BearGoesChirp

>Getting angry at Apple et al for following their incentives rationally is silly.

That logic doesn't work because people do get mad at things they view as wrong even if they are currently legal (or were legal when they happened). In this case, people thing Apple has done wrong regardless of the legality of the action.

I'm a billionaire. I buy a couple local news companies and tell them to run what ever content I want. How do you stop this without limiting free speech of the individual as well?

Are we counting only monetary payments? I'm assuming there is some benefit that is given to the scientist for publishing, especially in cases where the scientist pay to publish. It isn't likely at all a simple relationship between two parties, but I doubt that the scientists are being irrational by using a publisher.

I think one of the simplest ways to illustrate this is with sounds. Humans who spend their early years in an environment devoid of certain sounds lose the ability to differentiate those sounds. The classical example that many seem aware of are Japanese speakers who have trouble distinguishing l and r sounds. Every language has some sounds missing, and so any given person should be able to find two sounds they can't distinguish unless they were raised in a multi-lingual household from birth which covered all the sounds.

>If you know somebody's basic decision making capability is damaged and you intentionally abuse that damage to your self satisfaction

Wouldn't this include a lot of advertisement? Simply informing a person that an option exists wouldn't fall under it, but so many advertisements use psychological tricks that take advantage of common flaws in our decision making patterns.

>If you know bombarding a person, whether or not in a state of reasonable deciding capacity, with messaging to influence that person contrary to their objectives or in excess of a reasonable period of messaging

And this fits advertising even more.

>If eliminating unnecessary abstraction is offensive to you

If the hiring individual dictates what trade offs are made so far in advance that it happens in the interview, it means they aren't just eliminating unnecessary abstractions. Premature optimization isn't generally a good thing. Premature optimization showing up in an interview as a way to get people to quit is even less likely to be a good thing.

>I would tell them jQuery isn't available in this job. Half would immediately drop out. Good.

Unless the job description made clear why it wasn't available, I would take this as a sign of a toxic workplace and avoid it. It isn't about jQuery being banned, it is about the type of workplace where jQuery is not only banned, but such a ban is mentioned early in the interview process. I guess if you want people who are okay with such a workplace, then you are using an appropriate heuristic.

If you use a technique that cuts a lot of people, but cuts more bad people than good people, you'll still end up with plenty of good people. The difference in comparison isn't between the average and the good person who was cut, but between the good person who was cut and the good person who wasn't cut. What is the chance of the heuristic cutting someone 10% better than the best person not cut?

>When you become a tenured professor, the amount of work you do is far less than the vast majority of other jobs with a similar salary.

I think you are mixing up the amount of work a tenured professor has to do with the amount of work they do do.

A tenured professor has to do very little. The idea (even if not the reality) is that a tenured professor has proven themselves enough that the one employing them is willing to ease back any rules so the professor can do science like they want to.

The end result should be (and I think is, but I don't have any hard data at the moment) is that tenured professor do a far larger amount of work than they have to, and are comparable if not even greater than other professions with similar salaries. In large part because they are doing what they love.

Consider a programmer who loves programming and does it at home and at work. A professor is similar, except since they get to pick the topic they work on (to some extent), they are working on the same project both at home and at work.

The last tenured professor I worked under put in a lot more than 40 hours, and he was high up enough to not have any classes to teach (I think he periodically taught a grad class, but it wasn't ever semester).

>if you look at the respective incarceration rates by race.

Yet the theory breaks down once you look at a breakdown of race, gender, and SES.

>Instead of "Black = Slave", it's "Black = criminal , criminal = slave".

Except data shows this isn't the case. A closer match is male = criminal, criminal = slave. The legal system is far harsher on a white male than a black female. And even closer is poor = criminal, criminal = slave.

The legal system discriminates first on SES, then on gender, and finally on race. So what reasoning is behind there being a disproportionate focus on race over SES and gender?

This argument can be applied to anything, even black market industries. The commerce clause ruling allows congress to make a law about anything explicitly not forbidden in the Constitution or given as a power of a different branch. This was clearly not the writers intentions. It is a loophole of the sort that a judge wouldn't tolerate being used against them in their own courtroom.

If the Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment to apply to the upper appendages we call arms, that is a factual error, not just a different interpretation. It is possible for an interpretation, given the evidence, to be factually wrong in as much as anything can be factually wrong.

>Some recruiters tend to be a lot more pushy about it,

The simplest solution for recruiters is to lie. Best case scenario you get a much higher offer. Worse case scenario you have to explain to someone at the job that there must have been a misunderstanding between you and the recruiter (which isn't a lie, as their was a misunderstanding since the recruiter thought you were telling the truth). You never have to lie to the employer.

>I would imagine that the majority of people who are underpaid are underpaid not due to discrimination, but due to poor negotiating ability, lack of awareness of the market rate, etc.

That is due to discrimination. Discriminating against someone who is socially awkward and can't negotiate isn't any different than discriminating against someone for their gender. Both factors are things people can't generally control. One might even go so far as saying it is worse than discriminating based on religion, given the general view of religion being a choice one can actively change.

Historically we have been fine with such discrimination, but it wasn't too long ago the true was based on all the forms of discrimination we now view as wrong.

>Step into the shoes of someone holding an H1B for one moment, please.

Step into the shoes of the person who was demanding a fair market wage until the company used an H1B visa to bring in someone who accepts far worse conditions because the threat of deportation is always present.

