Are these 50% of newborns Belgians/Swedes by some divine right? Why aren't the rest Belgians/Swedes?
79 karma · joined September 5, 2016
> 3 of them not addressing the point at hand, and 1 point dishonest at best
I meant counts of points, i.e., three of them not addressing the issue (points 1,3,4) and one dishonest (point 2) - reasons above. So dishonesty was not related to point 1, sorry if it reads like that.
To further elaborate for 1,3, and 4; I don't contend with his explanations - but they do not address the larger question of whether/why racists/sexists find his blog appealing.
I am not saying this is the case (as I have no connection with the blog), but if the claim is indeed true that racists/sexists think the blog is great (which is the main takeaway I got from the article), that needs to be addressed as to why they are attracted there, and Mr. Siskind does not do that. If the claim is bogus, then the claim is bogus, but Mr. Siskind does not refute that they are attracted to his blog.
As to the feminism issue, in the full context, he criticizes feminism with respect to specific points and texts from feminists (which he is 100% entitled to), but then ends with the sentence in question that to me whichever angle you look at it from says, feminism and pure evil are not too distant. As I noted, he could have backed away from the statement easily by saying his statement is wrong (if he thinks so), but claiming it's out of context is dishonest and a diversion.
The main takeaway from the NYT article is that there is a group of people in whose writings/blog comment sections/etc racists/sexists have found a home, and his is one of them. He does not address this assertion, or what the root cause may be if it is true, or if it is not true, why not. This is the whole point of 1, 3 and 4 in his statement but he does not address it.
As to the only concrete point he addresses (point 2), he does something that is dishonest. He wrote (pre-edit):
> "blurring the already rather thin line between “feminism” and “literally Voldemort“"
and then claimed it's taken out of context. I read the whole article, especially the surroundings carefully to see if there was any context as to which could change the meaning of what he wrote here, but there is none. This simply states that there is a thin line between feminism and evil. If you believe that, then don't delete it. But if you don't, don't tell the reader it's taken out of context, just admit you made a mistake in writing this, or you have changed your mind despite this was what you believed when you wrote the article.
So there are 4 points in the rebuttal, 3 of them not addressing the point at hand, and 1 point dishonest at best. I am not impressed.
There are no two Russells, it's the same person, just different kind of works in different periods of his life.
Sure, this is a very narrow subset of logic programming. But that would be like saying you can do variable assignment in logic programming so logic programming incorporates C++. The things that make LP strong (in particular recursion) is not handled in any way here.
This 300M+ logic is the perfect strawman for people who don't want to solve problems, because the population of the US is only comparable to few countries in population and they are not in a good position...
dblp is the proper place to check computer scientists' record, not arxiv/google scholar.
I don't know how old you are, but I am assuming you are younger than me, and I would like to offer you some advice without (I hope) sounding patronizing.
Work-life balance is not about what you love vs hate. There are not too many people hanging around in hacker news that hate what they do for work, otherwise they wouldn't be checking here most likely. I would even go ahead and venture to say, around 20% percent of the people love what they do. But work is not the only thing you can love. You can love playing the piano, spending time with your girlfriend trekking, regularly having dinner with your parents every Monday, running a few times a week so on and so forth. Your view of the word 'love' is extremely one-dimensional, and life is too short for that. If developing is the only thing that you love, be my guest. But do not restrict yourself to just that, if you have the financial means.
Work-life balance is about the multi-dimensional aspect of life. You can (and in my opinion should) love many things, because there are so many things in life to love. Then work-life balance becomes about the maximization of an objective function whose variables are the hours you spend for each thing that you love, and the constraints involve (1) the minimum surplus of money you are OK with making given that you spend the hours in the variables, (2) the minimum amount of time you would like to spend for each thing, (3) the maximum amount you can spend. That's essentially life for everyone. The weights and the (1)+(2) constraints are dependent on the person (3) is a limitation of reality. People call the weights and (1)+(2) work-life balance. I hope this gives you a new perspective.
I have been doing consulting for a while and as an advice, I would take the efficiency to be at most 50% so in OP's case would not accept less than $115/hour to quit my $120k job.
There is no harm in you liking Gaugin's paintings now, because he is dead, and by liking a painting, you don't enable his pedophilia.
I will not judge Koch, but if you view him in a bad light, you have every right to question Rowe, because Rowe and Koch enable each other.