Geminidog

I literally worked in a place where a coworker had sex with the interns he "mentored" and he "mentored" them directly for the opportunity of sex. This happened, and it's not in my power to control what happens in the real world.

My coworker also "hired" these interns and I can guarantee you they wouldn't have been hired if they were dudes. Not saying this happens everywhere, but this stuff definitely happens.

Literally what did I say or do that was against equal opportunities for both genders? Nothing. If I'm wrong, find evidence and make your case.

Show me the data for this specific case of horizontal movement in engineering organizations for women and you have an argument that can change my view.

>If you actually want to call yourself a legitimate feminist you should spend more time listening and learning. It might make you actually feel silly to complain about how men are treated in tech.

I am listening and learning. Show me your data. <-- that is literally a call for you to prove your points so that I can "listen and learn"

>I'm saying what's the point of even keeping score when the odds are so stacked against women.

Who's keeping score? I'm just bringing up one specific case of unfair treatment. I never tried to turn this into a battle of "which sex is treated more unfairly"

Is there somewhere in my post where I implied otherwise? Please cite what I said that made you think I am not a feminist.

Out of all possible advantages (let's say 1000 in total) your saying men hold 100% of all these advantages and women can't even hold one advantage?

What in your mind is more realistic?

She was given leeway and my guess is because she's a woman among other things. Women do have advantages that men don't.

Women also have disadvantages but that is not my point. I am simply pointing out one area where women have an advantage in a male dominated field. It's a real advantage.

Do you think it's possible to live in a world where women are the only gender that is mistreated? Or do you think it's more realistic to live in a world where infractions are committed against both genders?

This is off topic, but if my statement about this one case pissed you off because you're an ardent supporter of womens' rights I think you need to watch the video below and keep in mind... I literally never said anything AGAINST women's rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY

And what wrong with switching from Janitor to SWE? Same basic job switch from one another field with completely different skillets but completely different treatment due to perceived ranking.

You can't find my anecdotal experiences to be untrue because you haven't experienced my anecdotal experience. This is physically impossible.

What you can claim is that my anecdotal experiences do not apply to women in engineering corporations in general. However, this is not a claim that I made as I caveated my point with the fact that what I'm saying is based off of my own anecdotal evidence.

> I don't have an equivalent story for women because I work with significantly less women.

Evidence is the only way to make sense of the reality we live in and there are two basic types: Anecdotal and Statistical. You claim here that you have no anecdotal evidence. That means statistical evidence is your only option (a stronger option btw) so where is it?

>Let's try focusing on the apparent and obvious biases against women before we start keeping score on how men are so disenfranchised.

Why should I focus on your claim that has no evidence? If men are indeed disenfranchised shouldn't that deserve focus? Are womens' rights superior to mens rights? Are you implying men can't be treated unfairly?

Why can't we focus on the rights of both genders?

Every time your brain sees something related to "science" it automatically dumps a gallon of dopamine into the happy center of your brain giving you euphoria equivalent to a line of heroin.

I wonder what's your positive spin on the holocaust? There's actual science that came out of that event.

Yes it is exactly what I'm saying. I'm less interested because of this. I could turn it around and also say that with your extremely positive attitude you can look at a piece of dog shit and make it look "amazing." Think about it. That dog shit is made out of a scaffold of living bacteria like a mini-civilization or ecosystem! Each unit of bacteria in this ecosystem is in itself a complex machine constructed out of molecules! Isn't the universe such an interesting place!!!!!

This history of that piece of shit stretches back though millions of years of evolutionary history. That history is etched into our DNA, your DNA and every living thing on earth!!! All of humanity shares common ancestors with the bacteria in that piece of shit and everything is interconnected through the tree of life!!! We can go deeper because every atom in that DNA molecule in itself has a history where the scale is off the charts. Each atom was once part of a star and was once part of the big bang! We, You and I are made out of Star Material! When I think about all of this I'm just in awe!!!! wowowow. Not.

I'm honestly just not interested in a piece of shit. It's boring and I can't explain why, but hopefully the example above will help you understand where I'm coming from.

A disproportionate amount of parents with first born daughters over sons is inconsequential because they are measuring the percentage of divorces for each population, not the total number of divorces for each population.

The logic she uses here is really far fetched and unlikely to be true so you really need statistical causal links in order to say anything substantial. I mean her disclosure also discloses a possible bias. She may not have the ability to admit that she her self was the causal factor in her own parents divorce.

You don't need to change the behavior of the program. You can change the type checker to catch the unwanted error.

>Perhaps I’m not correctly understanding your idea around arity as part of the function types, but so far it’s not obvious to me how what I think you’re describing helps to resolve that contradiction. Are you suggesting a way the type system could be changed without causing those additional, unwanted side effects?

It's not formalized anywhere to my knowledge and I'm not willing to go through the rigor to do this in the comments. But it can easily be explained.

Simply put, what is the type signature of a function that can accept either two variables or one variable? I've never seen this specified in any formal language.

To fix this specific issue you want the type signature here to specify only certain functions with a fixed arity.

