g15jv2dp

> At Caltech, there has been an average gap of 10 percentage points between the acceptance rate for male and female applicants since 2003-04. Women were accepted at more than double the rate for men for the 2022-23 school year.

This is about acceptance rate. We were talking about number of applicants. Where are the numbers for applications?

> In my personal experience, it was actually the opposite. I self censored my application to MIT because I noticed that they rejected all the men from my high school and accepted all the women who applied, despite the men being equally or more qualified.

Your anecdote is supposed to beat data...?

> They also didn't say men would even ask anyone out, are you being sexist, and assuming men always ask, and women do not?

Not remotely related to what I said.

> Or are you suggesting women don't have a sex drive, and should be chaste?

Not remotely related to what I said.

Why do you feel the need to make stuff up?

> I can guarantee you that way more men applied to Caltech than women did.

You cannot guarantee that. Show some data or don't say anything.

> That means the most talented and impressive young man who applied and didn’t get in is objectively more talented and impressive than the least talented and impressive (though still extremely talented and impressive) woman who applied and got in.

This doesn't follow. If women self-censor (not sure how to say it in English correctly) their applications in such a way that only top women dare applying, while men don't, then no, it's not true that the men who didn't get in are more talented than the women who didn't get in. I'm not speaking in hypothetical, this is what actually happens - see e.g., Bosquet C., Combes P-P., García‐Peñalosa C., 2019, « Gender and Promotions: Evidence from Academic Economists in France », Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 121 (3), 1020-1053 or https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/nos-blogs/dialogues-economiques/pl...

The rest of your comment is based on faulty premises so I won't bother replying point by point.

Women don't go to university to enter your personal dating pool.

Which is bad.

Durov chose to become a French citizen. What do you make of that?

> This seems to be missing the elephant in the room - elisp doesn't suck, it is just a lisp.

The article lists a few defaults of elisp that aren't shared by all lisps. What do you mean by this sentence?

This already exists, right now...? I've seen tons of USB hubs with an hdmi output and several USB ports that can be used concurrently. Hell I'm using one right now. Are you asking about something else?

> One thing you'll learn about my courtroom is that I'm not a toy. I am not to be played with.

What a narcissistic piece of shit. Not everything is about you...

Ctrl+Z

> I think in practice, people write "Emphasize words like this.", then <left> , then <C-left><C-left> . At least I myself usually add markup immediately after writing the words to be marked up.

Is this very different from "<left> <Ctrl+Shift+left> <Ctrl+Shift+Left> <Ctrl+I>"?

WTF. I'm interested in what you've created and want to understand the reason for your design decisions, and this is how you reply?

edit: Well, it seems that the parent comment has been edited. But honestly, after reading the initial comment, I'm not interested in engaging in any way whatsoever with this person.

There's no reason it wouldn't "work", the question is "why". Having such precise dates obviously comes with some compromises (e.g., the representation is larger, or it's variable depending on the value which comes with additional complexity, etc.). So surely there must be some pros to counterbalance the cons. "Because it's what Go does" is an answer, but I don't know if it's a convincing one.

The people who did the work obviously think it's fine, otherwise they wouldn't have licensed it under such a permissive licence.

Sorry but what does "arms length" mean? My software doesn't have arms. Using metaphors full of imagery is cute but essentially meaningless.

> Two programs communicating over a socket aren't incorporated. They're two programs.

Aren't they? So, if I want to use a GPL library, all I need to do is write a little wrapper program that does RPC over a socket, and boom, I can use a GPL library in my closed source program? Obviously not.

It's a sphere, the height is equal to the diameter that you plainly see on the picture.

There's a difference between "talking about it" and "the word is uttered somehow at some point".

I responded to a sibling comment with an explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41234913 But good on you for the condescension even though you didn't understand my point ;)

The mere mention of the word "testicle" makes you think that your coworkers want to have sex with you? Wow.

Schoolyard insult? Uh? Can you quote the part of my comment that would be the "schoolyard insult"?

> This comment is in a discussion about an article titled, Tensors, the geometric tool that solved Einstein's relativity problem. Therefore, "tensors are literally the topic that started this discussion."

Again, are manifold involved in any way in the definition of tensors and their properties? No? Then why are you even mentioning "metric tensors"? (Which aren't even tensors, but tensor fields...)

Are you even trying to understand my point? Yes, in that direction, explicitly constructing an element of the bidual of V from an element of V is easy. To explicitly find an element of V from the element of the bidual, you need to choose a basis. Just try it, come on! Write down the inverse isomorphism. Let \alpha be an element of V**. Then v \in V such that f(v) = \alpha (where f is the isomorphism you wrote down) is given by...?

I will help you: if (e_i) is a basis of V and (e_i^*) is its dual basis, then v = \sum_i \alpha(e_i^*) e_i. Can you find such a formula without mentioning the word "basis"?

I'm talking about a practical task. Not an abstract existence result.

You're offended if someone wrote "testicle" in source code? Are you also offended about "ankle" or "hair"? The puritanism...

There are no manifolds at all in this discussion... What are you even talking about? Just stringing words you vaguely know together??

You have a typo in your first line, and I answered a sibling comment about that. Metrics are irrelevant to the discussion (and I presume you wanted to write "norm" instead of "metric").

GP is giving you an element of V**. You want to turn it into a vector. To do that, please make the inverse isomorphism explicit without using a basis. I'll wait...

That's incorrect if V is infinite-dimensional. A (0,1)-tensor is just supposed to be an element of V but with your definition you get an element of the bidual of V. Which is not isomorphic to V when dim V is infinite. And even when dim V is finite, you need to choose a basis of V to find an isomorphism with the bidual. From a math point of view, that's just no good.

Phones usually have a web browser installed.

If you can't pay money to content makers, what's the point of a patreon app? It's the whole purpose.

Yet.