human rights are far more important than their consent. Those mails include bribing, faulty punishment of opponents based on their order, nepotism for official jobs and much more.
Which part of these emails are against human rights? Except hacking and dumping someone's personal email account content all over internet.. So, do your human rights mentality describe two kinds of human? Please just answer my questions, if you will. Do not talk about what Erdogans do, or don't. That's another story. What will happen when someone publish some redhack member's personal mail account dump, which may include a receipt of an inducement taken from a government? Will you try to make people fork it in this way too?
Hm, that bot makes loaded statements and attacks some groups. It also directly mentions several persons by name. Yet another sexist and racist troll on twitter.
Argh! They didn’t charge for the component of their offering that was most valuable. Period. Good software doesn’t pay for itself. Consulting and training are difficult to scale, mostly because they require adding people. As such, the margins are minuscule compared to software. “Free” gets you downloads and publicity, but it doesn’t pay the bills. I really liked Rethink’s story and how well they executed things like branding and developer outreach, but without being able to capture the value of what they were producing it’s hard to see how that’s sustainable.
That doesn't mean they can't wrap the word "Enterprise" around a version of their product and sell it at $xxx per license so long as it comes with support. Redhat does this. They can even change to only do consulting on the "Enterprise" version of the software so revenue goes up.
Anyway, the company is wound down and the team has moved on. None of this speculation matters anymore.
Then they need an enterprise sales team to rival MongoDB's. Enterprise software doesn't sell itself - you need an expensive consultative sales process, which itself is a different core competency. A lot of the hate for MongoDB comes from them being a sales-driven company while RethinkDB chose to create an engineering-driven culture.
I think, sadly, that the only way to save Rethink would be to hire a big marketing team / evangelist team and try to dethrone Mongo. But i don't see that coming.
I had one person really hounding me to pitch mongodb to my organization basically suggesting it as a huge boon to productivity and it would be trivial to rewrite all our rdbms based apps on top of mongodb.
I'm not sure how well they're doing, but some less knowledgeable than I might have taken the bait.
Why are companies with female % that is similar to the female CS graduate % considered sexist but a company that overhires female engineers (to such a degree as to be suspicious of sexism) is seen as diverse?
It's really hard to prove discrimination on a small scale, both majority male and majority female companies are probably recruiting from their employees friend network, so it is very possible that neither is discriminating on the basis of sex.
Meaning, they are hiring in proportions which are consistent with their applicant pools, those pools are just different because of friend networks.
People that study these things always take a macroscopic view and talk about sexism/racism in the industry in aggregate and rarely in any specific company.
>Why are companies with female % that is similar to the female CS graduate % considered sexist but a company that overhires female engineers (to such a degree as to be suspicious of sexism) is seen as diverse?
Nobody said that except you, which betrays your agenda.
Good engineering talent is in short supply and has been for two decades now. It certainly won't do any harm to explore alternate recruiting channels.
>Good engineering talent is in short supply and has been for two decades now. It certainly won't do any harm to explore alternate recruiting channels.
There is always an opportunity cost. Exploring alternative recruiting channels means not utilizing recruiting channels that have been optimized to find talent regardless of race/gender.
>Nobody said that except you, which betrays your agenda.
Articles that state that software engineering companies are sexist because they don't have a 50/50 gender split are very commonplace.
My agenda is not being discriminated based on my race or gender fyi.
I don't think companies are considered sexist based on the ratio of men/women. They're considered sexist when they _act_ sexist and don't work very hard to cultivate a good environment.
It is. Companies like Google are frequently hounded to find out 'what they are doing about their gender crisis' even though their numbers reflect graduation ratios.
I think there are a lot of groups that have an obligation to change things, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're bad either. Google is big enough to actually affect the up stream numbers, I'm glad they're working at it.
Quotas aren't necessarily the best ideas, but if 90% of your applicants are men, and men and women have the same pass rates, what you have to work on is resume sourcing. This is especially true in companies that mostly hire referrals: You are mostly hiring people that are like the people you have, so you'll lose diversity on average.
You also have to look at differences in the middle of the pipeline. Imagine you only give a phone screen to 5% of female applicants, but 10% of male applicants. You have to think very hard about why that happens. Maybe your ways of rating resumes have a built in bias.
For instance, imagine that I only interviewed new grads that had at least two internships in large tech companies. A rubric like that looks neutral, but you'll discover that the demographics of CS graduates vs those that have those two internships are very different (far fewer women, and a lot more people that will identify themselves as asian).
> Quotas aren't necessarily the best ideas, but if 90% of your applicants are men, and men and women have the same pass rates, what you have to work on is resume sourcing.
