jabot

On an unrelated note: why are you no longer on keybase? Are there any problems with the service?

Maybe that's because the website already has a serialized state - the HTML?

That's about 3cm. Pretty close ;-)

Simple, just enter insert mode

to quote the letter:

There are two ways to mitigate this attack

- Don't use HTML mails. Or if you really need to read them use a proper MIME parser and disallow any access to external links.

- Use authenticated encryption.

So the author makes some good points, but i have a hard time taking him seriously:

1) He writes a long blog post about problems that men have, specifically, and how there is unfair treatment between sexes.

2) He also writes explicitly that bodily autonomy of women is so important to him, it might as well be called holy.

3) He has had his son circumcised.

Any two out of these three positions i could understand. All three together are... hard to rationalize.

That is true for china, iran and saudi arabia as well...

You can install it on any kind of hardware that runs debian.

They even have some links to suggested computers: https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/QuestionsAndAnswers#HARDW...

freedombox is actually based on debian - so they select some packages and configure them to work nicely together, and add a nice web configuration page.

Still a lot of work, but not as much as creating your own distro from scratch.

> I really don't believe I'm any kind of expert in negotiation.

That means that transparency works _for_ you, not against you.

> Society needs both nurses and engineers.

Yes. And if more people want to become engineers, and if becoming an engineer is easier, then engineers will end up getting less money than nurses.

I mean... the more fun a job is, the more people will want to do it despite getting little money, right?

> In addition, women are usually the primary caregiver and disproportionately spend more time doing domestic labour (raising children, taking care of the home) which they are not compensated financially for.

I recall reading some statistics that (in germany) 80% of domestic spending is done by women. Seems about right.

> Women should be paid more for fewer hours in the workplace.

Uh. That's outright discrimination there. Either against men or against childless people.

The "drop" is not a statement terminator or separator.

There is a stack. You push values on the stack, then you call a function. The function takes its arguments off the stack, and pushes the return value(s) on the stack.

If you do not need the return value (which seems to be the case in your example) you ignore it by just removing it from the stack.

That's what the drop is for.

Firefox reader mode. I activated it after 15 seconds...

Yes i get that. Even so, the request is pretty... weird.

"Second, I want to see a VHLL defined by an XML DTD. Doing this will allow me to put as much information into my program source as my niece can put into the email messages she composes using Netscape."

... is he trolling?

... and they are about as good a substitute as tofu is for real meat.

To be fair, the original article does not contain the word "unit" - it just talks about tests, which is arguably more general.

In my personal opinion, tests that are "non-unit" tests are still useful - testing the validity and correct functioning of larger pieces of software is a good thing, even if it does not run fast, or if the broken code is not immediately obvious.

I presume that a big part of these 40% are single or single-parent households.

I'd wager (a little) that if you only consider (heterosexual) couples, then you will have mostly men making more money...

Not saying that that's good or bad...

Well, _if_ you need that feature, you can wrap the trait into another trait that allows a write to the pin, but discards it.

However, by default, nonsensical operations should not be possible.

They do that in a prior post:

http://pramode.in/2018/01/31/ti-launchpad-with-rust-new-io/

The state of the pin is encoded in the type of the variable that is used to access the pin.

This kind of encoding prevents you from making the programming error of writing to an input pin - which is technically possible, just useless.

Yes, but hardware is easier to replace...

> Garbage disposal is not what people usually call a cognitively demanding field. The gender imbalance is still worse than CS.

Well, it's more physically demanding, isn't it?

But your point is that there are areas where society screws men over, and that nobody cares, right?

So... Why do you raise that point when the topic is how society screws women over?

Wouldn't it be better to improve society? In both places?

> Wages or positions in companies are fundamentally different to medicine. We can decide how our companies look like. We can't decide how our body works.

Well, for the most part, our power over our workplaces is also rather limited. True, you can leave, and go to a "different" company...

> It's fine if you disagree with that, but I will have a hard time continuing the discussion. In hindsight this assumption although already implies that properties must be "statistically independent". Thanks for pointing that out I think I've learned something.

I... think that statistical independence of human properties is a valid basic assumption.

However i think that it is worthwhile to question that assumption from time to time. Especially when, as mentioned in the article, more free societies like sweden or finland have more unequal outcomes than societies like iran (which iirc instituted a male quota for some STEM fields a few years ago).

This is a difficult topic...

Ok, I see your point now.

And I think you are right. CS is not that special imho, and the gender imbalance should be more similar to e.g. maths.

> The term for an argument gerrymandered around the data to the degree "CS participation disparity is innate" is is special pleading.

I'm curious, though... Do you have any kind of research that would back your point up? Anything that would refute this "special pleading"?

I mean... I think you are right, but then again I (and you?) are CS experts and not experts at chemical engineering. Could it be that we underestimate the difficulties in CS, and overestimate these in chemical engineering?

> Plus, from a probabilistic point of view, wouldn't equal chances mean that for large numbers of trials (people) the outcome would also be equal?

Only if human properties are statistically independent.

If they are not, then a policy that depends on equality of outcome will screw someone over.

This has happened before, e.g. in medicinal research. Turns out, generalizing to the general population from a medicinal trial that consists only of men results in worse treatment for women.

It seems to me that you argue from a POV that basic human properties are statistically independent. Now... Why do you think that is so?

I was with you until you wrote:

> But that has nothing to do with why Google has so few women engineers.

Uh. What?

As far as I can tell, it has _everything_ to do with that. These two things are so closely related i cannot fathom how you can make such a statement...

Also... You make the same point twice. To paraphrase you:

a) "academic CS is less intellectually rigorous and less hard to succeed in than chem/etc -- but there are less women in it"

b) "work as google is simply not that hard, just wiring form fields to databases -- but there are less women in it"

For both a) and b) you then point out that they are problematic and that we cannot explain them (and, for the record, I agree with you on both counts) - but they are still unrelated?

EDIT: To reiterate: I think you are right in that the gender imbalance is a problem and is hard to explain. It's just this disconnect that i don't get here...

You are right with your juxtaposition of belief and truth.

Two minor points:

1) What is truth? How do you know whether something is true? By perceiving it? Is your perception not influenced by belief?

I'm not saying that we cannot know truth, ever. But we have to keep in mind we might be wrong, too...

2) Believing in something might _make_ it become true. Or, to put it differently: Belief may lead to actions which change reality - essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That was not the point I was trying to make, sorry.

GP said:

>> People can hold beliefs because they have certain consequences.

> Nearly all beliefs are of this type. I believe the Earth orbits the Sun because it's helps me predict the seasons.

I think there are a lot of beliefs that are held not because they have beneficial consequences, but for other reasons.

Religion as a belief is held by most people because they have been brought up with it. (converts nonwithstanding)

Scientific theories are believed (i.e. held true, used for explanations of reality) because they predict stuff that actually happens and can not be falsified.

Both of these are not believed primarily because their belief has actual consequences IMHO.

Good point.

EDIT: I think what you're doing here is criticising A by constructing A' and arguing that it is better (by having the same consequences while being less general). That is a good way of criticising the generalization as well.