hailk

No, not implying that. I used `more than 50 years` as a range, as these policies were also proposed as part of the Raj's secession. The introduction of affirmative action wasn't a single event, but a growing set of reservations and quotas included in education, govt sector hiring and other places. Even today, the left leaning political parties use this topic as a leverage to increase their vote bank.

I'd like to share a perspective based on an anecdote. The first company that I'd worked for had come to our college to hire interns. They wanted 2. I'd find out later that the CEO had intended one male hire and one female hire, but they ended up hiring 3 (all men) including me. Two of us that got hired were from financially poor background, had lived in tier 3 cities, went to underfunded-corrupt schools with bad educators (as was common in the region we were from), had taken out huge education loans and were possibly the only source of retirement income for our parents (I'm based out of India, poor people have to rely on their children's success here). There were around 10-15 women in our batch. Most were from well off families, had well-educated parents who were also bankrolling their daughters' education, were from tier-1 cities and were exposed to tech long before us. They'd had better opportunities for growth even before joining college and only equal opportunities after, like the rest of us. In retrospect I feel that I had been lucky in a certain sense. Thankfully the recruiters weren't people with the >`But it's discrimination with a higher purpose.` mindset. It would've been a very difficult road to recovery for me otherwise.

I would urge you to reconsider the notion that affirmative action is a sustainable solution for anything. It's hack. You only need to look at the current state of India's government, which over the course of more than 50 years of affirmative action (and other varying factors) has managed to convert the government sector into a cesspool of corruption and bad management.

Not only surveillance, but the accountability has gone up too. Not only is it easy to be exposed performing morally debatable but illegal stuff but they are also permanently recorded by unknowable number of entities(news sites/blogs), shared across innumerable platforms and get judged by mobs you never knew existed, leading to a possibly life altering effect.

Lot of teams are remote. With WFH option being commonly used, scenarios where both of you are not f2f has become quite common.

Certainly. Internet is just a means to an end, a product is successful if it solves the problem it intends to solve, with or without net.

A tangential question. What steps can an organisation take to assuage your worries about your data being mis-used?

Wouldn't having a strong AI require lots of user data? And having the option to make it work offline means letting go of all the possible precious tidbits that could make your AI strong.

I think gestures with combination of buttons has more potential to solve most interfacing challenges than voice. Unless a use-case where the instruction scope is complex enough to want the use of human language, voice as an interface seems more like a fun/cool feature rather than a utilitarian one.

It would be interesting if someone could come up with a list of interface challenges that voice could solve best.

One that I would like to have is a writing platform/software that is entirely functional with voice. Something of a similar nature: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Quick-Quotes_Quill

I've had bad experience with the food from venky's. But this might be confirmation bias, since I never ordered anything from them again and it could've been a one off scenario.

Though I wonder what the long/short term effects of consuming such poultry would be.

What traits did you find in them. How do those traits convert with experience. Say, for example what would, according to you, make a 3-5 year experienced web developer 10x?

This.

For me, one of the more difficult type of engineers to work with aren't people low in tech skills or other traditional lacking, but engineers who can't deal with failings generated by other people, in a rational and civilised manner.



Anyone building anything of modicum importance is going to fail. Moreover, failures can be institutional, i.e any process or lack of process, which significantly increases the chances of failure. These have to be dealt with at an institutional level. If the failure is personal, I.e caused by traits specific to the person, can it be resolved by having a better feedback loop. Many reasons to be angry but very few to express it in a confrontational manner. I have many brilliant friends I wouldn’t work with for the above reason.

How would it be considered malice to use your own revenue to sell things cheaper, while maintaining service and product listing quality. Are there any legal or ethical lines being crossed?

Same boat. Nearly 3 months now. You are not alone :)

I've managed to limit my "phone time" significantly since a few years now. Other than the traditional remedies, one thing which works exceptionally well for me is that I've put the device on silent and on vibrate at all time, unless I'm explicitly expecting a very important call (rare). The main reasoning behind this is that auditory signals are much more distracting than visual signals; the latter you must explicitly look for. I just occasionally glance to check the flash notifier. The phone stays out of my hand most of the day.

It isn't as broad apparently. If you go through the wikipedia link it also states :-

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Subjective descriptions of a person's actions or behaviour, however abhorrent, crass or objectionable, may not be considered an attempt to spread hate unless the motive is clearly defined as such."

Certainly there are still going to be "grey incidents".

I'm unclear about lawful differentiation between both sentences that makes one hate speech and other not. Or is it the manner of delivery?