gitremote

This study shows the opposite:

> In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.

> The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John.

https://gender.stanford.edu/news/why-does-john-get-stem-job-...

An LLM doesn't have any concept of math or statistics. There is no need to defend using a black box like generative AI in hiring decisions.

> you can with some certainty train an AI model to account for this bias and have it so that it is more fair than humans could ever be.

Not really, because AI is trained on the past decisions made by humans. It's best to strip the name from the resume.

This bias on who is the victim versus aggressor goes back before reddit. It's the stereotype that women are weak and men are strong.

The spinning wheel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_wheel), which creates yarn from threads, existed longer than cars. I doubt you would argue that boys would have a preference for playing with toy versions these wheeled tools, given that women in various Western and Eastern cultures were the main users of these tools.

> Working remotely means there's some higher bar for quickly bugging a colleague, since you have no idea if they're casually reading their emails or if they're in deep focus.

You've outed yourself as a young person here, because young people have this social fear of messaging senior engineers. Messaging at work doesn't need to be synchronous like in personal communication. Messaging at work matures into optional asynchronous communication for efficiency. See the No Hello (https://nohello.net) protocol.

There is actually a lower bar for quickly bugging a colleague over messaging than walking over to their desk. It's actually impolite to shoulder surf and skim your colleague's email inbox to determine if what they're doing is important. For senior and above levels, reading emails can be more urgent than having an IDE open. There can be production issues, environment issues, vendor tickets, and emails from senior management that are communicated over email. Or they can be submitting an HR form that has their personal details.

Before 2020, software developers in open office environments naturally gravitated to messaging over talking in person, because having no office or cubicle walls means if you're talking out loud at someone's desk, you're bothering others sitting nearby. Sometimes this happens anyway, and it can be hard for some people to read code or emails while listening to colleagues talking right next to them.

> There are other, tangential, reasons to prefer remote work over in-person, but I don't think there's any reason why remote work would be better at educating novices.

There is minor degradation in educating novices, like maybe it's 2% to 5% worse, but in open office work environments, the majority of communication is messaging and emails anyway due to lack of privacy and sound-proofing. Screensharing is easier to see than huddling at someone's desk, and quieter for your colleagues next to you who wouldn't hear all sides of the conversation when you're using headphones.

> Working remotely means there's some higher bar for quickly bugging a colleague, since you have no idea if they're casually reading their emails or if they're in deep focus.

Odd. Even when working in office, I messaged colleagues, because it is less disruptive than walking up to their desk to interrupt them. They can manage when they are available to respond, asynchronously or synchronously. You need to follow the No Hello (https://nohello.net) protocol, though.

> This explains the difficulty of training new employees when all your experts are working remotely, as remote work practically eliminates any sort of casual unguided “water-cooler” interaction.

In software development remote work, the novice can learn from the expert by screen sharing how they're working on a problem, sometimes called a working session. The expert can point out more efficient ways of working, like installing a tool, or whether they are using the wrong approach altogether.

Cars were invented in the early 1900s and the vast majority of human existence was in a world without cars. There cannot be an innate preference for cars, which were a very recent invention.

> With so many graduates looking for a job why don't they bang together and do something. If not for money then just to show off their skills, something to put in the resume.

Young people are already doing that, but a lot of what they produce is what you expect from people who have no prior experience in designing and testing software for production environments.

No. The paragraph as a whole refers to the "outputs" of vast troves of copyrighted work.

Disk size is irrelevant. If you lossy-compress a copyrighted bitmap image to small JPEG image and then sell the JPEG image, it's still copyright infringement.

The judgement was about model inference, not training.

They never said model training is a violation of copyright. The ruling says model training on copyrighted material for analysis and research is NOT copyright infringement, but the commercial use of the resulting model is:

"When a model is deployed for purposes such as analysis or research… the outputs are unlikely to substitute for expressive works used in training. But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries."

"Q: Is it true that under the SAVE Act married women will not be able to register to vote if their married name doesn’t match their birth certificate?

A: The proposed SAVE Act instructs states to establish a process for people whose legal name doesn’t match their birth certificate to provide additional documents. But voting rights advocates say that married women and others who have changed their names may face difficulty when registering because of the ambiguity in the bill over what documents may be accepted."

https://www.factcheck.org/2025/02/will-save-act-prevent-marr...

Oppose government actions that restrict free speech and free press. Do not assume that free elections are an independent variable that don't depend free speech and a free press.

In April 2025, Trump called for investigations into pollsters who determined that Trump has a low approval rate, calling the pollsters "criminals".[1] If Trump criminalizes publishing data that shows disapproval for his party, then there would be no public data that works as a checksum to detect rigged election results.

1. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-me...

DEI is not illegal. Some implementations can be illegal (racial quotas), but other implementations are not (setting up a job fair booth in historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) instead of only Ivy League universities; not preferring Ivy League dropouts over HBCU graduates).

> That said, the previous failing effort also unearthed a ton of unspoken assumptions that I was able to leverage. Without providing those assumptions to the AI, I couldn't have produced the app they wanted. Extracting that information was like extracting teeth so I'm not sure if we would have really had a better situation if we started off with everyone having an OpenAPI Pro account.

The hardest part about enterprise backend development is understanding the requirements. "Understanding" is not about reading comprehension, and "requirements" are not the written requirements somebody gives you. It's about finding out what requirements are undocumented and which parts of the requirements document is misinformation. LLMs would just dutifully try to implement the written requirements with misinformation and missing edge cases, not the actual requirements.

"We kill people based on metadata."

- Ex-NSA chief Michael Hayden

Metadata is data. In a large corporation, metadata can also reveal projects under NDA that only a select few employees are supposed to know about about.

Absolutely. That's why people can be perfectly fluent in a programming language and a high performer at work, but fail an interview algorithms/leetcode problem in that language, as algorithms are math problems that programmers almost never see at work.

The recruiter labels an algorithm problem as a "coding" test, but it's a math test, and concludes that most applicants who claim to be fluent in a programming language can't code and must have lied on their resume.

For context, I don't mind algorithm tests, but I strongly disagree with recruiters presenting it as a coding assessment.

Can you give an example of an Australian actor who plays an American character in a Hollywood movie using their native accent?

Yes, because Australian and British actors often must fake US American accents perfectly to get roles in Hollywood. Margot Robbie, Tom Holland, etc.

Non-Western English speakers might be unaware of the difference between US English and general Western English, due to the dominance of US English in Western English.

For anyone who didn't get this reference:

'In fact, there's an old saying about Mussolini that goes something like this: "Mussolini made the trains run on time." In other words, even dictators have their good points. Sure, fascism is an often brutal model of efficient government, full of poverty and corruption, but hey, at least the trains were newly punctual.

https://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/did-mussol...

The fact check goes on to explain:

"Italy's railway had entered into a state of disrepair after World War I, but after the war ended, there had been a number of measures implemented to boost efficiency. Mussolini, of course, liked to say he was responsible for those improvements. However, those changes actually took place before he assumed power, so technically, he couldn't really take credit (although that didn't stop him). More to the point, the trains didn't always run on time, either."

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is just as colonialist as the US invasion of Iraq.

The media in liberal democracies reflect the diversity of their people more than state media in a fascist dictatorship that jails dissenters, critics, and oppresses ethnic and/or gender and sexual minorities. Human rights, free speech, and a free press are the bare minimum before you tackle other problems like affinity bias in hiring.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy and propaganda tactic called whataboutism.* If people genuinely care about diversity and challenging bias, they wouldn't uncritically view an unelected president (or an elected president chosen in a country without free elections) as the spokesperson for their ethnic group.

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

State media in fascist dictatorships don't reflect the diversity of their people. It is untrue that humans of any nationality have free speech and a free press as a check against their government's actions. It is untrue that any country's government is legally obligated to transparency that is required in a democracy.

When people say that Russian and Chinese state media are propaganda, it is not always because they are racists. Many people say this because they make a distinction between a government and the people, and understand the difference democracy makes.

It's great that you're trying to emphasize with people in other countries. Empathize deeper and think through how it must be like to live in such a political environment to their full conclusions.

Most solutions to business problems are proprietary, not open source.

Tax rules depend on an interaction between national and local laws that can change from year to year based on the ruling government. You can't just take tax rules from ancient Rome to generate 2024 tax software for Quebec, Canada.

On top of that, they lack the streets smarts that people living in high population density areas (that is, cities) develop for seeing through scammers and conmen. City people can tell that other city people are untrustworthy when they are hypocrites or caught in a lie. Rural folk seem to just distrust city folk vibes, and get tricked by lying, hypocritical politicians who use classic door-to-door salesman tactics like wearing a suit, appearing rich, and speaking confidently.

Edit: Street smarts isn't just about dealing with people on the streets. It's also recognizing which of your office coworkers in a competitive work environment are lying or misleading others to personally benefit via performance reviews and promotions. You contrast this with meeting other city people with tattoos, piercings, dark skin, or bending gender, and you figure out that red flags have nothing to do with superficial appearance.

That's the "urban" part.