genericuser

It doesn't really hinge on them not being qualified for the job the way I read it. It hinges on them not being 'the most qualified' for the job. As failure of the interview to me is defined as not getting the job. And interviewing 10 people for every position leads to them choosing a most qualified out of those 10 and leaving notes for future teams looking to fill a position.

I am no way saying their practices are not discriminatory, just that I read that statement differently.

I think due to the complete lack of disclosure about why you don't get a job in the tech industry it will be interesting to see Google have to justify their decisions with the facts to a court. I personally ask after most every interview what I could do to improve, or what I did wrong. With very rare exceptions I am told they can not disclose that information for liability reasons. (Google and Amazon both definitely gave me this answer) A handful of companies have told me things like, we went with a candidate that had more experience in ________. And once a company told me that a project was cancelled so they unfortunately no longer had a position available.

She responded just as politely as he asked. "I'm in my car why do I have to put out my cigarette?" To which he responded "Well you can step on out now" instead of anything about why she should put it out, such as it being for his benefit. After that is when the ranting about it being her car started.

9:20 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=560&v=yf8GR3OO9mU

While I agree knowing her rights certainly didn't work to her advantage in this situation. Your interpretation of events is not what I consider correct, and mine may not be either. I would encourage other people to watch it and determine for themselves what was ranting and what was polite.

I don't remember him saying "Because you know your rights" in response to that question, which she asked quite a few times (she did declare that she knew her rights, but that was the only mention of rights I remember). I also don't remember him answering "Because no one'll believe you." I want to say he did answer "Because I can.", although I can't be certain without investing more time than I have to devote to this right now.

I don't have the best of memories though, if this quote does happen in the video can some one give us a time stamp. I mean I assume its after asking her to put out her cigarette and before her head was slammed into the concrete if this conversation did take place, but as I said don't have the time at the moment to check.

So lets look at what we have in terms of video / audio.

1)Repeated unimportant segments of video.

2)A fairly good sounding audio track.

3)An audio track which is not the same length of the video track.

4)The video issues do not start happening till over 20 minutes into the uploaded video, and then happen at multiple times over the next 15 minutes.

What can we conclude about the video? Well I can't conclude anything, but I sure get a lot of questions.

Could this be an issue with the recording of the video stream? I don't know seems like we might have some experts here on video recording equipment here that might be able to say if this is a type of problem that is even possible, maybe even some with knowledge of the type of equipment used in police dash cams.

Has anyone seen anything like this 'just happen' in digital video before? I haven't but my experience is limited. Anyone else?

Why is the audio OK but the video is bad? Well audio and video could be recorded separately, and if they weren't they are not hard to separate, and audio is much easier to edit.

Could the video of been edited? Well sure it was probably at least cut for upload. If it was edited the editor really sucked.

If the video was edited, why would the video be edited? Maybe it was cut to remove something that happened in one of the frames somewhere during one of the repeats. Maybe the audio was edited too and it was edited to more closely match the audio length (matching just as well as the video was edited). Maybe someone started editing the video to hide something in a missing segment and didn't finish or get to the audio before it was uploaded.

What other things besides editing and recording failure could explain the video issue? I don't know.

Do we have any experts here who given the available youtube video on the Texas Department of Public Safetys youtube page could do analysis on a more in depth level than watching it? I don't know but I think this question is why I see this belonging on Hacker News.

He could also respond to her question about why she should put out her cigarette with out going full Judge Dredd on her.

Also she responded in a way that seemed to be in keeping with her civil rights.

That is very much NOT a quote from this article, if you are quoting another article by mistake please link it. As this article does not even use the word "presented"

In this article it mentions how Chrysler is working with them and has developed a patch, indicating that they did not dismiss previously done tests. So basically saying the opposite of what I take your point to be.

You do realize a recall doesn't make all the cars come back on their own to get fixed right? Hell many consumers don't even realize there was a recall till their product fails for the reason it was recalled.

Chrysler seems to be taking this sufficiently seriously enough that releasing the code will do more harm than good. Could they take it more seriously? Well everything can always be taken more seriously, and someone will always claim it should. So I will say that's a matter of opinion.

EDIT: If their plan to 'release their code' is nothing more than a bluff to raise awareness I would consider that a much more appropriate course of action.

I agree they may not make news if they did this in a safe manner.

However, the goal of people researching security, shouldn't be to make news. And these people while admittedly working with Chrysler to see it fixed, seem to be forgetting that. Especially since they plan to release their code, despite the fact that Chrysler has to get people to manually update their cars.

"The two researchers say that even if their code makes it easier for malicious hackers to attack unpatched Jeeps, the release is nonetheless warranted because it allows their work to be proven through peer review."

