gopz
Joined 11 years ago
Karma
122
Submissions
26
Member since
Apr 24
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
So this is probably a dumb question...but is the clock at all accurate? It says it stops periodically when there isn't sufficient fluctuation in temperature so do they manually correct it after?
Comment · 8 years ago
> The organisation acquired its own servers, and began encrypting its communication
yikes, sounds pretty sloppy from all sides
Comment · 9 years ago
I am also wary of the mass legalization of illicit drugs, mainly because of the already huge problem my states has with opiates. I think it's a good goal, but should I really believe that the "regulated" decriminalized drug market is going to be that much better than the already heavily regulated prescription drug market? Maybe once the US can get it together with it's painkiller problem I'd be more inclined to believe in total decriminalization. I would like to see how a system like Portugal's works with opiates in US before I'd hop on board for the whole shebang. However, it seems unlikely to happen since it's already hard enough to get tax payers to sport for Narcan let alone the drugs themselves.
Comment · 9 years ago
True, but what's troubling isn't that he was fired, it's that the memo got leaked, caused a bunch of controversy and basically forced Google to take a position on whether they want to discuss this stuff. Yes, one guy getting fired for sending out something inflammatory and critical isn't a huge deal (although I would have expected Google to be more tolerant), it's the fact that it went public and then when
Google had to make a public statement deciding whether to fire him or not they chose "we don't think these ideas should be discussed".
Comment · 9 years ago
In case it hasn't already been posted, this (apparently) is the original memo which includes sources and reads much differently.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
Comment · 9 years ago
Give me a break.
1. It wasn't published anonymously
2. What he's saying is not even close to promoting slavery or legally allowing religious discrimination
3. The entire point of the screed was that the diversity issue isn't talked about openly but should be. The response by Google's diversity chief literally says:
> Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions.
So your assumption that these things should not be discussed at Google is wrong, at least in the eyes of their Diversity chief, who's opinion I would think is highly relevant in this case
Finally, like many others in this thread deride what's said in this article as untrue and unhealthy without ever backing it up. Obviously I'm not saying the article is 100% right, but most the claims he makes about men and women have scientific backing, they are just not regularly discussed. As others have noted his premises about men and women being biologically different are basically a summary of this study:
Comment · 9 years ago
I think we're in agreement on what the original author personally believes about diversity programs. But there is a difference between outright calling for the end of diversity programs at Google and wanting to discuss it further. It seems that the commenter I originally replied to in this chain doesn't differentiate between these two goals, which is why I said something in the first place.
Comment · 9 years ago
Although it is tough to tell, it definitely seems like Gizmodo may have stripped out some of his sources. From Gizmodo's preamble:
> Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.
I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt that there were probably sources. As has been noted in the original YC post about this, it seems like he gets a lot of his info from this study:
Comment · 9 years ago
I think he's saying he accepts that sexism is present in the hiring process, as are all biases, but the answer to that is not diversity programs. My guess is that he believes market forces will sort it out (i.e if someone is qualified regardless of sex or race, they will be hired because it makes sense economically). I'm not saying I agree or think that diversity hires will happen naturally, just extrapolating from what I got from the original post.
Comment · 9 years ago
I would disagree. While he obviously sees the diversity programs as misguided, he stops short of calling for an end to them. To quote:
> Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
I understand that discussions within a business are different than talking with friends around the kitchen table, but I still think that you should go as far as you possibly can to have open discussions about sensitive topics like this. Of course you aren't going to open a dialogue about the benefits of white power, but there is still a lot of ground to cover between that and what people are doing this weekend. I think that the original article fits into that realm of what is acceptable to at least talk about, regardless of whether you disagree or not.
Comment · 9 years ago
Yeah, what was up with that? I was really disappointed that stuff was omitted and assumed it was why some of the author's claims seemed so bold. Is there a link to something closer to the original around?
Comment · 9 years ago
What I've found after living in a few foreign countries (originally from the US):
If you balk at minor incidents of xenophobia and in so doing generally act as if you don't belong, it will only make it worse.
If you can take it in stride and keep a stiff upper lip people will assume you've already gone through enough "hazing" and leave you alone/be more welcoming.
Even if you're trying to be polite, being overly apologetic is almost always bad, unless the situation is incredibly dire. It makes people think you are trying to get away with something by being there.
Comment · 9 years ago
Thanks, I forgot about the automatic increase/decrease in difficulty as miners come and go. Why won't increasing the transactions per block scale forever? I see lots of people saying it's not a permanent solution. Is the SegWit stuff basically just going to allow for 'meta-transactions' so that you can create a faster overlay network as a sort of clearing house?
Comment · 9 years ago
As someone with a basic Comp Sci understanding of crypto currencies could someone explain to me why there is a scalability problem? I thought one of the primary benefits of Bitcoin was that higher transaction fees will attract more miners and ergo the transactions can be processed at a higher rate. Why won't this problem be resolved naturally? Tinkering with the block size makes sense to me as a way to crank through more transactions per mined block, but again, why is it even a problem? The mining power is just not there?
Comment · 9 years ago
yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same page