396 karma · joined June 19, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A15#Systems_on_a_chi...
For those interested, I wrote a similar maze generation tool in Python which includes implementations of Kruskal's algorithm, Prim's algorithm, and recursive backtracking, and can output similar images. https://github.com/jpwright/maze.py
Hate to nitpick, but let's not forget about the awesome women engineers and designers out there, including at Oculus.
Also worth noting, the head of OCP left Facebook today. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2111680/open-compute-project-...
This is a noble goal and I'm glad that YC wants to invest in these sort of companies, but they need to do a lot more work to convince startups of this sort that the value proposition makes sense for them.
For people working with 5V circuits (e.g. Arduinos), you don't need to worry about AC power killing you or your multimeter exploding. A cheap multimeter is OK in a pinch.
It seems like every time this sort of issue comes up, a large number of men both (a) take it as a personal attack, and (b) decide that the best way to handle this attack is to counter-attack someone's character with random accusations (like that they weren't a good enough engineer to talk about harassment in the workplace).
Really, really shameful to see it unfold every time.
I'll bite my tongue here for what I really want to say, but dear god was this an extremely ignorant and offensive thing to say.
That's not what I said, and your logic is also a poor example of syllogistic reasoning, which just refers to deducing a conclusion from two premises and is not fallacious by nature. I'm criticizing the part where you assume an indicator of progress (more women in CS courses) is unimportant or negative because of structural problems elsewhere. This is a defeatist attitude that's used over and over again to shut down social progress (we shouldn't help advance the careers of women in CS because there's sexism elsewhere!). Note that I am criticizing the logic of your post and not claiming that your singular comment has affected anyone anywhere.
...about gender diversity. Is it useful in general? Sure. Will it help you understand an algorithm's efficiency? Probably not.
So? That's not the issue at stake (although there is plenty of evidence that gender-diverse workplaces are more effective[1]).
There's a lot of different kinds of diversity we could be pushing for, like political, religious, economic, cultural, and racial diversity, but nobody's pushing for them.
People are absolutely pushing for those things as well[2,3]. I have not heard much about political or religious discrimination in the tech world. I would be curious to see any evidence on the extent of those problems.
I suspect it's less that tech workers are inherently more sensitive to the needs of women, and more likely that lonely male nerds want women to gawk at in the workplace. This could be why none of them are actually discussing the issues that cause inequality and seemingly just want to get them to work in nearby cubicles. But that might be a big leap.
That is a mightily limited assumption (which also seems to imply that none of the people fighting for gender diversity in tech companies are women!) that I strongly disagree with. Think about how the current situation came about -- male-dominated cultures emerged at tech companies because the employees were almost all men. A workforce with a more balanced gender ratio would help bring about a more welcoming and equal culture, but since the culture discourages women from joining in the first place, it's necessary to have proactive measures to improve the balance. There are other factors in play, but it's really not too much more complicated than that.
So pushing women into more tech jobs without working on the more important issues (inequality) just subjects them to more abuse, for example the misogynist kind.
This, to me, epitomizes what I find so very wrong with your attitude, which screams "keep women out for their own good, because we're too hopelessly misogynistic to create a good culture for them." Punishing women by keeping them out of tech companies isn't a recompense for misogyny, it is an expression of misogyny. Tech companies ought to actively change their cultures by recruiting and hiring more women, not give up and use their own sexism as an excuse for keeping women away.
[1] http://www.mckinsey.de/sites/mck_files/files/Women_Matter_1_...
[2] http://pando.com/2014/02/21/marc-roth-hacked-his-way-out-of-...
P.S., gender balance is "nice" for reasons that don't involve you as well. Really more about equal opportunity for women in this case, who face constant discrimination in CS, among many other fields.
I'm sure it's very easy to say that gender inequality in the workplace doesn't matter at all when you are not the one affected by it.
see: http://www.aikenstandard.com/article/20130125/aik0101/130129...
http://www.millerwelds.com/resources/articles/rosie-the-weld...
http://awo.aws.org/2013/12/women-in-welding-meet-karen-gilge...
http://www.advanced.edu/blog/more-women-entering-the-welding...
