849 karma · joined April 6, 2009
Are the speaker selectors favoring men? That should be possible to test for. If so, it needs to get clamped down on hard.
Are women less inclined to try to speak at these conferences? If so, why? It's likely that making presenting more female-friendly would be worth it.
Is this subfield just that male? If so, it's not the conference-organizers' place to deal with it, but someone should sniff around for active biases.
In short, this is suspicious enough to justify a real investigation, and I'd be very interested to read the results of one.
* A test should accept any correct behaviour from the tested code. Anything which is not in the requirements, should not be enforced by the test.
* A test should not use the same logic as the code to find the "right" answer.
* A function whose semantics are likely to be changed in the next refactor should not be invoked from a test.
* Whenever a test fails, make a note of whether you got it to pass by changing the test or by changing the code. If it's the test more than 2/3 of the time, it's a bad test.
* If you can't write a good test, don't write a test at all. See if you can write a good test for the code that calls this code instead.
Not so. The code demonstrated that the first algorithm wasn't good enough and provided the experience needed to write the second one. The tests (hopefully) made the first algorithm's code maintainable, but it turns out there was no need to maintain it.
I didn't realize there were more pages. I just thought it was a very short and fluffy article.
And the idea that Seattle and Spokane have a strong enough cultural bond to secede together is just silly.
The nasty things will happen across national borders. Like, when things in California get tight, will Mexico continue to receive any of the Colorado? Or worse, what about the Upper Ganges Aquifer, already shrinking and used by both India and Pakistan.
((width * bytes_per_pixel)+(3&~3))
and thought "what's the point?"I don't know why bitwise ops are so low precedence. They've always felt more like multiplication to me.
struct header __atribute__((packed)) {
unsigned int highnibble : 4;
unsigned int flag_foo : 1;
unsigned int flag_bar : 1;
unsigned int flag_baz : 1;
unsigned int flag_qux : 1;
}
if (((header)value).flag_bar) {My brother went to Harvard, partly because their financial aid offer was best, and I recall my father cursing the required forms. He's a lawyer, so ordinary legalese doesn't phase him, but he found those troublesome. Now I imagine a family without a JD in it, or even without a BA in it, trying to fill them out...
I understand and agree with your analysis except for one point: as I understand it, the exact text of the joke has not been published, sadly preventing post mortem evaluation.
As for concluding !S, most statements aren't sexist. In the absence of meaningful evidence for S, we should conclude !S (or rather, p(S)<.1).
The causal network looks like this:
S->O
|
V
D->A
|
V
H
S=sexism
O=other people being offended
A=Adria being offended
D=Adria being dishonest
H=Adria being hypocritical
We know that A and H are true. We don't have data for the others. O would allow us to conclude S. H suggests D, which explains A, causing A not to be evidence for S.It's like how flying saucer cultists being visibly crazy is evidence against flying saucers if their statements were the evidence in the first place, but if you had actual radar tracks, then it wouldn't matter.
Granted, too little testing is probably the more common error.
I think if someone said "Could you stop using words containing "e"? Such words hurt my brain." I think I would.
If someone said "Quit your "e" words, you bad guy!" I'd be less inclined to. "Words with the letter "e" are bad words, and you need to stop using them" even less (the difference between these two being hypocrisy).
She argues that the joke was offensive. Her evidence was that she was offended. Evidence that her concept of offendedness is flawed does argue against the offensiveness of the joke.
Had she asked three people sitting near her if they were offended, and they had said yes, then she would no longer be a part of the argument and her hypocracy would not be relevant. But she didn't so it is.
Presumably Adria is claiming to be without power. She has the power to get someone fired with a single tweet. She has so much power she's gone mad with it.
If my employer tried to support my masculinity by giving me beer, I would be offended.