161 karma · joined July 24, 2017
The Mind Illuminated: A Complete Meditation Guide Integrating Buddhist Wisdom and Brain Science by John Yates (Ph.D.). This is the best book I've read on meditation. It takes you through why it works, how to do it, how to keep improving at it, and all the common pitfalls you'll encounter.
If you haven't already, you should try advertising with one of these snapchat users. As I understand it, they use their snap chat stories to provide commentary on the bachelor with some paid product advertisements. They get hundreds of thousands of views.
I'm sure you have a female in your life who is important to you. A wife, daughter, mother? Would you be ok with an investor talking to your daughter like that? Joking that she demonstrate a sex toy for him? I would be absolutely furious.
This is not something to just ignore.
> was told by a potential investor that she'd be a good C.E.O because "you're not Kim Kardashian-attractive, but you're girl-next-girl attractive," she recalled. Another asked if she was going to demonstrate her products for him.
Sigh... There has been more talk recently of publicly outing investors/anyone that makes these kinds of comments. I support it fully.
That said, the SEC has also said that in many cases these ICO tokens can be classified as securities, and therefor going forward, could be subject to all the same laws and regulations [0]. This turns ICO's from something a startup can offer fairly easily, to something that requires a team of expensive lawyers to do properly.
Maybe Lawyers should take note that this could be a promising opportunity for future business?
It confirms the criticisms of Damore cherry picking his sources. It appears that for almost everything he wrote there is both supporting and conflicting evidence. The fact the he only mentions the supporting evidence is a huge problem. I would expect better from a google engineer.
"But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm. Moreover, men are more emotional than women in certain ways, too. Sex differences in emotion depend on the type of emotion, how it is measured, where it is expressed, when it is expressed, and lots of other contextual factors."
A lot of the science that Danmore cites is correct. But he goes beyond what the science says in his memo. He misinterprets it to prove his point. This is my main problem with the memo, and why someone may call it sexist.
[0] http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
You've probably read http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
David P Schmitt, the only one whose work was used in the memo doesn't seem agree with the memo. His third and fourth paragraphs say that any differences between sexes is small and not relevant to work going on at google. This is a common theme with the memo. The science is correct. But James goes beyond what the science says and adds incorrect arguments and statements on top. This is the problem. And it is the kind of thing that can get you labeled as sexist or whatever.
As I go through the links, each is used to directly refute one of these incorrect additions to the science that James wrote. They don't refute the science, they refute James' added commentary.
In 'Early androgen exposure and human gender development' there is a section titled "Which human behaviors show average sex differences?" and it is very pertinent to this topic.
Lots of people have been bringing up the Androgen Exposure argument in this debate, and the second Androgen study linked was showing it is not a solved question yet. So that was also relevant.
The Human health and population growth studies were used to refute James's statements that were quoted. Etc.
I'll happily agree that the author shouldn't have used certain terms or phrases. That was unneeded and unprofessional.
You've already admitted that you are not qualified to judge what is accurate in this context, so why do you think you can now decide that some of the studies are nonsense? All of these studies support arguments she was making.
In reverse order of appearance:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27460188
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01256568
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11...
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourna...
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~bieman/Pubs/turleyBiemanCSC94.p...
https://peerj.com/articles/cs-111/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416252
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-...
I counted 10 supporting scientific studies, and a whole bunch of other articles that all included lots of references.
> thereby gloss over the actual question at hand (namely, was he right?)
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. She quotes what he wrote, and then shows why he is wrong, over and over again. She doesn't juke around the issue at all.
I think we can say that there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community. The memo painted a much different picture.
Enough time has passed that experts have had time to comprehend the original document, and it seems like James was only pretending to play openly. He misrepresented a lot of the science and put his own spin on it.
A great answer by an evolutionary biologist on how James was absolutely wrong on almost every point he made: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
This sounds a bit strange to write, but I think Scott, and a lot of people here and on the web, are almost thinking too logically and critically about all this. I have no problem with what they are doing, but I also don't think it is a very effective technique.
Like it or not, this women in tech issue is in the domain of politics, and it will remain there. I see a whole bunch of really smart people applying the same problem solving skills they use in their daily engineering work to this problem. They try to rely on strict evidence, and proof and debate. And There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it isn't very effective in the political domain. It takes certain skills and lots of practice to correctly communicate with this type of purely logical debate. A ten page paper read by someone without these skills is very likely to be misunderstood. And that's exactly what happened. I wish that wasn't the case, but that's not the world we live in.
If you are trying to persuade, you need to know your audience. In cases like this, your audience is not just your fellow tech community, but a large percentage of the entire world! It is people who won't follow your carefully constructed arguments. James Damore's critical mistake is that seemed totally ignorant to this point. The people reading his paper were not just going to be fellow googlers who had the skills to take his arguments at face value, it was everyone. You need to be aware of this when dealing in politics.
My sister is smarter than me and better at math and physics than me. I was invited by my grade school to go to robotics camps over the summer, she wasn't. I was given special permission to take computer science courses not offered by our highschool, she wasn't. I was encouraged to to go into engineering by our guidance Councillor, she wasn't. My dad wanted me to go into engineering, he didn't really want her to. I didn't realize that any of this was happening at the time. It wasn't until years later that I was talking to my sister that she explained the countless opportunities and support that I had and she didn't. This all happened in a well off neighborhood in Canada.
So is it really any surprise that I'm the highly paid engineer while she is a school teacher barely scraping by? The status quo still benefits people based on race and gender.
I was not thinking about that. And when I started being exposed to it, my immediate reaction was like you described: seeing political correctness and reverse-racism/sexism as a greater problem than sexism and racism themselves.