I agree with your approach, but the gender is not the only diversity metric. If you push this toward ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, introversion, geekness level, you might end up in a difficult situation and your company will look like Noah's ark. Instead, what I would do is to specify the tasks that needs to be carried out and define metric to measure it, then do a blind hiring. Attributes like graduation or work experience is irrelevant if the candidate passed the test. During the probationary period, if the team doesn't like the new members or the other way round, you can let them go.
If you try to increase diversity by implementing a quota system you are doing it wrong.
The right way is to look for qualified candidates from multiple backgrounds. For example, plenty of companies recruit from MIT but how many recruit from Spelman College?
Sorry man, your post has now been sucked into the toxic pit of horrible people both male and female. Also known as twitter. I tried to set the record straight, but alas I have less followers. You are now a horrible person and your typo is forever enshrined.
The Ptolemic model was not better at the time, but it wasn't really worse. The Copernican model provided roughly the same observational accuracy, and was very slightly simpler. Occam's razor would probably prefer the Copernican model in a vacuum, but the differences were too slight to prefer unseating the incumbent.
> Copernican model is also wrong, planets are orbiting around center of gravity, which is outside of sun..
Well, a bigger shortcoming is that Copernicus still insisted that orbits be circles instead of ellipses.
> Ptolemaic model with its epicycles provided better predictions.
Not only did the Copernican model include epicycles, it actually included more epicycles than the Ptolemic model (modern myth notwithstanding). Both models could improve accuracy by adding more epicycles, and for the same amount of computation, both models produced predictions of roughly equal accuracy.
The one improvement the Copernican model provided, was that it removed something called the equant (and replaced it with more epicycles). The equant allows for non-constant orbital velocity around an epicycle, by instead having constant angular velocity around a point that is not the center of the circle. When Copernicus' work was published, the removal of the equant was considered by many mathematicians to be the main argument in favor of heliocentrism (although some considered it just a computational model, with geocentrism still being correct with respect to reality).
Even then the definition of the surface is different than the definition of the surface of, say, the Earth, so I'm not sure what "outside" the Sun means precisely.
Pedant? Or maybe just making conversation about the interesting differences between human experience and understanding of terms and what definitions astronomers use. Why do so many people on HN react as if every comment is a competition?
To put it the other way around, that's either the position of the barycenter relative to the sun, or the position of the sun relative to the barycenter. If you're going to pick one and say it's not moving, the barycenter is a good choice. The barycenter only moves relative to the rest of the galaxy.
My understanding was the sun is orbiting around a constantly (though subtly) shifting point because of the complex interactions of all the planets that orbit it. Each planet orbiting the sun alone would have a different barycenter. Put them all together and you get a much more complex picture. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It's not that the barycenter is moving, it's that the orbit of the sun is not even remotely circular. The barycenter only moves in response to forces outside the solar system (the galaxy).
On the other hand, if you look at the barycenter of, say, Earth + Sun, then that barycenter will move around because there are a bunch of other planets involved. But the barycenter of the solar system is more stable, due to the conservation of momentum and all that, and the distance from the solar system to the nearest objects that would influence it.
- The Copernican model held uniform circular motion around the sun, which is at odds with even the crude experimental evidence of the time.
- If the Earth was a high-speed ball flying around the sun, shouldn't we be thrown off the planet? (Note that this is before Newton's law of gravitation)
- To be visible from such a distance, the stars would have to be >1AU in diameter according to the best measurements of the day.
- Some of the more esoteric portions of Copernican model were dangerously close to actual heresy, for example about the nature of matter in an infinite universe.
It should be noted that what saved the heliocentric model was not so much Kepler's elliptical motion but Newton's gravitational theory.
What the church believed is neither here nor there.
Failure to observe stellar parallax is not scientific evidence for geocentricity, as there is an explanation, obvious to anyone who understands parallax (and, as it happens, correct), for the non-observation. Consequently, Occam's razor (which is a methodological assumption, not an axiom of either logic or the scientific method) does not apply.
Kepler had fixed the prediction issue.
I do not believe the center-of-gravity issue was considered at that time, and if not, could not be a reason for preferring geocentricity at that time (and by the time it was recognized, geocentricity was already scientifically untenable.)
Occam's razor is not science, but it is rational. Science is about running physical experiments to verify your understanding, and to include proper controls to validate the experiments.
A lot of research does not have a component of science to it, but the studies are rational. Rational != Science
OP thinks the assumption of "epicycles" tips the balance of "least assumptions" to the contending theory. (He did not elaborate the full count of assumptions of either.)
I think this is a good test case for The Razzor. (tm) /g
(Not concerned here with the meta question of why even accept aphorisms as fact.)
Epicyles are observable phenomena and noted from antiquity. The Ptolemic System was an answer to the cosmic riddle that incorporated a reasonable, integral and coherent, explanation for this naturally observable phenomena. The Copernican System also explains the phenomena per its internal logic.
