gdix

Well yeah, anything that someone says is "beyond a reasonable doubt" when they're referring to something that as nuanced as "diversity".

Or it's as simple as "1 person bringing up a subtle problem doesn't cause people to become alarmed in this particular situation, but if more people are saying it's a problem, then others become more convinced". It's possible that age/race/gender have absolutely nothing to do with it. But those with an ax to grind against "the patriarchy" will look at this situation only through that lens. You might say she's biased into assuming that everything that happens to her is because of sexism.

The obvious answer is (2) don't run a study at all (assuming the methodology is truly flawed). Or (3) run the study but take the results with a grain of salt and don't draw broad conclusions from it. And (4) we can comment on hacker news about how "wouldn't it be nice if they tested this or that because that would have convinced me, personally."

I think that we're kind of saying the same thing. It's an thought-provoking study and I agree that it is a useful step. But I also agree that further research is required to really draw a conclusion.

I think the TLDR of the original article can be summed by "there is bias even in the interpretation of bias-measuring studies".

The fact that people read this story and conclude "well the only variable at play here is gender, therefore: sexism".

1. This is anecdote. One event. 2. The story-teller is introducing his own bias. 3. The reader has certain preconceptions about gender and bias.

While this is an interesting anecdote, a skeptic should take this whole situation with a grain of salt.

Translation: "if you don't agree with this, you are not being reasonable"

That doesn't make the study any less flawed. I'm questioning whether we should even accept this study if there wasn't a big enough pool of black people to actually run the experiment properly.

Isn't anyone at least a bit curious how an all black team would have performed? If the all black team performs as badly as the all white team, it would only bolster the argument that diversity is important. Which is a good result, because you've made a more convincing study.

But what if the all black team performs the best? It would cause you to look at the study completely different, wouldn't it? Maybe for cultural reasons, black people are better at these kinds of puzzles.

We'll never know because it seems like they have already decided this study in its current form is enough to conclude that "diversity=good".

The first graphic is geniusly deceptive:

"See, we take a little bit from everyone, shuffle it around a bit and return it back to everyone. Hooray!"

When it reality, the actual result is the red section loses dots which just go blue green and yellow groups.

Who gets to decide what's racist and what constitutes harassment? Isn't that a matter of opinion?

Nope. If the son lied, then that is intentional deception.

Or it could be her son did not give an accurate account of what happened. You keep doing you as well. We'll see how this shakes out.

How did the police know he was black from the Craigslist post when they set up the sting?

So the subtext here is that the cops are racist, right? How would the police know the seller of the Macbook was black from the Craigslist post?

How did her son know it was a weapon pressed against his back?

How could the handcuffs possibly have cut his wrists? Handcuffs don't have, like, blades on them that just cut you as they're hanging off your wrists. Seems like something added to punch-up the narrative.

And then tag it with a couple "Trayvon" mentions at the end. This screams "hoax" to me.

Each of those sources were written after she was chosen as a 30-under-30 so it doesn't really answer the question of what made Forbes choose her.

You have to admit that it is kind of interesting that the list are pretty much all founders or people who have invented something incredible. Her bio on Forbes's article lists her as a "rising star"[1]. Founder, founder, founder, founder, rising-star, founder, founder, founder. Am I sexist for pointing this out?

[1] http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2014/30-under-30/techno...

There's a lot of work that I do free of charge. Wash my car. Go grocery shopping. Do my laundry. I walk my dog out of a sense of love and duty. Shouldn't I be paid for this? Why isn't the government paying me for this invisible labor that I chose to do?

I cut back my hours and quit my job because I have so much to do so, what the hell society, where's my compensation?

"Here's some misinformation for everyone! Fix it for me or keep your comments to yourself."

Your example doesn't demonstrate that having a 1.3x increase in salary with a 2.4x increase in rent is necessarily a losing deal. And of course you can find a place for $2,400 in SF right now. Maybe you have to have roommates which is fine to many people.

I'm not saying "Bay Area is still definitely better because, hey, look at my math". I'm just saying that a 1.3-1.5x salary increase can more than offset a 2.4x rent increase. Obviously there are other factors that are too numerous to list such as commuting costs.

Not necessarily. If you're making $100K but your rent is $1000 your salary minus your rent will be $88,000. If you're making 1.3x ($130K) but your rent is 2.4x ($2400), your salary minus your rent will be $101,200.

Obviously, this ignore taxes but the increased salary can more than make up for extremely high rents.

I don't think that's what the comment was saying at all. The things you quoted don't appear in the comment.

Hindsight is 20/20. I thought I had missed the boat in 2007 when Facebook was valued at $500 million. "Clearly they couldn't go much higher than that!" I thought.

I have a friend who got an offer from a startup in 2011 w/ 0.15% equity. He didn't take the offer. The company was WhatsApp and his equity would have been worth $27 million.

Maybe the privileged elite got that way because they are capable and can work the system.

Don't you think they consider the people they hire to be "the best"? Do you think being "the best" and being an "insider" are mutually exclusive?

Sure, but font icons can only be one color. Can you give an example of a compatibility issue?

>If this would have been my own company there would be tons of wiki pages.

Ah, to be young and naive again. This is one of those lofty goals that I'm sure everyone aspires to but absolutely no one really ends up doing.

Whoever sold/delivered the car/warranty/service plan/loan to you sells your information to these sketchy companies. So they know where you live and when you bought the car and which car you have. From that they deduce when your original warranty is likely to expire and send you the scam letter.

In this case, since the author didn't actually buy the car, maybe he took it in to get it serviced and THEY sold his name, address, car make to the scamsters (or something like that).

You can't convince your company (who is paying you thousands of dollars a month in salary) to spend an extra $2 a month on something that will make you more efficient? What kind of company do you work for?

No. Unblow your mind. Any service which returns sensitive data in JSON via an HTTP get based on the user's cookie is vulnerable. At worst, an attacker would just be able collect the response of a GET on behalf of a visitor to the attacker's site if the user is on a really old browser.