zachwooddoughty

Of course all models are biased, but we can try to build models that minimize the types of bias we care most about.

I think the so-called panic comes from the fact that more complicated algorithms are difficult for an untrained person to understand. For example, it's also illegal to discriminate housing/lending based on race, but if I hide that discrimination inside of a sufficiently-complicated ML model, I may be able to get away with it.

>> ProPublica labelled the algorithm as biased based primarily on the fact that it (correctly) labelled blacks as more likely than whites to re-offend (without using race as part of the predictor), and that blacks and whites have different false positive rates. >> In the conception of these authors, “bias” refers to an algorithm providing correct predictions that simply fail to reflect the reality the authors wish existed.

The gist of the article is that statistical bias is not the bias that journalists are interested in. The article doesn't discuss how these biases are related or relevant to each other, but rather assumes that statistical bias is the only one that should matter. I think the article is missing a discussion of the gaps between what are the measured inputs into your statistical model, and what can be acted upon from a policy perspective.

As a thought experiment, suppose the only two inputs that determine a person's recidivism rate is their past criminal history and whether they had lead poisoning as a child, but that of these two we can only measure past criminal history as an input into our algorithm. If race is strongly associated with childhood lead poisoning (such as in real life [1]), then our algorithm might get higher classification accuracy by including race [2] as an input in its training data. This might have less statistical bias, but would bias against individuals of a race who are in truth not at higher risk of recidivism.

[1] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/alixwinter/files/sampson_w...

[2] The actual COMPAS algorithm doesn't use race as an explicit input, but that doesn't really change the issue.

I think the argument is that if people tend to "just be rude" to women more often than to men, then that is evidence of sexism. Even if there isn't a conscious reason for the rudeness.

There clearly isn't any easy way to measure "aggregate rudeness" to be able to prove that women receive a higher quantity of "just being rude", but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.

While I empathize, anonymity makes moderation very hard. Most people I've talked to prefer the tradeoff of reduced anonymity for improved moderation. If you email me at zach@discoverboard.com I can set you up with a pre-verified account that you can use anonymously.

Quality is hard. I don't think there's any silver bullet, but you can check out the community guidelines at discoverboard.com/about which hope to curtail the thoughtlessness you're talking about.

You'll have to verify your phone number to sign up, which will make moderation more effective (hard to make an additional account after getting kicked out).

If it grows and that isn't enough to keep it respectful, I will add a $1-2 signup fee for new users.

I'm also going to be spending most of my time recruiting quality people to join the discussions.

Plug: I'm launching Discoverboard.com for this in a couple weeks

Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9UNd6-l...

Hi Sam -- do you think YC has a role or responsibility in addressing social issues in the bay area or the US?

From the article:

>The offenses that landed them in solitary? Most often, it was evidence that they were "affiliated" with a prison gang, whether or not they had broken any rules.

Solitary isn't being used as a last resort for people who have killed previous cellmates -- it's being used for all sorts of things.

I think solitary makes sense for people who are already unable to coexist with other inmates, but that doesn't seem to be the main use at the moment.

Madison, WI has a cool version of this along a main bike path: http://www.spaceplace.wisc.edu/planettrek.htm

I help run Discoverboard, which is a subscription-based discussion community (less of a new aggregator). It's been around for a few months.

If you're interested, you can check it out: http://discoverboard.com/code/HN

Short-term efficacy is not zero efficacy. If the fish works to alleviate anemia for three months, it seems worthwhile to continue distributing the fish and to rally support for further research.

Sure, this fish is probably getting too much hype for how effective it is, but isn't it better than nothing?

>Some people are in power, they are white

This is the root of racial inequality in our justice system. No one is claiming that all white people are evil supervillians. But many white people don't comprehend the harsher reality people of color face when being arrested.

The comment "I love when white people are shocked" is a reference to the fact that "some people are in power, they are white". If the people in power are shocked by what it's like to be arrested, perhaps it will spark positive change in the system.