It took a while, but I now realize how silly that reaction was. I felt somewhat attacked by these 'social justice warriors and quotas'. And my reaction was in self defense to this perceived attack. I spent so much time reading about it on the internet. There were so many smart people applying logic and engineering skills to these social problems. I identified with these people and I agreed with most of it. They made it sound like these are all easy problems to solve and if everyone had read the same scientific studies as them and applied the same logical thinking then we would have a solution.
My view wasn't changed until I had much more experience in the real world. All these women that are being talked about as statistics are real people. They're become my friends and coworkers. I've learned to sympathize with them. I've learned that it's not us vs them. We are working together is this. I've learned that political correctness and reverse-racism/sexism are definitely not a greater problem than sexism and racism themselves.
I think the human aspect of all this is sorely missing on HN. At least it was for me.
The biggest problem is that by learning differently, you create a real barrier between yourself and other musicians. Most guitarists learn to play in a somewhat similar manner. You learn to follow along with music and play by the tab or sheet music. The feedback you get is solely from your own ear. You learn how to stay on tempo and key from auditory cues, not visual ones. RockSmith changes all this.
RockSmith is useful to practice really difficult passages, but it becomes a major crutch at all other times and I really can't imagine someone become a well rounded guitarist while depending on it.
Last month the SEC released a report [0] that said in many cases these ICO tokens can be classified as securities, and therefor going forward, could be subject to all the same laws and regulations. These are not laws you want to be breaking. This Filecoin ICO has been highly publicized, and importantly, came after the SEC's report.
It doesn't matter if it all only exists on a blockchain. When the SEC decides to make an example of one of these companies it will be a bloodbath.
Matt Levine has been covering this topic recently. [1]
[0] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-131
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-26/tokens-va...
Yes, this seems to be the thing that most people are missing. He didn't release a study in a scientific journal, he shared a document with his coworkers while at work. The things he talks about are what his Women coworkers are living through. He made this about their experience. It doesn't matter how much is true, it was incredibly unprofessional and absolutely something you can be fired for.
The author of the 'manifesto' seems to think that no one else reads these studies. I can assure you that everyone who is working on these issues has already read and understood the studies. The people in charge of these programs agree with them. He presented absolutely nothing of value. There is not a single new idea in what he wrote.
All the manifesto showed was that he thinks he you can just apply studies to your coworkers. He took a bunch of women he works with and turned them into statistics, into a problem that he alone can solve. It's incredible ignorant and arrogant.
The science, or understanding of statistics is not the problem, it is his approach to solving it that is the problem.
I think computer scientists tend to apply the same skills and techniques to social issues that they do to compiler theory and algorithm design. And that's how you end up with these 'manifestos'. I don't think that many people are offended by the science. They are offended that he has turned women in tech into a technical problem that he can solve with his logical reasoning.
It appears that he thinks he's the only one who's read the studies. It's arrogant. Everyone interested in the issue has already read those studies. They also have enough interpersonal skills to know that you can't just apply studies to your coworkers.
My biggest problem with all this is how the author gave absolutely no thought to how his female coworkers would be affected by this. These are REAL women who have to interact with him every day. They are not just statistics who are on average less likely to be good engineers than he is. They are supposed to be on the same team. I can't see how any of his women coworkers wouldn't think of him differently after this.
This was not a paper released on the internet with no ties to his coworkers. By sharing it at work and tying it in with google he made it personal. The women reading it have no choice but to make it about them, because it is about them! They are the ones who interacted with programs that he is against. Everything he talks about is stuff they actually experience. And throughout the entire thing he shows that he does not care at all about these women.
All the cited science in the manifesto is irrelevant in my opinion. As an engineer you work with other people. You probably spend 40 or 50 hours a week with them. They may or may not become your friends, but they will have a huge impact on your life, and you on theirs. Many of these people will be women. They are REAL people that you interact with everyday. What he did when he decided to share this manifesto at work is show that he thinks of these women as statistics, and that on average they are not as capable as he is. He has turned the women he works with everyday into a technical problem that he can solve with his intellect. That is incredibly insulting! He's shown an incredible lack of empathy and understanding towards the women he works with. He's turned them into numbers. He's shown he does not care about them as individuals. This is absolutely unforgivable.
If he had simply released this as a research project or something on the internet then it wouldn't be a problem. But he didn't do that. He didn't make a distinction between the general population and the women he works with. He shared it at work.
This really is an interesting situation. In the hours approaching the BCH fork an absolutely massive number of short positions were opened on various bitcoin exchanges, but the price remained steady. I assumed people were shorting in expectation of a crash, but the outlined scenario makes much more sense.
Similarly to the trade outlined in the article, if you already held bitcoin, you could short the equivalent amount and you would still receive bitcoin cash. This trade also had the nice side effect of your exposure to fiat currency staying flat through all the potential fluctuation.
I don't live on a boat myself, but I sail a lot and I know people who do or did live on a boat. In my experience, it's awesome for a few weeks at most (longest period I did was 3 weeks).
First off, it's going to cost a whole lot more than you imagine. I'd say triple your initial cost estimates. Everything on boats break all the time and cost a tonne to repair.
> I'm worried my social life will suffer, I might lose friends. Can't invite people home. People don't want to date a hobo living on a boat?
Your social life will change a lot. Having a friend who lives on a boat is great when it's still new and novel, but soon they become the guy that who's always on a slightly different schedule than everyone else.
The vast majority of women will not be interested in going home with someone who lives on a small sailboat. Some absolutely will, but most really are not interested. You're seen more as that quirky guy who lives on a boat who they can tell their friends about, rather than a potential romantic partner.
So socially, it really depends on you and what you make of it. Some people will think it's really neat that you live on a boat and others will look down on you for it.
*edit: and this is not ethereum specific. This approach was one way bitcoin tried to solve the problem and it has spread to most other cryptocurrencies I believe.