slavak

Wow. I thought you must have been exaggerating somewhat but, no, he actually came out and randomly accused a guy he doesn't know and never met of being a pedophile, all for the crime of criticizing his mini-sub idea! Not just any guy, either, but one of the divers who risked their lives to get the kids out, not to mention was one of the first divers on the scene who helped find the trapped boys in the first place! And when this was pointed out to Musk, his response is... to double down?

What in the actual fuck is going on with Musk? This kind of behaviour is inappropriate even for a random nobody on Twitter, let alone a celebrity billionaire CEO. What possible thought process leads an adult to not just think this, but then to also type it out and decide it's a good idea?!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/16/british-dive...

You tell me:

> sexism | 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

> racism | 3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

From the same dictionary:

sexism : Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Of course, referencing other (arguably more authoritative) dictionaries, one of the definitions for racism is also simply "discrimination based on race."

Oops...

It _is_ a form of racism and sexism, by definition. You can make an argument that some forms of racism/sexism are not harmful, or even beneficial, to society, but let's not re-define words based on your convenience.

And before you reply, I suggest you look up the definitions in an English dictionary; personally I referenced Merriam-Webster, but most accepted English dictionaries will tell you more or less the same thing.

From the Merriam-Webster English dictionary:

> sexism > noun sex·ism \ ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm \ > 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

> racism > noun rac·ism \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- \ > 3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

> Flying is the worst one because people come back from flights and they're telling you their story, and it's like a horror story. They act like their flight was a cattle car in the 40s in Germany. They're like, 'it was the worst day of my life! First of all, we didn't board for like 20 minutes and then they made us sit there on the runway for 40 minutes! We had to sit there!' Oh really? What happened next? Did you FLY in the AIR incredibly like a BIRD? Did you partake in the miracle of human flight, you non-contributing zero?! ... You're sitting in a chair in the SKY! Here's the thing: people say there's delays. Delays? Really? New York to California in 5 hours. That used to take 30 years! And a bunch of you would die on the way there, and have babies... you'd be a whole different group of people by the time you got there. Now, you watch a movie, you take a dump, and you're home!

— Louis CK

The very act of crossing the border is a misdemeanor, and thanks to Jeff Sessions' "Zero Tolerance" policy, almost every adult is being prosecuted, even if they are not dangerous and even if they apply for asylum.

In other words: A misdemeanor is still required. If you do not have a misdemeanor available, one will be provided for you.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/19/17475326/f...

No, the implicit contract is far from obvious. Yes, everyone knows Facebook shows you advertisements in return for using their service; that personal information is used for that purpose, the extent of personal information collected, and what else it can be used for and with whom it may be shared, is far from clear even to technically-inclined individuals, much less the average user.

There's a reason Facebook has you agree to a 10,000 words ToS and related documents, and it's not because the contract here is blindingly obvious. It would be another thing if the type and extent of their data collection was clearly spelled out and delineated so you knew exactly what you're giving up; but Facebook explicitly wants the ability to collect anything and everything and use it for whatever. Under those conditions, what kind of information they collect about you and what other data it allows them to infer is completely opaque. ("It's just an indoor photo me and a friend, surely Googlebook can't tell where this was taken?" https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/29/google-knows-whe...)

In California it is!

https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/what-are-c...

The prices have actually finally started coming back down. It's now possible to find GPUs with more than 3Gb of RAM for MSRP or less again.

https://camelcamelcamel.com/EVGA-GeForce-GAMING-Support-06G-...

https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/

> Unlike (literally!) every other language with a similar operator, ?: is left associative. So this:

  $arg = 'T';
  $vehicle = ( ( $arg == 'B' ) ? 'bus' :
               ( $arg == 'A' ) ? 'airplane' :
               ( $arg == 'T' ) ? 'train' :
               ( $arg == 'C' ) ? 'car' :
               ( $arg == 'H' ) ? 'horse' :
               'feet' );
  echo $vehicle;

> prints horse.