That's not how I interpreted it, but I could see how that could have been what he meant.

In that case, I do think staring can, in certain contexts, be considered harassment. I would hope that it could be solved by a conversation ala "please stop staring at me".

Fair enough, but it seems her tweet is being supported by others' perspectives, which I think gives it weight.

Twitter and Google+ seem like reasonable places to post a complaint you want to take public.

> whose definition of sexual harassment includes talking to a woman without her explicit permission.

That's inaccurate. "Third wave radical feminism" is not a monolithic belief structure, and it certainly doesn't prescribe "talking to a woman without her explicit permission". I consider myself on board with radical feminism, and I consider that an absurd definition of harassment.

I think there should be a fair investigation into the incident, but I don't think it's helpful to make dismissive remarks about feminism or the potential validity of this claim.

All the evidence that currently exists about this evidence is a quote she posted on twitter and some supporting comments from other coworkers. Attempts to determine her stance on radical feminism have no bearing on deciding whether or not her supervisor made an inappropriate remark.

I appreciate the perspective that we should make sure to be on the look-out for bias, but I don't think it's helpful in this particular instance.

When your first response to a claim of harassment is "let's consider the bias of the accuser", it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the claim. I'm not saying we should jump to assuming she is telling the truth, and a real investigation should be followed to determine the legitimacy of the claim.

But regardless of the resulting investigation, I'd rather bias the initial reaction to "thank you for sharing this, sexual harassment is a problem in the workforce", instead of using her Twitter profile to cast doubt on her claim.

> Was she in a thong, on the beach, after hours, after drinks, with her butt in his face when he said that?

First, I don't see any evidence that this was the context for the remark, and it's turning the focus off of the comment and on to what she was doing at the time.

Second, if that were the context, it wouldn't make it right for her manager to make sexual comments at her. If she wasn't pursuing a romantic relationship with him, he shouldn't make overt sexual comments at her. If she were offended by his comment, it means he wasn't aware of the situation enough to act appropriately. That's on him.

A compliment, when given by a superior about a subordinate's physical appearance, could be considered harassment. Here's a handy guide from The Guardian [1].

> could we consider overly sexy looks a form of harassment too?

Probably not. If you're unable to work near an "overly sexy woman" and she is following your company's dress code, then I'd say that's probably your problem, not hers. For it to be harassment, her appearance would have to be somehow directed at you, or somehow encroaching on personal boundaries. If someone who is clothed and just trying to do her everyday job puts you "in a state similar to fear", that's pretty unfortunate for you.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/apr...

I'm not a fan of saying we should "take whatever she says with a grain of salt". It's casually dismissive of the entire situation.

If you want to accuse her of having fabricated the entire story, do that and try to find evidence for it. From the limited evidence provided surrounding this incident, there seems to be a fair amount of evidence supporting her.

Declaring oneself "bitchy" and wanting to "smash the patriarchy" does not mean you are inclined to quit your job and falsely call out several members of your former team.

I disagree. 1. It's her experience, and she can equate those two experiences if she feels they should be. 2. Her experience with 'reading words on the internet' is indicative of a much wider culture of harassment against women. This cultural issue, because it contributes to the dearth of women in tech, is a societal issue in the same way that domestic abuse is.

While these are selected examples and personal experiences, they are indicative of a greater cultural norm that normalizes the harassment of women. By seeing what one woman has gone through, we can be more cognizant of what other women are going through, which is important for making the situation for women in tech better.

The author's determination to speak out has led to thousands of people harassing her -- it follows that many women will not speak out about the abuse they receive online. We need to be aware that this abuse can and does happen in order to improve the situation for women in tech.

I think it's important to look at this as part of a more widespread issue than a few individuals expressing themselves inappropriately. When women are so ridiculously under-represented in the tech industry and are facing both explicit and structural discrimination, it's important to speak out against this behavior.

Put another way: women's "jerkiness" does not make it harder for men in the tech industry, but men's "jerkiness" does make it harder for women in the tech industry.