So Epicyle, imo, is not an assumption in either case, since it was not 'introduced' into the model. It is an inherent property of the system P and subjective side-effect (observer relative) phenomena in the system C.
The Copernican System assumes the following:
1 - Earth is not flat.
2 - Earth is rotating around its axis.
3 - Earth is rotating around the Sun (just like any other body in Solar System.)
We know these are facts today since we have proof that explains these "counter intuitive" and "unfamiliar" phenomena. We (1) experience a flat ground, (2) do not feel as if we're on surface of a moving body, and (3) clearly see :) that everything rotates around Earth!
That is the 'factual' state of affairs at some point in the Middle Ages.
If the managers call it "content", it's yeoman's work, and you're not going to get a lot of good writing in; the writers will phone it in.
Also, the longer the writing project, the more potential for procrastination. 1000 word articles are easier to wrap up than 10,000 features or books...
It's staggering to me how practice on a keyboard has transitioned to very, very fast train of thought typing. Compared to "thoughtful" writing - such as a fiction piece - it's easily 3 or 4 times faster.
It is not that simple. Women can vote in Iran and be elected, with 51% of population they even have voting majority. There are 6% women PMs, clerics have less seats.
Anyone reasonably well educated on the MidEast region realizes that Iranian women are relatively well off. Certainly light years ahead of their arab counterparts. Better educated, more free and as you, rightfully, point out, they hold more positions in the government of the Islamic Republic than clerics do.
But none of that is the issue. The question is whether or not this stricture violates human rights?
I know from experience that if you ask an Iranian woman if she wants to wear a hijab, she will most likely say "yes". (I'm told that the fuss to do your hair every morning is something most women would just as soon do without.) The thing is women should have the right to say "no", even if most would never use that right. That's the issue. Not whether or not women would want to go without a hijab, or whether or not Iranian women are more free.
Consider that a population is told that something is the One True Way all their life -- and that anyone thinking differently is evil and should be thrown in jail.
Are you really surprised that a large part of those people would agree with what they are taught? (In Iran's case, this is also asked in an interview situation where their answers probably will reach the secret police known for torture and rape.)
It doesn't seem that simple to me, though. The current regime is in place due to a coup; I have doubts that you'd be able to get much done for women post-1979 without paramilitary support.
Thank you for an interesting idea! I can't promise I will implement it myself any time soon, however. You know the saying - pull requests are welcome :)
> Cal State LA joins UConn, UC Davis and Berkeley in offering segregated housing dedicated to black
> Black Student Union issued a set of demands in response to what its members contend are frequent “racist attacks” on campus, such as “racially insensitive remarks” and “microaggressions”
Note that the housing is open to everyone. Here's a more charitable explanation:
That’s one reason another institution, the University of Connecticut, earlier this year announced a living community specifically for black men. Erik Hines, an assistant professor who was set to serve as a faculty advisor to residents, told The Atlantic at the time that the space was in part an attempt to address the fact that black men graduate from college at a lower rate than many of their peers. While graduation rates for white, Latino, and Asian students, as well as black women, are in the 70s and 80s at the school, graduation rates for black men are in the 50s. The school pointed out that young men of all backgrounds will be permitted to apply to the living community, and that the housing isn’t meant to exclude anyone, but to provide a safe space for students who may feel detached from the university community more broadly. The community is an attempt, Hines said, to give black students who may be in majors with just one or two other black students a chance to connect with other people who may feel isolated and may also feel burdened with representing the black community as a whole.
I can provide much more links; BLM wants separate government, budget, no police intervention... I think we all get it.
---
> To carve out a safe space on campus where black students can get support from people who look like them and share similar backgrounds
> That’s one reason another institution, the University of Connecticut, earlier this year announced a living community specifically for black men.... the school pointed out that young men of all backgrounds will be permitted to apply to the living community,
I think this is just a word-game and schools are backpedaling to remove ugly word 'segregation'. But in reality 99.9% people in those safe-spaces will be black.
It is nice they do something for men, but it will not help unless underlying sexism is solved.
About page: "...goes beyond the narrow nationalism that can be prevalent within Black communities, which merely call on Black people to love Black, live Black and buy Black"
It's called "twisting words" or "quoting out of context".
If you read the rest of the thread you'll find the alleged example of this was a dorm where students who felt isolated (because they were in a significant minority in classes in their majors) could have a place to feel that they weren't so isolated and did in fact have a community on the campus, and wasn't even off-limits to other groups -- anyone could apply to live there!
Dorms with themes -- around majors, around social activities, around social groups, even around, yes, racial or ethnic identities -- are not new, not unusual and not "segregration".
But of course putting it that way doesn't let someone spin it as "those goshdurned SJWs are the real segregationists", so you won't hear that interpretation from the people who repeatedly bring it up as an "example".
To extreme this could ban Github in most of Europe.
It is also probably against Github license agreement.