ar15saveslives

The idea of taking 90% tax is absurd too.

Try to get Schengen or US visa if you're a single woman under 30. Visa officers will openly treat you as a prostitute.

tl;dr: "Don't even try to protect you personal data".

Happening what? 100% equal candidates that differ only by gender? No, it's never happening.

> Would you be more likely to hire a man than a women for an engineering role?

If they are equally good, there's a good chance I'll choose the cheaper one.

> 95% or whatever the claimed pay gap is

According to wikipedia, "the average female's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as being 78% of the average male salary", so you can save a lot.

What do you mean by "subconsciously undervalued"? Do you have studies that show it? What about participation in opensource? Side projects? StackOverflow profiles? - none of these can be affected by "subconscious undervaluation".

And how to value, let's say, a developer? How do you, personally, differentiate good and bad programmers?

So why is it a problem? Go ahead and negotiate your salary, why should we (or government?) help you fix your own personality?

> Do you know whether your equally skilled female colleagues are making less money than you?

BS argument.

If they make less than men, why don't companies hire women alone? Don't they want to save money on salaries?

I suspect it's not a detected action, but just a picture labeled "swimming", like one of these (random image from internet): http://www.ambientegallerie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016...

Yes, but I mean if you analyze video as individual frames, you can't declare "we do video analysis", because video is completely different domain.

There're papers like [1] where CNN output is used as input for RNN, which performs deeper context analysis. Results aren't exciting, though.

[1] http://cs231n.stanford.edu/reports2016/221_Report.pdf

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a frame-by-frame labeling. You can download whatever pre-trained CNN, pass individual frames through it and get the same result.

I feel sorry for your illness, really. "Bad english - fine, controversial hiring practices - fine, but he's using 'heavily gendered language' - alarm, take your pitchforks!"

Today's International Women's Day, so here's my gift for you: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/unbias-the-interne...

Music, sweet music.

Well, there can be options, like "we're paying you a decent salary, and compensate insurance, but we can stop working with you within one day". The most important difference here is that company don't risk much. And the candidate don't need to quit his current job: just do some tasks 1-2 hours a day, for example, so it's not just "gradual hiring", but "gradual quit" as well.

Agree, I wouldn't do that either. For those russian guys it's bit different though, as they are already hired, with decent salaries and benefits (for Russia). Moving to HQ is just a big (and questionable?) bonus.

I would say that the alternative to that crappy process is something like "gradual hiring" (sorry, I'm the guy whose accent can be spread on bread) - you just start working with a guy, giving him basic isolated tasks, and as he successfully progresses with his work, task are getting more and more complicated (salary, permissions as well). After few months of such freelance-ish work you can know for sure that this dude is compatible with the team, able to solve problems, able to learn. And only then he becomes an employee with offer, benefits and SO.

I know a company (profitable, no-VC, small private hw/sw business) that has been practicing that for years. The scheme is quite simple: they "rent" people at bodyshops in Russia (it's relatively cheap there), work with them for some time and then offer them relocation to the HQ, paying some penalty to the bodyshop.

Another well-known company has different version of this: they just hire everyone after very basic sanity check. It's pretty easy to get in, but at the same time it's even easier to be fired. Turnover at the company is horrible, but there's very strong core of managers/designers/devs, that survived all battles.

My point is there's no way you can find out for sure the candidate is good for a) company b) project c) codebase d) team etc etc, unless he's clearly crazy/arrogant/stinks or whatever. So maybe that "gradual hire" is the answer.

P.S.: Being at the other side of hiring process sucks too. May be even worse.

When you exercise your SO, you need to pay taxes, based on current price of shares, even if you don't sell them right away. SO is a joke in Canada.

What exactly do you mean by "socially prepared for"?

> Traditionally, life has been divided into two main parts: a period of learning, followed by a period of working. Very soon this traditional model will become utterly obsolete, and the only way for humans to stay in the game will be to keep learning throughout their lives and to reinvent themselves repeatedly.

That's already the case, imo.

I'll save you a click:

> So the truth is, nobody really has any idea. Once the cheapest, most convenient solution, the middle, was made illegal, everything became a nightmare of relativism and equally rational justifications. Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages, and we’re left, wandering, alone, confused.

Why is it a bad idea to have fake FB/Gmail/Twitter accounts?

We could catch it and use as a fuel or recoil mass!

(does napkin math)

Nope :-(

Because they promote institutionalized sexism in general: in family laws, in workspaces ("affirmative action"), they bully innocent people ("shirt gate"), they bring that stupid gender war into deeply technical areas (".bro is bad, because it's not gender-neutral"), that's why.

Divorces in a nutshell: wives take everything (children, house, money), husbands start life from scratch.

I like your logic. "You know, I have never been a victim of a murder, therefore murders don't happen".

When a company publicly announces "we're affirmative action company", I understand it as they openly exercise racism and/or sexism against me.

And trust me, as a divorced guy, I've experienced institutionalized sexism A LOT.

> The #1 difference I notice between people I talk to who identify as the "left" or the "right" is whether America is an inclusive or exclusive "club".

Gender/race war that radical "left" promote, has nothing to do with "inclusivity".

Sounds oversimplified. Right-wing movement is not only about closing borders, get rid of immigrants and religious bigotry, as well as "lefties" are not only SJW, starting fire alarms at universities and diversity/exceptional rights for women/no white men craziness.

I consider myself right-leaning or maybe centrist, because I strongly believe that:

- freedom of speech shall not be infringed

- government should be small and scrutinized by people

- there's constant pressure from governments to take more rights from the people, so there should be counter pressure (kudos to EFF and ACLU)

- affirmative action is evil

- it's a right, not privilege, to have firearms and use it to protect yourself or your house

So it's not (just) about "opennes" and "closed", as The Economist wants us to think, it's about relationship between government and people.

I can write the same blog post about onsite interview at Google, which was a horrible 6 hours marathon with people that copying to their notes all that you draw/write on whiteboard.

Questions/problems are pretty lame, btw. Do one geeksforgeeks problem a day, you'll be able to crack it in a year.

It would be great to see the messages and hearing the other side. How did "definitely he wanted sex with me" message look like? With modern overreaction culture it can be just smiley at the end of message. I've seen women in tech that accused their male-dominated teams in sexism just because they couldn't keep up with the rest of team and/or guys didn't hang up with women for different reasons.

SJWs made a good job, I don't believe anyone without a) seeing the evidence with my own eyes b) listening to both sides of the conflict.