Their justification for releasing their code, as someone who works in peer reviewed industries is weak and they clearly are prioritizing attention over security at this point.

The similarity would extend so far as the negative views society has for people in any of those groups. In all cases members of society currently hold or have held in the past a view that these behaviors even when not having a negative effect on any individual are something which 'erode the moral fabric of society'. It is not a similarity in the groups themselves, but in how they are regarded or have been regarded by others. Forcing ones morals upon others in instances where there is no harm to anyone(while arguable in many cases of cheating, is certainly true in some cases), would be the common thread.

For everyone who identifies as some sort of Poly or other group it is probably painful to have members of other groups, which are unfortunately still discriminated against, view their differences from the accepted moral norm in a negative light like this. People in general want to be accepted for who they are, and ideally judged by a moral code similar to the one they themselves hold.

At least that is my view on the situation. I realize cheating is often not a mutual agreement between all parties, and in those cases a person is being harmed and there is reason for society to view it negatively, however that is not always the situation, and in these cases I think other groups who have been discriminated against recognizing the similarity would be valuable to humanity in general.

I would argue that it was because, because there is no such thing, to my knowledge, as capital and lowercase seconds.

In this way the only dangers from accidental capitalization would be capitonyms* and possibly someone thinking you were shouting depending on the level of your capital letter abuse. <sarcasm> In the latter case I think we can all agree they deserve to be stabbed, right? </sarcasm>

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitonym

Exactly. These are two completely different letters that exist in Turkish, neither of them should be represented by a letter in English which does not exist in Turkish.

So another dumb question, how do we get from it being a very bad thing in shell scripting to it being a very bad thing in general as the post states?

By the way thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions, I do appreciate it as these are honestly things I am wondering. I seem to be getting down voted because I am so stupid, but at least you are helping me learn to be less stupid on this subject (which believe it or not everyone else the down votes don't actually accomplish).

So its bad because other people won't localize their programs which might run yours? I can see that being a sadly accurate answer. Thank you for your clarification, assuming I read that correctly.

Although I think a more ideal solution to this problem would be if they are going to run your software they should be using the same library to provide input to it so that they can just specify the machine command (as their software doesn't need to be coded to provide short easy to read commands, like are ideal for a human) to look up the local language command, and give your program the command that will map back to the machine command in their local language where ever it is run. If both a machine and a human will be using your software, wouldn't optimizing for the human be ideal, even if it involves another look up or function call for the machine?

Could you explain the argument to me a bit more? Because the way I am reading your comment and the code is that doing this localization is a pain in the ass (therefore also extremely easy to screw up and not notice), and therefore 'a very bad idea.'

However it seems like you would write a library that was basically a collection of user command/language/machine command triplets, expanding the library as you needed new commands to be available. Being as inexperienced as I am I see this as a fairly straight forward manner of allowing users to provide commands which seem intuitive to them making the learning curve for software easier. It would make online community trouble shooting and question asking / answering more difficult, but that could be handled by what would amount to using the same library to translate posts to the users local language.

It just seems like a text based user interface will unfortunately already confound enough people that making the commands seem foreign to any one that does not know the original language of the commands is a barrier you would want to avoid creating for potential users.

Anyway I am sure I missed your point, or that there is a painfully simple way to handle allowing users to give commands which seem intuitive in their local language, and would like to learn what it is. That way if I encounter this problem in the future I can handle it in an appropriate manner rather than a manner similar to the one which I described.

When I made this post (and for a good time afterward), and I clicked 'parent' of your post it took me to the post with the person talking about the vitriol being appalling.

My response above was written assuming that the intended 'parent' post was the one being linked as the 'parent' at the time.

That post is no longer the parent of your comment, instead the parent is a post which your post actually works as a relatively legitimate reply to.

I am saying this as a way of acknowledging, all my further replies (some of which may have been made after the parent changed, without me noticing) are clearly deserving of down votes in the current context.

So by being aware of the actual vitriol that this person publicly received, which very much did include rape and death threats. I am wrong to think when that post mentions the vitriol being appalling, they are referring to the the rape and death threats which were said? Alright my bad, next time I will assume they mean that well mannered posts about the person's inability to manage a company, which also very much existed and probably in greater number, were in fact appalling.

Show me the other CONTENT in this post besides that rape and death threats are appalling.

Patrick_Devine 2 hours ago | parent | flag

As an occasional user of reddit, this whole ordeal has confirmed the reason why I prefer not to hang out in its forums. I have no idea whether Ellen was a capable CEO, but the vitriol which I kept seeing peripherally (through other news articles and here on HN) was absolutely appalling.

I have a riddle for you. If literally the only content of what someone says is "Rape is Bad" and a person disagrees.... Does the disagreeing person support rape?

