facepalm

I must admit I can not really relate. What about somebody who can not FizzBuzz, but claims they can code? Most whiteboard interviews I had were not much harder than FizzBuzz. I was asked to implement Quicksort once, but they gave me the specification, some time and a sheet of paper.

Why would somebody for whom it is easy consider to hire somebody who can not do a seemingly simple thing?

I can understand if somebody has anxiety issues. Then maybe you can negotiate something else, homework project or coding on site for 30 minutes. But odds are you'll discuss stuff with your colleagues on a whiteboard, too.

What are the options for men who want to have a family/live with their children?

I guess men who just want to have sex might benefit, because they can just sleep with women and then leave, and society takes care of the single moms. Likewise, women can have more sex with varying partners.

The downside is not having a family or having a stressful family life (as a single mom).

And for the absent dads, the state will try to get the money back from them, so their outlook isn't pretty. They'll bend up being poor and lonely.

You think it is men deciding not to marry, as in "no thanks, I'd rather be alone and unemployed than change diapers"?

The article said it is women making the decision.

People fall in love with colleagues all the time.

I'm not saying she is wrong, just asking why is it wrong to investigate her claims?

Although the numbers you cite are not really evidence of a problem imo - there could be any number of reasons. Assuming sexism is the only explanation is heavily biased.

Is Snapchat strictly for entertainment, or is it also a way to stay up to date by following Tech influencers (like Twitter)?

people are scared and want to follow others so they don't have to decide everything for themselves. Humans are pack animals.

I really enjoyed the AI class by Thrun and Norvig. Nothing against Databases (I didn't take it), but AI class was fine - great, actually.

Why is this wrong - or is it? Seems like a pretty normal reaction to being attacked? Is it wrong because a woman's statements always have to be believed?

Why would anybody pay 35$ for crappy TV if Netflix is only 10$?

Or maybe it is/was obvious that there are certain flaws in the US health care system and Obamacare that definitely have a better solution. There are other health care systems in the world, so it is obvious that Obamacare is not the only possible way to do it.

I thought it was meant in another way, that the article blames lazy developers for not providing good privacy solutions. Of course certain developers implemented Facebook and whatnot, and are therefore to blame. But "developers" in general can not influence how big companies handle people's data. I can not change how Facebook or Google work, at least not without some genius idea (which may not exist).

"how would you distill an unwieldy set of options into a concise API?"

I'd rather implement Bubble Sort, tbh...

Somehow I still don't buy that dhh would fail to implement Bubble Sort.

I remember the complaints that he wasn't proposing something specific before the election. So actually I don't think most people are aware that it is complicated. Otherwise they wouldn't have expected a simple solution.

But how can you change the situation, if consumers don't care enough to educate themselves? A government decree wouldn't help in this case, as governments can't be trusted with protecting privacy.

There seem to be many privacy solutions, but little adoption. Sorry, but I have to blame the consumers, not developers. I am actually amazed at how much manpower is being poured into doomed privacy projects. Like how many encrypted messenger apps are there, that never stand a chance against WhatsApp and Facebook?

Why is it not an issues, the dosage is too low? Afaik lead enters through the skin, too - washing hands after soldering sufficient?

How do you avoid it with lead solder? Common soldering tutorials don't mention the issue.

What if I own a company and don't want my employees to have a voice in how things are done? Why shouldn't that be allowed?

And what if I hire workers to build me a house - should they be entitled to parts of the house after they build it? Or what if they absolute want to put marble into the bathroom, but I don't? Should they be entitled to put marble, because after all they are doing the work?

Meaning what is wrong with making a contract and fulfilling it? You do work x for me, I give you money y in return? Why make things more complicated?

I haven't looked at their comments - but sure, why not make such an analysis? What do you mean by "we are all smart people here" - everybody knows the earth is flat?

Edit: perhaps you could at least provide a link to a typical Breitbart comment section, full of hatred and calls for genocide?

It sounds like a nice move to give employees shares in one's company. But what is stopping employees from simply buying shares from their salary? Giving them a high enough salary so that they could buy any shares they want seems like a nicer move than promising them shares in one's own company.

Also, people who get angry about this are often beneficiaries themselves - the article mentions the pension funds who own most shares, but who will also later pay most people's pensions.

Benefits, but I think also some obligations?

The discussion should not be about marriage, but about the right to adopt children and to grant citizenship to spouses.

Next I wonder, what are the arguments against marriage for polygamists? And if I can marry several people (how many - 100 perhaps?), do I have to prove I love them before they get the right to live in my country?

What do you mean?

Edit, since HN doesn't let me reply: the point is the article suggest something sinister going on, whereas it is mostly just business as usual. Note that claims about the effectiveness of CA also come mostly from CA executives. It could almost be a PR article for CA...

Other aspects also reek of conspiracy theory, like the "you set up outlets like Breitbart to replae the established media" - really, just like that, you set up news sites that are more popular than the established ones? And with a shocking, enourmus investment of 2 million dollars, too? It really seems as if Billionaires control everything, don't they? In fact, reading the article, I get the impression that rich people are generally evil - leftist ideology much?

didn't know, thanks - haven't actually watched it.

(edit, sine HN doesn't let me reply: why would it be important to have watched it? According to Wikipedia, it is set at JFK. Watching it would not have added a new impression about that.)

The point is - everybody could have employed CA, or other firms with similar offerings. That is the game of the presidential election, which one candidate won. To suggest something sinister went on is far off.

Maybe it is precisely because people have more information sources available now that they realize more often how lacking some articles are.

For example, I have witnessed first hand the campaign for banning ads on Breitbart (which was often pointing to Milo articles like "the pill is making women ugly", falsely claiming they were mysognist), and I have followed Milo for a long time. I was following him on Twitter when he was banned, so I know he didn't call for racist attacks on the Ghostbusters actress as many articles claim. I have asked people to prove to me that Breitbart is antisemitic (while employing Jews like Milo) and received no replies. Therefore the article simply seems laughable to me. In fact the way Milo is mentioned is often a quick way to judge an article - if they claim he called for harassment of the Ghostbusters actress, it is bunk.

It's not news that Trump employed Cambridge Analytics. Their actual impact is overblown. I think that has been discussed several times before.

In any case, as you say, it is nothing new, and open to everyone with enough money (as Clinton had). If you want to suggest it was unfair play, then maybe you should rethink how the president is elected in general. Should TV advertisements be allowed? They also manipulate people, and favor the candidate with the most money. How could you ensure that people vote without having been manipulated? Maybe nobody should be allowed to consume any media for 2 years prior to the election?

There are also presumably entities with far more data available than Cambridge Analytics, as have been mentioned on HN frequently before. Advertisers have been collecting data on people for a long time.

What "antics" - using data to advertise?