yes_really

How many anecdotes have you heard of hiring committees explicitly discriminating against blacks or women?

It's incredible the amount of mental gymnastics you do when men are being denied whole careers simply because of their gender and you still somehow try to spin this as women being the real victims.

Are you seriously not seeing how these "inclusive warnings" come from the left?

So if it didn't lead to bullying in the classroom you would be in favor of having those questions in the math textbooks?

Most of the people outside the US would read "food insecurity" as "there's a sizable possibility that one will starve".

Would you have the same opinion if instead of "how many people from each racial group are likely experiencing food insecurity across the U.S.?" it was "committing crimes" or "receiving welfare"?

that the math book is trying to brainwash kids through CRT

> Please, show me how an appropriately set income tax disincentivizes work. I'm guessing they can't and are equally uneducated on that subject. Income tax would only provide a disincentive to work if the alternative (assistance programs) is more attractive. Which doesn't seem to be the case.

It's almost tautological that taxing income disincentivizes work. Of course, it does not mean that a 30% income tax will disincentivizes work so much as to completely stop it (the "optimal" point in the Laffer curve is around the 30% point), but it is obvious that on the margin people will start dedicating less to work if their returns are lowered due to taxes.

> That's not true. If H1-Bs were not a good deal for the guest workers, there wouldn't be a 10 year waiting list to get one.

Are you confusing H1-B with the Green Card queue? I'm not aware of any queue for H1-B - just the annual lottery.

Was the dance a religious ceremony reserved for Brahmins? Seems sensible to honor that tradition if that is the case.

Brahmins are around 4% of the Indian population. It's no surprise there weren't many of them in the top 10 selected. Even if there was on average only one out of 10 each year, that would still be an overrepresentation of more than double.

Those men are probably afraid that the women will disrespect, cheat, abuse and divorce them. Remember that women initiate 70% of the divorces.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I actually like the current format of 1-2 phone interviews + 4-5 onsite interviews, most of them Leetcode style. All other solutions seem to just increase subjectivity on hiring decisions and make the interview more gameable.

Take home interviews are horrible if you are interviewing for more than one company at a time. It will take a lot of time if you are serious about it, and it will test you much more on how much you dedicate yourself to the problem than on what's your actual skill.

Also the fewer interviews there are, more is the importance of subjective and unjust metrics. I received offers from large (and somewhat good) companies with 1-2 interviews because of my resume. Although I personally benefitted from that, I think it brings a lot of problems for people who went to bad universities/companies, and that is not worth it.

But why didn't you use the O(n) solution instead of the O(n log n) solution?

For people complaining about 4-6 interviews in tech companies, remember that in a lot of other industries (e.g. finance, consultancy, law) they take into account much more information about you. For example: the school you went to, your GPA, and the company you are currently working at. If these are not what they expected, they won't even interview you. So that's how they can save 1 or 2 interviews: by transferring the filter to your university and companies that hired you.

And I personally think that's bad. I'd rather have to do 2 hours more of interview when I'm changing jobs than have to worry for years during high school and university on a ton of metrics that I'm being evaluated on (the vast majority of which are useless for the job).

> I actually got stuck at an interview because I forgot the nlogn solution for two sums. Absurd!

Are you talking about determining a pair of numbers in an array that sum to a given value? That's O(n) and just uses a hashset/hashmap.

> Most tech companies now do around 4-5 interviews. [...] After being subjected to these demeaning Leetcoding interviews I went through a refreshingly pleasant experience. It was an interview with just one person. They gave me a technical open-ended problem and two weeks time. [...] I did have to spend around 30 hours researching that problem as it was an unfamiliar problem space for me.

For me it's the complete opposite. What I would consider demeaning is to spend 30 hours across two weeks interviewing for just one company while they don't even bother to send more than one interviewer.

> Is Kaspersky a dirtbag or not? I suspect not, but it is an unfortunate accident he was born in and runs his company from Russia, the government of which is a dirtbag, so, correct me if I am wrong, Kaspersky must be a dirtbag by association [...].

Even if he is not a dirtbag, being in Russia means Putin has power to use Kaspersky technology in war.

> It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.

I genuinely thought your comment was serious before reading other comments and realizing you were being sarcastic.

It actually *is* important that these people can get into these schools. If they are studying and working diligently they will contribute to society.

If you need them practicing sports or singing in choir for you to understand that they can participate in society, then that is your failure on assessing students.

Chinese leaders were the ones that let COVID leak out of the lab and censored the doctors that tried to warn the population.

> Some of the least interesting students are "box checkers" who have a bunch of disconnected extra-curriculars that don't show passion, direction, or a proclivity towards success. If a student defines "success" as "getting into college," then what will they do once they get there? Probably flounder.

Yet if a student defines "success" as "playing a musical instrument really well" you'll think that he is well-rounded and deserves to get admitted.

> That's the European approach that children belong to whole community (...). I don't get why are you so hell bent on having exclusive authority over your child?

This really looks like trolling.

Hard disagree. Giving preference to/against candidates of a certain race is exactly what most people understand as racial discrimination.

How is the comparison to doublespeak absurd? They are literally making contradictory statements while refusing to make any logical association between them. That's exactly what doublespeak is.

It's like 1984's Doublespeak. These people say obviously contradictory statements without making any logical association between them. And, if you attempt to argue logic with them, they will use institutional and political power to silence you.

> Affirmative Action is not "reverse racism". Measuring someone's achievements relatively to the external difficulties they faced along the way is not "reverse racism". I don't believe we still have to spell this out.

Affirmative action is not "measuring someone's achievements relatively to the external difficulties they faced along the way". It is racial discrimination against whites and asians.

Affirmative action does not measure people by external difficulties they faced. It measures people by their races and seek to benefit some races over others - being fueled by racial resentment.

> There's a real need for these groups. Whether men needs their own groups is a separate discussion that I have no real stance on.

That doesn't imply there is a need for women-only groups. There can be a CS group for all genders and we just teach girls to stop being sexist and be part of that group (if they want to).

> Complaining about people getting help in areas where they face a disproportionate struggle just seems unkind.

Women don't face a disproportionate struggle in tech. They are given more opportunities in tech than men are. There are uncountable scholarships, fellowships, hiring initiatives, mentoring initiatives, and all kinds of programs for women in tech - while there are none for men. There are many positions that are explicitly advertised as for women or for underrepresented minorities only. Companies and universities give preference to hiring and admitting women, even overtly. And finally, multiple studies showed that women are given preference in hiring for STEM positions.

The first step to help men is for us to admit that men are discriminated against, and it is very counterproductive when people pretend that is not the case.

The problem is that that term "toxic masculinity" is commonly understood as masculinity being toxic. People should stop using that term.

If you say you are "visiting the famous Golden Gate Bridge", people will understand that you are visiting the Golden Gate Bridge, and that you said it is famous. Nobody will think you meant there are many Golden Gate Bridges, but you are only visiting the famous one.

His full sentence was:

> tell Women painfully stupid stuff they want to hear about their quantum vibrations matching and other new age nonsense.

Do you think "quantum vibrations matching" and "other new age nonsense" are not painfully stupid? Or do you just want to attack the parent comment?