>So now she got all those threats because she's a woman? What?

No one in this chain of comments said that; besides maybe the GP you are defending. I referred to her as a woman and said the type of hate was horrible. There was no causation there.

>You know the ....

No shit, whats your point how does that justify ANYONE getting death and rape threats for doing their job in a manner others consider badly? So what if some of the people threatening her were probably also female? Or was there a different equally horrible point?

>And it's pretty scummy how your comment implicates GP said she "deserved to receive those threats", when all he/she did was to point out Pao did an atrocious job and was an awful choice for CEO, and you'll never hear the board admit that.

I am sorry I didn't mean to implicate that. I meant to flat out say that is what the the GP was effectively doing.

That person decided to reply to a post of which the only content was saying that the internet acted poorly.(basically a truism), and they made a post that disagrees as a response, the only way that post furthers the conversation as a reply is with them supporting the very hate the original poster was talking about.

Look if a person does not want come across as supporting rape and death threats it is best not to disagree with posts which are only pointing out how horrible those type of threats are. It's a pretty basic idea. And if a person does want to support rape and death threats, they should just flat out say so, that way they can be removed as a user on whatever sites want to have actual conversations.

No one said give her a pass, it was simply said the 'vitriol was appalling.' That simply means that the denizens of the internet when taken as a collective are horrible people who can not voice criticism in a civil manner.

Assuming she was completely horrible and a terrible CEO... Assuming that! How could someone's lack of ability to do their job (or anything else for that matter) make the type of death and rape threats that this 'vitriol' was seen being expressed with less appalling?

You are falling into a common pit where you may think it was good she has been replaced, and you may be right, and gosh darn it you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But when you reply objecting to a comment that is basically just saying the type of hate a woman got on the internet was horrible, you become part of the problem by basically saying she deserved to receive those threats.

'Wiped out' to me implies more than a temporary difference between recent high and recent low which both probably existed for far too little time for you to be the first person to realize to sell at the peek and first person to buy at the bottom.

I guess I was thinking of a site that the of entirety (or nearly all of) the 10/101ths of Reddit users which make up the theoretical strong feelers would move to.

As in order to attract most of them a single site would need to both be able to handle the traffic and have a broad appeal across subjects. Maintaining such a site with that much headroom for users with only their current user base to generate ad revenue I assume is problematic and I would be surprised if any single site currently could handle a mass migration like that (except maybe Tumblr which I have my doubts would appeal to this portion of the Reddit population).

So while a mass exodus could take place people would likely scatter to different sites, which might not make any single other site 'it' enough to attract the remaining masses. Or the exodus takes place over time, which I consider the likely situation, having seen the effective death of many internet communities prior to the beast which is Reddit.

If they leave over time Reddit doesn't need to ask what it should do when the 10 leaves, it needs to ask what it should do when the 10 starts to leave.( my guess would be they need to get them to stop leaving, or get others to step up and take their place as people that feel strongly about the site in its then state, or buy the site they are leaving to).

SA and Fark were both pretty big internet communities back in the prime of Slashdot. In that I remember there were quite a few friendly (and less than friendly) rivalries going between the three.

And what site would they move to given the current options? Reddit might as well be the only game in town now a days pretty much.

Just because you are specializing does not mean there is not room for growth of your knowledge, it just may not be in programming manner.

Consider specialization in say Expert Systems, you get to learn immense amounts about each domain which you are developing expert systems for, but I can understand employers wanting you to have a firm base in expert systems before hiring for you such a job.

The same can be said for 3D graphics, real time simulation software, and most other types of programming you could specialize. Just because you know everything there is to know about making realistic vehicles with 3D graphics does not mean there isn't plenty for you to learn about making realistic 3D dinosaurs and the nuances necessary to make them look amazing. You may not always be given tasks that require you to learn and develop new skills, but if you actually care about challenging yourself and learning you can generally find a way to incorporate challenges and learning new things into your job. You just have to be willing to put in the initiative to avoid forcing problems to be solved with the solutions familiar to you, and put in initiative to try new things learning enough about them to be able to advocate for their use when necessary.

TLDR: Just because the job doesn't force you to learn and be challenged, doesn't mean someone who wants to can't learn and challenge themselves on the job.

I personally do not see a conflict with how I define guilt and how Webster defines it. And while not in perfect agreement with the Cambridge definition, I see them as similar.

I mean how can you be aware you have done something wrong or bad if you do see what could of been a better outcome? If everything you have to compare it to as possible outcomes is worse than what happened then you did nothing wrong or bad, you did the best that was possible.

I was never intending to say guilt does not exist just that it simply as Webster has defined and that choosing solutions which you later realize are sub-optimal are what Webster describes as something bad or wrong. I am not pretending it means anything other than what you have provided here as the definition. How can one recognize bad without good? These things are inherently relative as one can not exist without the other also existing.