This is a classic example of "moving the goalposts". By claiming that incremental progress doesn't matter (or is somehow detrimental[1]) because of sexism elsewhere, you inhibit progress everywhere. By relying on strawman arguments and a false comparison to the election of Barack Obama, you implicitly frame any incremental achievement for women in CS as a failure.
[1] Referring to your, frankly, bizarre comment about a misogynist saying "you can have a computer in the kitchen". No idea what this is supposed to imply, or who exactly is saying it.
> ...the language in the subpoena reads much like the state’s computer fraud act, which carries some stiff penalties. Last year, New Jersey alleged that E-Sports Entertainment (ESEA) hijacked their [subscribers'] computing power to mine Bitcoins... the state believes Tidbit may similarly violate consumers’ rights.
According to the EFF:
> the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs issued a subpoena to Rubin, requesting he turn over Tidbit's past and current source code, as well as other documents and agreements with any third parties. It also issued 27 interrogatories -- formal written questions -- requesting additional documents and ordering Rubin to turn over information like the names and identities of all Bitcoin wallet addresses associated with Tidbit, a list of all websites running Tidbit's code and the name of anybody whose computer mined for Bitcoins through the use of Tidbit, although Tidbit's code was not configured to mine for Bitcoins.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/eff-challenges-new-jer...
Well, at one level the NFL mysteriously making $4B despite doing mostly organizational/marketing/legal work would seem to support the argument that the teams/games are the product. The NFL makes that money from giant TV contracts, licensing deals, and merchandise that are only popular because the sport is popular. The revenue distribution is somewhat unique -- and granted, opaque -- but not necessarily a tax-avoidance scheme. One relevant example is the MLB giving up its tax-exempt status in 2007, which had no impact on its annual taxes.
> At the lower level, the Teams are structured to run on nearly zero profits. This is why they can-not "afford" to build stadiums of pay taxes etc. This of course is also a highly-structure tax-avoidance setup, where inflated costs ("sweetheart" deals) are made with affiliate entities, which shelters the teams from paying taxes. The locations and corporate business structures of the "related entities" are likewise set up to be both opaque and tax-optimized in legal structure and jurisdicion.
If you don't consider the money they receive from the NFL, then each team runs at a huge loss. Of course, they have gigantic payrolls to their athletes and operating expenses for a stadium (this does vary by team, although the NY Jets & NY Giants funded the construction of MetLife stadium using zero public funding, for example). If you take into account the NFL's revenue distribution, then most teams make millions each year[1]. I am not sure what other tax-avoidance setups you're referring to and would be curious to read about that. Optimizing your business structure to minimize taxes doesn't seem particularly criminal.
> There is no "true sale" of the NFL non-profit's product; they take no risk in holding inventory. Their main purpose is to shield the teams from 2 things: (1) anti-trust; and (2) tax. To wit: a tax-exempt monopoly that makes no profits? Something should immediately trigger your sense of the non-obvious being present.
Of course they take risk. It's not particularly likely the NFL would go out of business anytime soon, but every investment they make carries risk. I think the one questionable aspect of the NFL's setup is that each team writes off its NFL membership dues (~$6m/year) as a business expenditure while the NFL's operating expenses (Goodell's salary, marketing, etc) are untaxed.
It also wouldn't matter very much whether the teams or the NFL itself organized the game (and part of the reason for the existence of the non-profit umbrella organization is to overcome the logistical nightmare of coordinating 32 separate entities). A condition for every Super Bowl in the past few years has been some form of sales tax relief for NFL activity. For example, New Jersey gave about $8 million in tax breaks for the game this year: http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2014/02/nj_gave_nfl_8...
I also don't think it's fair to say the NFL runs the product. The teams (and the games between the teams) are the product. The NFL's tasks are: (1) Decide on a consistent set of rules, fines, etc. (2) Train and provide impartial referees. (3) Organize the Super Bowl/Pro Bowl/Draft. (4) Provide marketing/merchandise/legal stuff for the NFL in general.
Everything else (including organizing the 266 other games, the hundreds of employees for each team, and operating the stadiums) are up to the teams themselves. A "cloud services association" doesn't sound too ridiculous to me, but I don't think there's a proper analogy in the tech industry (and U.S. law recognizes this by providing some specific rules for professional sports leagues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Sco...)