shantanubala

I feel like I'm reading the same article, but drawing very different conclusions from other commenters. I might be missing something - of eleven projects, three were reasonably successful implementations of an improvement to existing infrastructure that can slow climate change. Not terrible for new technology.

Although there is likely a better allocation of $1.1B in isolation, that is not the world in which this investment was made - $1.1B amounts to <5% of the annual DOE budget. It also does not include comparisons to other investments e.g. over $1B goes towards electric vehicle tax rebates every year [1]. Build Back Better proposed $555B of federal spending for renewable energy.

Are we going to discuss budgets in absolute dollar amounts, or discuss them as portfolios?

I will simultaneously applaud efforts to develop electric vehicles while applauding efforts to increase the MPG rating of an ICE vehicle. The same way, I'll applaud any serious effort to reduce our emissions at coal power plants that do indeed help load balance our somewhat fragile power grid - a fragility we need to address while also ensuring our existing infrastructure serves us well.

[1] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11017.pdf

I think programmers tend to underestimate the difficulties involved with becoming a good programmer because once you're good, you only see the even steeper learning curve ahead of you.

Some of the smartest people I know work in other domains: biology, chemistry, and even physics. They are sometimes baffled by tasks that seem trivial to me, and I'm under no impression that I'm more intelligent than them. I simply specialized and focused only on programming, while they program to accomplish other tasks in their domain of expertise.

Can this last forever? Of course not, nothing lasts forever. But wondering why the wealthiest corporations in the world pay their workers high salaries is perhaps like wondering why water is wet. Software has a low marginal cost, and the rest is basic incentives for the corporations.

You're right. I wasn't in any way trying to imply that the Chinese government was acting fairly - they are stealing and ought to be punished.

My confusion stems from the American companies who readily jumped at the opportunity to heavily depend on supply chains inside of a country with 1) a relatively short history in the WTO 2) a previous history of market manipulation and 3) rampant human rights abuses

And let's not mention that the entry into the WTO itself constituted a major overhaul of the Chinese economy, which should in itself be considered an experiment.

I'm disappointed that the risks of trade in China have been understated for so long. And systematically underestimated by American firms.

Or to put it a different way: how surprising is this situation? And does it belie a lack of proper enforcement and a lack of understanding of the risks of doing trade with China?

It feels silly to only examine the narrative where the Chinese government is at fault because that narrative is obvious. What about the culpability of our own government for advocating for China's entry in the WTO? Or the immediate handoff of trade by American corporations when the decision produced short-term gains without examining how many rapid changes China was making to its economy?

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I'll express a counterpoint - viewing the same situation through a different lens.

Put simply, the Chinese understand why American companies outsource their labor to China. Chinese labor is cheaper, and they are under no illusions - this outsourcing means that their own country experiences many of the negative externalities of Western consumption, including pollution.

It's fair for American businesses to distrust Chinese companies and distrust the Chinese government, but can't we all agree that they brought it on themselves?

Which multinational corporation reasonably expects that the Chinese government cares about their bottom line at all? And why do many ordinary Americans experience such outrage on behalf of these multinationals? Of course, I understand why their shareholders (and thus, many Americans) may be upset.

If anything, I'm angry they jumped at the opportunity to eradicate their domestic workforce to a point where China has the opportunity to steal in the first place.

But how do you conduct a background check without a database of reports from people who have experienced harassment?

Unfortunately, most of the time, this gets swept under the rug. This way, at least that background check will actually reveal information once the relevant data is collected.

Kalanick is still a very successful founder - not that I necessarily think he should be emulated.

Regardless of what you think of Uber, Travis Kalanick started a very large company, and Uber is as entrenched as ever.

So perhaps this actually is evidence in favor of the parent comment. Did Uber really suffer much at all? Or did they just reshuffle management, pay Kalanick billions to (kind of) leave, and continued business as usual?

I'm not a doctor, but I know Adeel (the doctor who wrote this post), and can't say enough positive things.

More often than not, doctors use printed pages to give instructions, and those pages subsequently get thrown in my trash can. As an occasional patient, I want my doctors on Medumo.

This sounds like a great way to manipulate the price of Bitcoin

Slavery is explicitly permitted in prisons by the constitution.

> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii

It depends on the level of abstraction with which the language was designed.

Go was designed for systems programming, and the code is intentionally verbose. A few extra characters, brackets, and syntactic constructs are a small price to pay for more control in performance-critical applications.

JavaScript was designed for the web to make authoring interactive pages easier. The web benefits as an ecosystem to have commonly-used abstractions for lower-level data transformations and common tasks.

So yes, there are reasons why a map shorthand is not needed. Mostly because it doesn't do anything a loop cannot, and the ecosystem in which it was developed does not benefit from it.

If anyone feels like they need someone to talk to, send me an email (in my profile).

If you're in San Francisco, we can also get coffee.

Privilege exists when the outward characteristics you describe are used as heuristics for filtering good coders from bad coders.

Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the heuristics they are using when performing such a task. LessWrong explains some of these errors in reasoning quite well [1][2]. When generalized to an entire population, these heuristics construct a "privilege" because anyone with characteristics that do not fit the heuristics will be unfairly disqualified.

Privilege is not an active act of oppression. By having privilege, you are not necessarily actively preventing someone from achieving success. However, the fact that someone has a harder time getting a job for no reason other than not satisfying heuristics for innate characteristics places you in a "privileged" position as a result.

[1]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lg/the_affect_heuristic/ [2]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lj/the_halo_effect/

EDIT: It is important to note that there are other sources of privilege. One example is the fact that females have a much higher probability of being victims of sexual assault. As a male, I spend less time worrying about my own safety (in general) - that is a privilege.

XMLHttpRequest is a facility provided by the browser - when you are making a request, you are just accessing objects and functions provided by the host environment.

In Python, the "host environment" is generally CPython with the standard library. In JavaScript, the "host environment" is typically the browser with the DOM.

This is a project that translates code in Python syntax to JavaScript, so you would use XMLHttpRequest just as you would in JavaScript, but with Python syntax.

The problem is that it's a lot harder to execute -- if you have a "Kids Code" event, you are guaranteed to get a disproportionately larger number of white males.

This isn't just about helping a disadvantaged group, but also signalling to them at a young age that "people like you are also programmers!"

Growing up as a minority is something that is difficult to grasp unless you are part of that group -- something as simple as having fewer role models who look like you can impact your choices and decisions to pursue specific careers.

And no, they are not refusing to help males. I'm almost 100% sure that if a male asked if he could have some help learning to code, someone would either help him out or point him in a direction where he could get help. The group is just designed in a way to signal to young girls that they should join and learn how to program when pop culture ordinarily defaults to making scientists males (e.g. Big Bang Theory).

EDIT: Here's another question: is it wrong for a church to provide support groups for its members? Is that discriminating against other religions? Or is it just an effort to improve a specific community?

This would be perfect in conjunction with an "unload" event that triggers the countdown if the user decides to go to a different page on your web site. This way, the user doesn't have to stay on the page to make sure their actions are completed.

Instead of forcing the user to wait for the end of the countdown, you can use an "undo" button. Instead of actually undoing the operation, they would just be preventing it from happening in the first place.

Kindles are very hackable in comparison to most devices.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...

Amazon also didn't void my warranty when I installed a few hacks on my e-ink Kindle.

Unfortunately they are very lenient with their devices because they know that the content is locked down completely. Once you buy Kindle books, you're unfortunately only renting them.

Any local machine may be problematic (if you have a dynamic IP), but git is really easy to host on a VPS or any box with a static IP -- just make sure you have everyone's SSH keys authorized (not on root unless you trust everyone with that), and use the following:

    $ git remote add origin2 user@your-ip:/path/to/repo.git

To create repo.git:

    $ mkdir repo.git  
    $ cd repo.git  
    $ git --bare init

This is not just a matter of resembling psychosis.

Haloperidol and olanzapine, two common prescriptions for schizophrenia, have been demonstrated to reduce the effects of LSD.

There is a connection between the psychoactive properties of LSD and the neurological etiology of schizophrenia, though the connection needs to be studied further.

Yes, research should not be taken as gospel, but it is foolish to think that there is no reason at all for alarm.

Another more recent source: Marona-Lewicka, D., Nichols, C. D., & Nichols, D. E. (2011). An animal model of schizophrenia based on chronic {LSD} administration: Old idea, new results. Neuropharmacology, 61(3), 503 – 512. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.02.006

> LSD does not cause people to be schizophrenic; schizophrenia shows itself during the most likely years for people to be experimenting with drugs.

This is very misleading at best. LSD use causes direct symptoms of psychosis, including symptoms of schizophrenia, schizoaffective, and schizophreniform disorders.

The effects of LSD resemble schizophrenia so closely, in fact, that it has led to studies on rats using LSD as a hypothetical model to represent schizophrenia. In other words, we give rats LSD and see what chemicals reduce the effects to find treatments for schizophrenia.

A very incomplete list of sources:

Aghajanian, G. K., & Marek, G. J. (2000). Serotonin model of schizophrenia: emerging role of glutamate mechanisms. Brain Research Reviews, 31(2), 302-312.

Crow, T. J. (1980). Molecular pathology of schizophrenia: more than one disease process?. British medical journal, 280(6207), 66.

Schneier, F. R., & Siris, S. G. (1987). A review of psychoactive substance use and abuse in schizophrenia: patterns of drug choice. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 175(11), 641-652.

Keep in mind that McDonald's is an established brand. They don't have to explain what "McDonald's" is anymore -- they're past that point. Now, they have to convince you to eat there by associating themselves with health-conscious imagery and family-oriented messaging.

This is an attempt to make McDonald's seem more "fun" than the average restaurant.

Most companies looking to build a web site are trying to solve a totally different problem because most companies are still trying to explain who they are. You definitely don't need a physics engine to explain who you are.

> This is a very exciting problem once you think about it...

That's a good summary of why Google has been so successful.