>I didn't say there was an absolute definition of right and wrong. I said there are people who conceive of the world this way, and that's true; they are quite numerous.

How does one conceive of something which can not be defined? To me that seems like being able to visualize the concept of infinity. It can be defined in a relative sense, so I stand by my view that the relative sense is the only one that matters.

>By weakening to just the idea that certain actions in a definite fixed context could be correctly labeled "right" or "wrong", you pick up many, many more believers, practically the entire world.

I think you underestimate the cultural differences present in the world and the ability of anyone to actually define a fixed context which 'practically the entire world' will be able to relate to.

Any scenario you did manage to get 'practically the entire world' to agree on would be so vague and hypothetical as to be virtually meaningless. Like 'would you give everyone in the world cancer or ice cream', although the example I have provided itself is flawed I think most examples will have flaws. In my example if people have a violent enough allergy to ice cream they may in fact choose cancer as being "right".

This has been a rather long way about this but do you at least concede that we do indeed have different ideas of what a belief is and that only a small number of people if any would have beliefs which were consistent with both our definitions?

No, it is not. Regret does not require you to currently see a way for you to of made decisions which would of led to a more desirable outcome had you known (you may see them but it is not required). You can have regret over the passing of you cat, even though you know there was nothing you could of done to prevent it. Guilt is a regret but with you having the idea that it could of been prevented and a better outcome achieved had you done something differently.

Can they though? Or are people just too arrogant to admit that they can not define them in absolute terms, and if they can what could the definition of right be besides 'what is most beneficial among possible outcomes' and wrong be 'what is not most beneficial among possible outcomes'? That can not in my opinion be a definition of anything absolute as it varies based on the circumstances and individual values.

Feel free to propose an absolute version of right and wrong, to me it seems like an impossible task, but perhaps you could enlighten me. Until this last reply you had asked very good questions, showing that you welcome discourse on the subject, and I hope you can return to doing so rather than simply stating that I am wrong.

I can not perceive of right and wrong as absolute concepts. Only as concepts which exist when comparing one possible outcome relatively to others. People use some factors to inevitably choose between the choices they see available to them, they will choose what they perceive as having the outcome they desire given those decision trees that they construct. An outcome which they can not see a path to is not a choice, it effectively does not yet exist so they can not choose it.

Guilt to me is what people feel when they realize they made decisions with incorrect or incomplete information, and would of made them differently had they known. Even when the person had no way of knowing the correct or complete information at the time of decision making, in this edge case society has developed a term to attempt to remove guilt from the person by calling it an 'accident'. Often I find the source of guilt to be not looking very far ahead on the decision trees which I eliminate early on as not effecting me. (Guilt can also be simply an act, as demonstrating guilt often leads to fewer negative consequences in our society. Think of all the people convicted where not demonstrating remorse was used as a factor in sentencing or parole denial.)

Let me ask you, how does a person make a decision?

To me people use what they believe to be true to make that decision. To me all decisions demonstrate a persons actual beliefs, as why would they decide to do something if they did not honestly believe it would yield a desirable outcome. (that outcome does not have to be viewed as desirable to anyone but them, for instance suicide. Nor does it have to be the immediate outcome which is desirable, it could be part of a long con.)

>Consider the population of wives cheating on their husbands. Do you really believe that only an insignificant number of them think what they're doing is wrong?

Yes, I believe that all cheating spouses, people who commit crimes, and sociopaths have developed an internal belief structure which lets them justify actions that may come at a cost to themselves or others as being probable of a desirable outcome for them.

>First, you need to establish that we differ in our definitions.

Have I done so to your satisfaction? I thought it was common knowledge that people often echo views they do not actually adhere to so that they will appear to conform to societal norms, which represents the crux of my definition. Politicians frequently offer a very obvious example of such a tendency, but if you know anyone well enough you can see the inconsistencies in what they say and what they do. Their actions demonstrate how they actually make decisions and what they believe in my opinion, not what they say.

You will know which are which by being introspective about the decisions you have made in the past and are considering making currently, and try to understand what basis you are truly using for that decision, besides the surface 'Well this feels right' reason.

If you are female, thank you for your sample size of 1 as evidence of it being statistically more likely. If you are male thank you for your sample size equal to the number of women you have had children with of it being statistically more likely, with the the evidence being presumably that those women had less sex because you had less sex with them. And as you do not specify, must I assume that all women you are using in your samples were of the target demographic 'teenagers'. If not it is hardly representative of a demographic which is usually just discovering sex, probably being fairly secretive about it, and may represent different data than an older demographic. This makes it a very hard section of the population to represent with good data.