In what world is this sane language design?!

Private prisons account for 8% of the total state and federal prison population in the United States+. Are they really a major driver of criminal policy?

[+] https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...

This is great in theory, but the potential never seems to have come to fruition in practice. Google tries to figure out what I'm interested in globally, but what it tends to end up with are ideas that are either irrelevant, outdated, or inappropriate for my mood at the moment. In the best case, Google has figured out that I'm currently in the market for a new smartphone, but right _now_ I'm looking at car reviews, and what I want to see are good deals for the cars I'm interested in, not the new Samsung Galaxy model.

Compare this to a popular car review site I use, which seems to manage their own ads. You know what ad I'm shown when reading a review for a car? A deal on purchasing or leasing that car. This is something I'm highly likely to be interested in _now_, and if the deal is good- there's a decent chance I'll click on the ad.

When I'm reading a magazine, ads are often not just NOT an annoyance, but are actually part of the experience, because they're advertising things that are really interesting to the target audience of the magazine. There is a very small handful of websites where I will even glance at the ads not by accident, and none of these are using Google's ad network...

FWIW Redis Labs already offers a Redis-on-Flash solution, which also happens to work really well with Optane: https://redislabs.com/blog/redis-enterprise-flash-intel-opta...

Full disclosure: I work for Redis Labs.

Kobe beef doesn't really affect the consumption of other beef in a material way not just because it's much more expensive, but (probably mainly) because it's available in very limited quantities and all but impossible to obtain in most parts of the world. Its supply is simply too limited to affect demand for other meats in any appreciable way.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your overall point, though.

> 1995 - Brendan Eich reads up on every mistake ever made in designing a programming language, invents a few more, and creates LiveScript. Later, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of Java the language is renamed JavaScript. Later still, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of skin diseases the language is renamed ECMAScript.

From the brilliant "A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages": http://james-iry.blogspot.co.il/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and... .

That's not entirely accurate. Pressurized aircraft hulls are limited by the total number of pressurization cycles they can be subjected to. Everything else is repaired, overhauled, or replaced, but a total overhaul of an airliner haul is just not economically feasible, so at that point the entire aircraft is basically scrapped.

Rotax can run on either MoGas or 100LL, so if you're at an airport that doesn't offer MoGas you can just fill up with AvGas and go.

This doesn't seem specifically a linear vs distributed VCS thing, as much as it is a unique property of git. I previously used Mercurial, and at no point did I feel I had to understand how the VCS stores its commit graph in order to know what running some set of commands will do.

git is unique in its apparent assumption that it's nothing more than a series of convenience scripts that let you work on the raw filesysten representation a bit more easily. In a way it's more a filesystem-level representation of a DAG with some sugar on top, than it is a DVCS.

Not only that, but his company was taking bets from US citizens, which is a much stronger argument for presence in a territory than simply "your website is accessible to our citizens."

Engine-off (so-called "dead stick") landings are absolutely possible even in a commercial aircraft, and are something you practise pretty much from day 1 of flight training:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing#Deadstick_la...

Suppose women get paid less because they work less hours (this is actually part of the reason); Do you suggest women should get paid more per hour simply on account of being born with a vagina?

What if women get paid less because they tend to pick professions that happen to be lower paying? (This is also true.) Do you suggest we just give them raises? What if the reason the profession is lower paying is because businesses in the field have lower margins? Where are they supposed to get the money for these raises, take it out of the men's paychecks? Speaking of, do you give raises to everyone working in the lower-paying field, or just the women?

See, I think the bone of contention here is that you assume the problem is women being paid less. Most people have no problem with women being paid less; Their problem is with women being paid less SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE WOMEN. This is why very few people are comfortable with the solution of "just pay all women more." Paying someone more because of their gender is literally the definition of sexism.