They have a way of making engineers and regular people really excited about their projects. It's a feedback loop - have exciting stuff, recruit smarter people, work on more exciting stuff.

Although the article is interesting, I think one of the comments is much more "to the point":

What gets me about this ad is that no one understands why the women basically described themselves as trolls and the women they were talking to as goddesses. They're being filmed. They know it, and they know it's being put up somewhere. They don't want to be seen as having an over-inflated ego - they know exactly how it's going to look to the watcher if they describe themselves as more beautiful than they are. They have to have had an idea of what the guy is doing, which means they're going to know there's going to be a sketch hanging next to their real face. Wouldn't you want to look nicer than the sketch?

As for the women they're describing. When a stranger asks you what you think of their hair, have you ever said, "I hate it"? Again, they know that someone is sketching. They describe the other woman in the prettiest terms they can.

This isn't a deep look into their feelings about their actual looks, it's an exercise in self-marketing and politesse.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html#c031270

Yup, I was agreeing with you -- I probably should've made it clearer.

I just wanted to point out that people sometimes confuse "sexism" and "imbalance" -- a poor gender ratio doesn't imply sexism, and a good ratio doesn't get rid of sexism.

I think there are two problems: sexism and an imbalance of males and females in technology. They're not the same, though they're linked in some ways.

Sexism is hard to address effectively, and attempting to confront it can sometimes make things worse. Proceed with caution.

What is easier to address (but still difficult) is recruiting more women -- this can also make it easy to identify sexism, because if more women are present, sexism can be harder to hide.

Although I disagree that ignoring an imbalance will make it go away, there is another reason why trying to have more women on your team is important: if 50% of the people consuming software are women, it's quite possible that a team of 90% men is missing out on opportunities. Though Pinterest is a good recent example that most men simply don't appreciate to the same degree as women, there may be some hidden market opportunities that are shrouded by the current gender ratios in technology.

Unfortunately, it seems that it's an "overall" model -- see under "Study Design" in the "Methods" section of the paper.

There are "individual harms" that take account the harm done to the user himself or herself.

But, "the extent of individual harm is shown by the criteria listed as to others take account indirectly of the number of users"

(emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, parts of the study are well-thought, but others, not so much.

Maybe this is a bit of a misunderstanding? I wasn't refuting the "10 years" -- that's a fact. I was simply pointing out that you can't really know what's going to happen based on 10 sentences of extremely vague details in an article.

I was refuting this:

> Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts.

That statement assumes that he will be convicted and the judge will deliver a severe sentence, which is not necessarily a valid assumption since there's barely any information provided. It's possible he may simple get a community service sentence with parole, since he is 17.

And yes, the government "can" throw you in jail if you are found guilty and if the judge decides to, but neither of those "if's" have been decided yet.

> Welcome to the New World Order where they can throw you into prison at will with supposed evidence which truth content can be hard to verify even by experts.

The article was really brief and vague. Are you sure this is the case?

From what I understand, the title is not completely descriptive: the kid has a maximum possible sentence of 10 years if he is convicted.

"The suspected hacker faces a maximum of 10 years jail time if convicted and will face court again on May 17."

I obviously have no way of really knowing what exactly happened without more information, but just assuming that random programmers are at risk for getting arrested is a bit of a stretch -- even if there is a "New World Order" as you say, it needs good programmers too...

It will be interesting to see what actually happens at the end of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a sentence to community service and parole for some time.

I think you took his comment a bit too far: the point is that the government is an institution that is meant to mitigate risks that cannot efficiently be dealt with otherwise.

The risk of going to the moon before anyone else is such a risk (political motivations aside).

Stating that the government can be an effective tool for mitigating risks associated with research is not an endorsement of everything the government does. This is not an endorsement of everything governments have done in the past. This isn't even an endorsement of government at all in its current form.

It is a statement of what our government ought to be doing more of. It is a statement that our current system has disproportionately distributed rewards -- aren't we supposed to reward those who create the most value?

> It's not the same as a layperson describing gravity in terms of some basic understanding of Newtonian physics and a physicist describing it in terms of general relativity. It was just dumb.

You're mixing up what I said: a sociologist describing a social phenomenon is analogous to a physicist describing a physical phenomenon.

In the tweet, Adria colloquially used the word "racism" in a way that's different from colloquial usage (she used the sociologist's definition and not the Dictionary.com definition), but that doesn't make her stupid or a "loony bird."

Do a couple tweets, screwups, or overreactions deserve this kind of outrage?

> Redefining established words to fit your narrative (as someone said on here) is a crime against understanding and is not acceptable.

This is hardly a redefinition as much as a clarification of intent and context. Saying that it's a "crime against understanding" is a bit of an exaggeration.

I mean, saying that racism is "prejudice" is what Dictionary.com says, and saying racism is "prejudice with power" is what a sociologist says, then can't you figure it out with context? Dictionary.com says gravity is, "the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth." but a physicist would probably have a different definition they think is more accurate.

I definitely wouldn't say that Adria was right in this whole incident, but picking apart the rest of her Twitter history like it's some sort of way to establish how much you should dislike her is the wrong approach to making things better.