When some external library is updated with a function that previously had arity 1 to <arity 1 or 2> that could be thought of as type change that should trigger a type error.

Right now type checker recognizes F(a) and F(a, b=c) (where c is a default parameter that can be optionally overridden) as functions with matching types.

  F(a) == F(a, b=c)
  F(a,b) == F(a, b=c) <-----(F(a,b) in this case is a function where b is NOT optional) 
  F(a) != F(a, b) 

This is exactly the problem the author is describing. The type checker assumes that when the library changed F(a) to F(a, b=c) that the types are still equivalent, but this breaks transitivity so it's a bad choice and will lead to strange errors because programmers assume transitivity is a given.

You don't see this problem in other type checkers because JavaScript is weird in the sense that you can call a function of arity 1 with 5 parameters.

The type checking I am talking about is not a sum type. It is not that the function can take a two different possible types. It's the fact that the parameter function can mutate into two different types depending on the usage. It has (<arity 1 or 2>) not (<arity 1> or <arity 2>) if you catch my meaning.... Or in other words the concrete type is not evaluated when you pass the function as a parameter but only when it is called with a certain amount of parameters... which is not something type checkers I know about look for.

My question is, how do we know that the "dark matter" we assume to be littered all over the universe isn't just clear baryonic matter?

I know that we infer the existence of dark matter through gravity so how do we know that this dark matter isn't just "clear" baryonic matter?

Any astronomers care to share their expertise?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26046808

The true nature of type checking is basically a method of hindering you. The set of all correct programs is much smaller then the set of all programs that exist so anything that hinders a programmer from operating in the bigger parent set outside the set of correct programs is a good and impressive thing.

What’s going on here is a type checking issue. JavaScript and typescript is a little too loose. The map method takes a function of <Arity 3, 2, or 1> So if a library changes a function from <arity 1> to <arity 2 or 1> you should get a type error, but the type checker is too loose. It’s subtle.

Basically a type of <arity 3, 2, or 1> should only type check with <arity 3> or <arity 2> or <arity 1> it should not allow <arity 2 or 1>. You see what’s going on here? Subtle.

This is indeed as much of a type checker problem as it is defining what type correctness is. The definition above is simply a way of defining type correctness that fits with our intuition of what is correct for this given situation, so take what I wrote with a grain of salt. There could be situations where the current definition of type correctness in typescript is more correct then the definition I provided.

Our intuition is complex and if you think long and hard enough you may be able to come up with a formal definition of type correctness that perfectly fits our intuition and therefore elegantly unionized typescripts looser definition of correctness and my own stricter definition.

Beware though, often human intuition can be contradictory. This means that a formalization of our intuitive notions of type correctness will also be contradictory and therefore unusable. In other words there may not be a way to type check for this issue while maintaining the convenience of the status quo.

Intuitively I think it’s possible, you just need special syntax to tell the type checker whether to use my stricter definition or the original looser definition that’s in use now.

Also I’m not sure if there’s any type checker in existence that handles that case (don’t know). So I believe this is more than just a JavaScript issue.

Also the architect is the only person who did not write a line of code yet understands the tool better than engineers who work, code and solve problems across the entire stack.

That’s not only arrogant. It’s delusional.

Do some searching there's tons of articles/video interviews on addicts who got addicted because of pain killers. Here's one: https://www.healthline.com/health/doctor-addicted-opioids

Your statement ends up reading sort of like "Is every Nazi guilty of the holocaust?" Technically maybe not, doesn't change the fact that of the matter that overall all Nazis are guilty.

You can't run away from this with some garbage statement of "Not a very useful perspective." This incident literally killed an amount of people that is equivalent to a genocide.

Imagine if you were a Nazi and you said that. If you were just a mere guard at one of these concentration camps could you say what you just said to me to a victim who lived through the atrocity? Think about what you should say to the parents of a man/woman who died from an opioid overdose. Literally, I think you're unaware of the magnitude of the crime that was committed here.

Watch these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGcKURD_osM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXL3F5HvCr8

But it is a crime the company is responsible for that caused many people to die and become addicted to opioids.

You think Kim Jong Un walks among the people he starves to death on a daily basis in North Korea? No. He's too high up. He's in his palace in the capital and he doesn't even see the real state of his country. He just hears about it in reports and goes to do his day to day job like any other person in a company disconnected from the consequences of their actions.

Does this mean Kim Jong Un is not guilty? No. Not. at. all.

Does this mean McKinsey's is not guilty?

Does this mean you're not guilty?

And it's a bit insensitive to suggest that you support incest and child rape. Or am I reading to much into your post?

Let's be honest here. You aren't suggesting that you support raping children anymore then I am suggesting the Amish are unreasonable.

This cancel culture attitude of constantly calling out and classifying everything as some sort of infraction against a culture or a race has got to stop.

Here's the concept of conditional expressions explained via a mathematical text: https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Mathematical_Logic_a....

What is a skill reserved for architects? If you find yourself spending 100% of your time creating a powerpoint to explain things in a way that makes you sound smart and takes all the credit away from engineers then what you did there is a skill exclusive to architects.