throw_away_777

The way TI is structured they invite one team from South America. So Pain is likely not in top 20, but still a very good team.

One thing to keep in mind is that humans have to process the game from the image on the screen and input through a mouse and keyboard. We have to move the mouse to react to things. The computer is super-human in part because it doesn't have to do these things. It will be interesting to see if they can translate their learnings to bots that react from the image on the screen rather than the API.

Humans are nowhere near the limit of what is possible in chess, as evidenced by how much better computers are at the game.

This is a straw-man argument, the point is that if women are predisposed to be less interested in a profession than maybe that explains why there are less woman in that profession. Also the memo is about evaluating everyone based on their merits, not sure how you got the idea that it was for discriminating against women.

There absolutely are people who are against any claims that men and women are biologically different, the president of Harvard got fired for even hinting that this was a possibility. Another way to look at it, if there are differences between men and women than you would expect men to be better at some things and women to be better at some things. Try claiming one of the sexes is better at anything and see how that goes over.

Show me the data that this is true at google, which is the company we are talking about. I would be very interested to see this data.

I'd like to see your data supporting the assertion that qualified diverse candidates are rejected at greater rates. The thing is he wouldn't of been fired for arguing the opposite claim, this is clearly discrimination.

Without knowing the distribution of the applicants, we can't say. Maybe 0.1% of all applicants are black, we don't know. In the same way, just saying 1% of tech roles are filled by black engineers doesn't imply that google's hiring practices are discriminatory.

Clearly scientific training does have at least some credence to scientific arguments.

The truth of what he said has nothing to do with why he was fired. He was fired for not being politically correct and offending people, not because his arguments were right or wrong. People are usually most outraged by statements which are true or close to true but which they do not want to believe.

That maybe the theory, but it often isn't how it works in practice. Unfortunately people who claims this publicly get fired. I don't know the numbers, but it would be interesting to see if the acceptance rate of a google job interview depends on gender or race.

Reddit has the worst mobile site i've ever seen, with constant pop-ups that make the site basically unusable. Sometimes a good idea and first to the market is better than good execution.