Welp, that's the whole field of statistics down the drain! Who needs complex analysis and accounting for confounding variables when the answer is simply "Big number good, small number not good!"

This is an interesting thought!

If an employer pays people who are a flight-risk more (a-la "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"), and women are on average a lower flight risk because they are more risk-averse - is the resulting pay disparity a case of illegal discrimination?

My intuition says no, but I'm not sure everyone (including the legal system) necessarily agrees.

Well, the suit only has merit if hiring is broken in a way that unfairly disadvantages a protected class. (In this case, women.)

I think the poster's point was that hiring is broken equally for everyone, which is inefficient but not illegal.

> Honestly, I'd like to hear from them. Just look at this thread, the ratio of anti-Damore to pro-Damore people is like 1-to-10, and the other threads are even worse.

I'm white and I agree a problem exists, although I'm not American. I'm also basically on the "pro-Damore" side in this thread, although I don't necessarily agree with everything he wrote in the document. You seem to take this as an indication that I'm sexist or denying sexism exists, and I think a big part of the problem is exactly this kind of "you either agree with me or you're a sexist pig" approach.

A person can be pro-equality and even for encouraging more women to go into tech, without agreeing that all gender differences are caused by social conditioning or that affirmative action is the proper way to fix it.

> Girls are discouraged from pursuing math and hard sciences through pre-college education, explicitly, culturally, and socially. The social blockers between girls and engineering are particularly acute compared to those between them and law or medicine. You can look at college degree numbers for example. Women now outnumber men when it comes to college enrollment and graduation, but women are far more likely to pursue "soft sciences" like psychology or sociology.

This point keeps getting brought up, but the actual statistics are quietly ignored.

Women make up over 40% of math and statistics graduates; A majority of accountants and biologists are women; Chemistry majors are evenly split between the genders.

If girls are socially discouraged from pursuing math and hard-sciences, why does this not actually manifest itself across fields requiring math and hard science? Does a math major require less mathematics than an engineering one? Is accounting not mostly about math and numbers any more? Are chemistry and biology no longer considered hard sciences?

I'm not saying the cause is necessarily not societal pressures, but this popular assertion being repeated ad-nausea seems to be, at best, incomplete. Women that have been told their entire lives that math is for boys seem to have no problem pursuing a higher-education in math in droves; Why?

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelor... http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-accounting https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/membership/acs/welcom... http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/28/359419934/who-s...

> You're ignoring that girls are socialized to think they're bad at math, science, etc.

And yet over 40% of graduates majoring in math and statistics are women. How does this sit with your explanation of social conditioning?

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelor...

Aviation has managed, through a great deal of hard work, to ingrain an overarching culture of safety first on all levels of the chain. Those involved on all levels are thoroughly trained, procedures are formulated and followed, and when something does go wrong a thorough, safety-focused investigation is conducted. Air safety investigations are quite different from the process we follow almost everywhere else, in that their one and only goal is improving safety, not assigning blame. That means you're not trying to find who fucked up (it is, almost invariably, the pilot), but rather to understand what went wrong, why, and what can be changed to make sure the same doesn't happen again; Punishing someone responsible isn't even on the radar for this. (And in some cases, the results and testimonies in an air safety investigation are actually precluded from being used for any kind of punitive action.) In aviation this attitude is to a large degree enabled and enforced by stringent government oversight.

This is a very effective system, but it requires real buy-in from everyone involved, for things that are very much counter-intuitive to us as people. It also has a great deal of overhead and extra cost that must be accepted globally, and cutting corners cannot be tolerated even for the occasional cases where you may be convinved something is reasonable and safe.

> It's barely one step above ebay for a lot of items.

Is it, though? At least with eBay I know who the product I ordered came from and whom to blame if something goes wrong. If I'm ordering from the manufacturer's official account on eBay I know I'm not getting sent a cheap Chinese knock-off by some other random eBay seller.

With Amazon I apparently don't have that luxury.