cetahfh14615

> Arthur Schopenhauer - The World as Will and Representation.

Actually just ordered this about a week ago. Read a couple articles about him and got the impression that he shares a lot with early Christianity (and also Buddhism)

> Marcel Proust - In Search of Lost Time. Exceptionally rich and a beautiful study of love. Reading it is like living another life.

Haven't read the Proust but I'd say the same for War and Peace

You're not wrong, main difference is between big companies vs smaller ones. Big name brands can afford to shell out more, but sometimes you see the smaller shitty dropshippers trying to get more visibility by hyping the hell out of a sub par product

> as the best sock for that person is unlikely to be the most promoted one.

not necessarily. I don't see how there could be a correlation between the two. When you see "sponsored" on a listing, that doesn't tell you how much the vendor paid. Also many large and reputable vendors will pay simply to guarantee they are at the top of the listing. For the vendors that don't sponsor, you don't know whether the amount they save goes into a higher quality product

> This is essentially using user-data outside of the intent it was given and that should be controllable by the user and default to the most conservative option without annoying dialogue boxes or other harassment.

Except feeding user data back into the system makes certain things technically possible that weren't possible before. Do you think modern map applications would have the same degree of accuracy if they weren't able to use user data to improve it?

> Whether it's within the platform or not shouldn't make a difference.

It does make a difference because keeping it within the platform could be used to improve the platform itself. Sending it outside the platform could be used for more malicious purposes. In the map application example, the user knows their data feeds into improved accuracy. But they don't know where that data goes outside the platform

> Aside from being an endless game of whack-a-mole, I feel the race to deplatform undermines ideological diveristy and other key civic values.

There are differing degrees of acceptability. If we're talking about the type of content on the two sites listed, that's beyond the point of any sort of debate.

Do you think insisting that the US is controlled by Jewish people benefits society in any sort of way? Do you think that kind of "ideological diversity" is of any value to society whatsoever?

> who are not representing the real emotions people feel here. Which is almost certainly tolerant indifference.

Is that indifference coming from a place of awareness, or a place of ignorance of the whole situation? If the content of these websites was brought to light - without any sort of commentary - do you seriously think the public would still look at these sites with indifference?

> They're telling people how to think, not what is happening. People who do that are untrustworthy.

It depends on intention. And also: what is happening here that they aren't reporting?

Why do the people here have so much skepticism towards this sort of reporting?

Like do you have any idea what kind of content is hosted on these sites? The main headline on the news site they allude to is this: "Big Tech to Increase Surveillance and Censorship of White People Following Biden Speech"

Are you seriously trying to justify this? Do you seriously think that the people hosting this shouldn't be held accountable by the press and public?

I'm all for free speech, which includes the freedom of the press to bring disgusting shit like this to light so that it can be publicly disgraced

I mean, if employers actually paid people a commensurate amount for work they do outside of the 8-5, we wouldn't be seeing this problem.

Sounds like the wsj and their ilk want to have their cake and eat it too. It's a shame that these folks are so out of touch with upcoming generations that their only outlet is churning out more shitstain newspaper articles

if this is the best FUD they have, best of luck to them

> And there is another thing too -- you can't deny that a black woman has had a vastly difference life experience than a white man, even if those two people have all the same job relevant qualifications otherwise. And frankly I'd rather have the black woman on the team to offer that perspective, especially for product decisions, because they might have interesting things to say.

I mean, you give a very cliche example. Consider an alternative situation where you need to decide between the same black woman or a Latino man. Or the same black woman and an Asian woman. Should you be permitted to make the same racially motivated decision in this context?

And also: if you're provided race data in the hiring process, you're essentially put in a position to not only make decisions like the one you listed, but also ones regarding other races. You're in a position to establish which races are "above" one another in the hiring process. How can your employer guarantee that you don't do this, even if you say that you don't?

We know of the disgusting things white people have historically done. We also know that white people are over represented in hiring and admissions decisions. I ask: should white people, given their track record, be allowed to make this call?

Finding a more commensurate representation of underrepresented groups is a laudable goal, but if it means systemically discriminating against Asians or Hispanics then it's really a tongue in cheek effort

If we assume (rightly) that american society is inherently and irredeemably racist, how exactly can we trust admissions officers or people involved in employee recruitment to make decisions that aren't racist?

Racism runs to the core of how people see each other in america, so much so that race data shouldn't be allowed into any decisions period. Or at least, people should feed inaccurate data into the system in order to subvert the white privilege that it rests apon

Part of affirmative action (AA) involves addressing some of the issues specific to american society, I have no clue how diversity is handled outside the US but would love to hear someone else's experience

To a certain degree prejudice is ingrained in the US. Not officially in laws, but in attitudes that some (not all) people hold. Not any one specific group of people either, but prejudice across different ethnic groups. AA isn't independent of this prejudice, just a more recent and politicized form of it

I think the way that it has been discussed in recent years isn't going to sustain itself long term. The way that higher education discriminates against Asians is especially egregious

(source: "The reason that it is harder for Asian Americans to get into Harvard is that their “personal ratings” (a subjective evaluation of personal qualities) are, on average, significantly lower than for white applicants." (https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/10/01/why-th...))

The same "personal rating" bs was historically used to limit the number of Jewish applicants. At the end of the day, the Asian applicants would likely benefit from just not providing race or selecting the "other" category.

The only way that the current system can sustain itself is by having people honestly self identify, yet there's no legal ramifications for not doing this. If people genuinely want to end this system, all they have to do is stop giving it real data to work with

I mean, in full stack engineering (from my exp) you work primarily with rest and don't ever make use of lower level networking details.

maybe it's different for someone working in networking or a more specific subfield. It might've been different in the past, idk

what even is devops in the first place? Like is it just IT for deployments with a bunch of management lingo tacked on?

like how are there people in the industry working on this sort of thing who can't code?

It just bugs me, I talked with someone from work whose job title was System Engineer; I asked them if they do systems programming or something... and they said they don't know how to program (even after getting some kind of tech degree!!)

What knowledge is "in and of itself" means nothing because it exists in a context, the only thing that matters in the case of knowledge (or anything) is what's done with it and how it is useful

you're sort of assuming what I mean by "equality"

I'm not talking about leveling, I'm talking about something more like job applications that are completely race-sex-etc blind, where that signal isn't even allowed into the mix. I think that in a truly meritocratic system you'll see a diverse representation. No, it might not be perfectly diverse, but it would lead to more (and fairer) diversity and not less

> ignorance is never better than knowledge

this is a moral judgement and a strong claim. I can think of a few types of knowledge off the top of my head that aren't making the world a better place

Something like learning how to tie a noose: this is (in most cases) bad knowledge. This isn't something anyone should learn unless they need it for something that isn't its best known purpose

when it comes to something like race/gender/etc, I can't think of one positive usage of that kind of knowledge, if we can even call it that. I'd argue that even the idea of race/gender/etc is against the goal of equality and if we want true equality these ideas need to be discarded