Do you think this is the only bag holding a cat? Their is a very clear message to everyone to not let the cat out of the next bag.

They should follow the law. Granting an exception is not the way the law should work, because such exceptions are arbitrary and without any sense of justice or ethics. The best way to fix a bad law is to consistently enforce it.

If two actors, one of which is following the law, has a higher risk than two actors both breaking the law, the lawbreaker is still at fault for the increased risk.

The underlying problem seems to be that the rules of the road are broken. We need to ensure everyone drives to the rules, and if the rules are out of date, they need to be updated. Selectively allowing rules to be broken is an extremely bad precedent.

>My understanding was that independent game authors were writing games and making cartridges for these games which they then sold.

In most the cases I'm familiar with, the official release is only a patch file. You have to patch the original game with the patch file yourself. Often a third party will patch the file and host it themselves, making only add revenue. In some cases, a fourth party will take the patched file (either creating their own or taking one from the third party), and put it in a cartridge which they then sell of a significant sum of money (compared to the third party who is only getting the add revenue from you using their site).

In general, the people actually making the patch aren't making any money off it because of the increased risk of being shut down by whomever holds the original IP.

>Is the market large enough to support that much effort and expense?

I think the market for custom cartridges is mostly driven by people who buy cartridges and load their own roms onto it for their own use. Only a few do the extra work of trying to load roms and sale them.

Then again, certain games can go for $50 or more on ebay for a used cartridge. If you can fake the cartridge good enough, you might be able to make decent money selling these.

>it'd seem easier to spot this (from the IP owner's perspective) and seek preventative legal responses.

It's probably hard to track down because of the independent nature of those doing it. It's like the $50-$100 dollar craigslist ads for people offering to mod your SNES classic and add a bunch of roms to it (once you have everything set up, it is less than 15 minutes, and $50 tax free dollars is pretty good income for them amount of time).

>but do you know if they sell blank cartridges that can just be loaded with games?

That's my understanding of how most of this works, but that may be wrong. I personally don't do cartridges since my old systems are more finicky than using an emulator.

>I am guessing, hopefully, that you know more about this stuff than I do.

I only deal in the software side and don't do anything to make money. I'll help friends set up emulators on their PC, or help them with a retro-pi/SNES classic mods, but always for free. The extent of my knowledge of the hardware cartridges is based on posts by the rom hack creators disavowing any relationship with the hard copies. Though as another poster pointed out, I have seen a few people attempting to release hardware copies of new games. Mostly I just deal with unofficial English translations of JRPGs.

While I support YAGNI, I only support it when there is a copy somewhere in the source control history. I don't understand why they would permanently delete it even if they weren't planning on ever using it again? Was space that limited? Or was this a middle management kind of thing?

Just a word of caution for anyone looking to buy rom hack cartridges, many rom hacks were never intended to be put on cartridges and the original rom hack developers do not support nor benefit from doing so. It's also possible the rom hack on the cartridge isn't the final version.

I'm not sure what would be earned for developing such a game verses developing one on a modern system that looks like it could have been from that era. It would likely cost less to develop and would be easier for the average consumer to use. I've played a number of 16-bit games since that time, and some manage to pull of a similar feeling.

I know of companies with typos in their links that they email. These typos lead to scam sites. I've contacted them and they haven't yet fixed it. There needs to be a serious re-evaluation of the costs associated with failing such basic security measures like using https and just making sure you send people the correct link. Right now it isn't even a slap on the wrist.

That isn't impossible to do, especially for family.

Part of the comment I quoted indicated that they only did it for women. If they were calling this out as something they do for all candidates and were just talking about how it helps women, I wouldn't see an issue with it.

For example, consider two situations.

"We provide daycare for all employees with children. This helps us recruit a more diverse team because child care responsibilities is something which tends to be unequally distributed in our society."

"We provide daycare for female employees with children. This helps us recruit a more diverse team because child care responsibilities is something which tends to be unequally distributed in our society."

The biggest issues that would prevent me from getting something like this for those in my family who wear bracelets is the lack of color customizing and bulkiness of the bot. But I like the idea and I'm guessing both of these issues will be worked on in the future.

>They hire women without the regular qualifications and are willing to train them on the job, which is refreshing to see. It's a shame they only apply it to female candidates though.

I'm trying to imagine what would happen if a company decided to do the opposite of this. Hires men on what they might one day do, while hiring women only on what they do right now.

How is this not outright sex based discrimination?

It depends upon what the options are. If you can demand and get good data, then people will ask for good data. If they don't think it is possible to get good data, then they may demand no data because no data is better than bad data.

For an extreme example, consider a country where homosexuality is punished by long prison sentences (or worse). Would you trust any data that such a government produced? If they produced data showing something negative about homosexuality, would you even spend the time to look at their methodologies? Or would it be dismissed as inherently biased as the source would be seen as being incapable of being trusted? For me it would be the latter.

>and even work against collection of, objective data

The problem is that many times the data collected is not objective at all. Statistics can be twisted by even just the definitions of words used. For example, a CDC study on rape considered forced penetration, but not being forced to penetrate, as rape. This data was then used in a report that, among other conclusions, concluded that women almost never rape men. All the cases of women forcing a man to have sex were defined as not being rape, twisting the results of the study.

When you see someone against data collection, are they against using good objective data, or do they have reason to believe the data won't be objective and manipulated to push one side or the other?

All this being said, I think drugs like MDMA should be legal for recreational use, much less therapeutic use.