot economically years down the line when you have to adopt costly self-destructive measures to reverse the economic inequality you entrenched for no good actual reason?

The person in the story may not be my patient but I've been around the block enough times to understand WHY it is being thought that he is incapable of moral reasoning.

I can speak to that subject without being a doctor. A doctor also in all honesty would almost certainly have less expertise in the subject than myself unless they were psychologists or similar.

I feel compelled to speak on the subject because the general attitude that autistic people are fundamentally amoral, fundamentally incapable of knowing right from wrong leads to stigma and mistreatment while not actually being true. The very idea that you have to consult a doctor to judge if an autistic person, not the highest functioning but far from the lowest, is capable of moral reasoning is an idea that leads to stigma and "othering" and exclusion and dehumanization. If I come off as aggressive it's because I see your beliefs as personally threatening.

Sure he did he's not stupid he understands fucking with the market has effects on people. Autistic people have a different sense of morality. Acting like an autistic genius can't understand that doing illegal things which contributes to the stock market crashing for the sake of profit is bad... Is mostly infantilizing.

I mean his lawyer argued that but his lawyer is trying to exploit people like yourself.

This St Louis Fed article says the US made more money from Seigniorage when inflation levels were moderate than when they were low. So this is perhaps a thin pretense for a never-ending debt bubble.

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/revie...

Oh god! What if we made sci-hub legal though? We might usher in a golden age of science at the cost of short-changing parasitic middlemen!

Journals cost the general public access to science while having an even more questionable value than most copyright holders who at least bother to do things like remaster their old properties or develop new drugs. May they burn in hell.

Sci-hub means I can read the latest science about my disability without $40 paywalls on top of a mediocre paper which give eye-poppingly low margins to the actual authors. Papers which ironically often discuss how society makes disability a problem by throwing unnessecary barriers in front of the disabled. That yarn on about how the disabled lack autonomy over their own healthcare.

It's really not and there are absolutely cases where marketers have to market a superior product over a sub-par product. A lot of the art in marketing is ending up in front of the consumers for whom your product IS actually relevant. If a superior product fails to sell over a sub-par product then the marketing was probably crap.

No it's saying it's useful at best and useless at worst.

I sort of figured this out by staring at a number of large computer monitors at night - with blue light filtering - and still finding myself unable to sleep. Yet the article mentions that overall light intensity is also important.

Now at night I turn off most of my lights, dim the ones I keep on, turn on a lot of light only as needed, and use a laptop/phone/e-reader. Such an arrangement also I think leads to you naturally engaging in less stimulating things at night. I'm trying to replace my light fixtures with ones that aren't as insanely bright and blue as a lot of modern LED light fixtures are.

I'm also trying starting off my mornings my staring at intimidating arrays of monitors while shining a very bright SAD lamp into my face with my window blinds drawn.

I can't really tell if things are working yet, or if it's just a placebo, but I feel sleepier.

I genuinely don't care how corrupt Wirecutter is because at the end of the day I still find their recommendations to be well above-average.

This smacks as unreliable to me because I have a "Devils advocate" sort of mindset REGARDLESS of my actual level of expertise. I find the issue with this sort of mindset is that it makes you better at tearing down other peoples opinions than it does at coming up with a brilliant opinion of your own. This is problematic when you're trying to do something innovative in a crowded saturated field.

The average person has the most unusual attitude towards doctors. Treat the word of one doctor you've known for a really long time as if it's gospel.

I've had the same experience with me basically tossing in the towel with DDG because my need for efficiency outweighed my need for privacy. It seems like Google is systemically showing more crap in advertisements, making it harder to distinguish between ads and genuine search results, and their advantage is dwindling. That and it's just annoying to be sending information to Google as a default from a privacy point of view.

Maybe I should give Bing another go?

Yeah so long as the revelations of the paid protesters don't hit the Chinese language newspapers in China than mission accomplished I guess.

Won a bus, hit by the lottery.

>Among the jobs most likely to be automated out of existence are those whose functions are the most similar to computers, including jobs like computer systems administrators, network architects, and computer support specialists, 60–70 percent of whose functions could be automated using current technology.

>Even the brainiest are not safe. In the finance industry, in recent years, we have seen the development of machine learning tools that can perform in minutes the same analysis for which a human com­puter science major required hours or even days. You can guess which of those resources was less expensive to retain.

EDIT: I'll note that the article cited to support the second point “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation" doesn't acutally refer to "Computer science majors". It lists programmers having a moderate (not high!) chance of automation... and also lists system administrators as having amongst the least automatable jobs of all. Then to support the point that system administrators would have their jobs automated a different paper was cited. I'm not sure how seriously I can take the author with such clear evidence of contradicting the articles it cited and cherry picking evidence to apparently support a point the author had in mind before these papers were ever read. Bluntly the article smacks of outright dishonesty obscured by citing a huge number of lengthy research papers...

Not sure if I buy this take. I received a laptop in school and back then this exact analysis was true and indeed the jobs of administrators, network architects, and computer support administrators was largely automated. So those jobs are far less prevalent than in my childhood right?

Except that's not what happened and the jobs became more prevalent as improved automation made computers cheaper and more useful. I'm not holding my breath over the imminent collapse of jobs involving computers simply because the current work can be automated by... people using computers. Sure this argument is undeniably true if you think computing will stay exactly like it is now except the current jobs will be automated and no new jobs will be created.

My crystal ball is as foggy as anybody elses though. Maybe we will hit the singularity and in that case computing jobs will likely be the very first to be completely replaced.

The biggest way Microsoft realistically could make an environmental impact is having its products run more efficiently. Not attempting to regulate the world through lobbyists which in the first place is practically impossible politically without its shareholders crying foul.

>What makes it hard to believe that an educated collection of people who make decisions at a large technology company sincerely care about doing something good about it?

I have incredibly cynical views on corporations due to their strong incentives to put the bottom line before everything else. They have a legal obligation to shareholders who tend to either be sociopathic or low-information enough to not care about anything about the bottom line.

That all being said I do believe that do-gooders do try to push initiatives like this for ethical reasons and try to sell them to shareholders as helping the bottom line. Certainly IT will only come under more and more scrutiny in terms of its climate impact anyways.