leohutson

The other option is to have the wholesaler owned by the govt, then the economic surplus can come off everyones tax bill.

Well this is pretty much how it works in NZ.

We had a state owned company, telecom, which was then privatised by a National govt., and then as a response to local loop unbundling regulations from Labour, it split itself into two companies, telecom (now spark) for retail and chorus for infrastructure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_New_Zealand#Industry_reg...

> I think, on the positive side, it'll make people reconsider that genetics and race affect intelligence

I’m wondering why people dig at this so much, what is the answer you are looking for? To me the reason it’s not “politically correct” is because it comes off like the answer you want is for whatever race you believe yourself to be, to be superior to other races in a fundamental way, which would justify subjugating them.

There’s seems to be quite a bit of research done around genetics and intelligence. But every definition of race I’ve seen is either an ill-defined regional genetic stereotype or a description of physical appearance.

Now if some genes are associated with high intelligence or happiness or conscientiousness or empathy, and you want to engineer your children to have those genes, that’s understandable, if an ethical minefield. It also has nothing to with race.

So basically a container or VM image. To be honest the python version seems like the smallest issue for reproducibility. I would be more worried about different floating point operations with respect to GPUs for instance.

Exactly, that's why "OK Google" isn't a thing.

The recruiter is not usually empowered to filter a qualified candidate because they "only" worked at Amazon though, especially not if they made a good impression at Amazon and come with a referral.

I don't think anyone with a final say cares what the recruiter says beyond here's a list of CVs, they usually aren't qualified to go much deeper, but if they are, they aren't ranking companies based on what juniors on programming forums think are trendy.

Do your parents work in the public sector by any chance?

How are you so certain?

I didn't interpret that way at all, read their other comments. Even if they are just trolling they clearly aren't healthy right now, because that's a pretty fucked joke.

I know people here as a rule aren't very empathetic, but the responses to this person are particularly cold.

What's the protocal for a commenter with suicidal ideation? I feel like many of the replies here are unhelpful, and you should do something about it.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with expecting some money and appreciation to follow genuine achievement, but focusing on those rewards to the detriment of actually making something cool is going to be pretty unfulfilling and unsustainable career-wise, doubly so if you are overt enough that your colleagues notice.

The person you replied to is considering suicide, and your only response is to ignore that and agree with the rationale that led them there?

No hiring manager looking at resumes is going to put any stock into whether it says Google, Amazon or FB, or what school you went to. They will care what you worked on. If you bring with you this completely unjustified view that your coworkers are worse, it will show, no one will want to work with you, and you aren't going to get to work on anything interesting.

Your attitude is extremely concerning, you have a lot to be proud of career wise already, and you seem unable completely unaware of that. You have a solid base to build on and you could end up anywhere in a few years.

Amazon didn't hire you because they have a lower bar than anywhere else, they hired you because someone was impressed by you and wants to give you a shot. Extend them the same courtesy at least.

I think you need to seek psychological counselling ASAP, but until then stay away from Reddit, HN etc, as far as I can see your perspective is completely warped by the dishonest way that people present their own professional image, usually because of their own insecurity. Consider why people come to HN to brag -- it's likely because they aren't getting praise anywhere else.

This is a completely irrational way to look at it.

The risk of a pedestrian fatality posed by a collision with a car travelling 30kmh is closer to the risk from a car going 5kmh than that of a car going 50kmh.

Look at the chart here:

http://www.victoriawalks.org.au/safe_speed/

The risk from speed is non-linear.

Risk the pedestrians in speed zone greater than 30kmh, because risk of fatal injury is far lower.

1) An auto going 30kmh is a great deal more dangerous to a pedestrian or cyclist than a cycle doing the same.

2) Cars pose a risk to cyclists, even if cars are going the same speed, which is a fictional scenario, as many motorists don't go the same speed as cyclists and instead overtake them dangerously ASAP.

3) The risk posed by cycles to pedestrians is far less than the danger posed by autos to cycles.

Well reflexively referring to the DEFINITION of a WORD is not an argument. When there are no dedicated cycleways, either pedestrians share with at least some cyclists or scooterists or you have children cycling on the road.

My guess is that this is a conspiracy being propagated by the extremists, and that's why it ended up in the file, but the description and source of the document was lost or redacted.

I think its just grating for grammar nazis, rather than a legal issue. It's like saying sheeps.

This already happens a lot, most VFX heavy productions will have digital doubles of the main cast, and they can be used for as simple a reason as reframing a shot.

Policies should take also into account individual preferences and freedom. Individual freedoms should only be taken away if there is evidence good evidence that they are causing significant harm to others at a group level or individual level. Mild inconvenience to others is not a significant enough problem to take away emotional support animals, because owners clearly value them highly.

What does that have to do with assignment of blame? I can say a book is crap, and makes it's readers dumb, without saying that I'm going to ban it.

I can say a social media site is bad and it's creators should feel bad, and that's just another kind of critique. The critique might shape the behaviours of those who read the critique, and are able to reflect on whether the social media site is worthy of their time.

Haven’t you just done the same thing to liberals?

Based on which values though? I don’t think they should go unstated, because if I don’t hold the same values then arguments holds no water with me.

A particularly annoying one is when people lie about their values or worse claim that their argument doesn’t stem from their values (are they embarrassed?), it’s purely “rational” and anyone who doesn’t agree is pc virtue-signalling cuck who is blind to reality.

I agree for the most, but it might be better to phrase it as this culture differs from my culture because my value X is incompatible with my value y. Because otherwise you are only making a one sided statement, I can’t assume to know what your values are.

Most political debates here for instance would be a lot shorter if people stated their cultural values upfront, rather than concealing them and arguing about something tangential.

How is that relevant to what was being discussed earlier in the thread? It was merely an example.

That you share some values with a historical culture is hardly important information, if you look hard enough you can probably find something you like in all cultures, historical and present day.

I can't respond to your other question, but the particular value we were discussing was this:

> For instance, by the standard of the general wellbeing of African Americans, it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s.

Shouldn't really be controversial, but America is going through a regression right now so who knows..

We'll perhaps there are some HN commenters that have those values, but I hope not!

But 1850's American culture is distasteful to me and also to sullyj3 as they say:

"it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s"

All those scales are valued differently by different cultures.

If I show a conservative American gun crime statistics that we agree on and we agree that are caused by American gun culture, I cannot tell them that American gun culture is inferior, because I just get back "Thats the price of freedom!"

Life expectancy, "It's not the years in your life but the life in your years!"

GDP is the most hilarious one, because it's not even per-capita. Assuming that its a high median per capita GDP: "That's materialistic! We're much happier than those greedy capitalists"

> For instance, by the standard of the general wellbeing of African Americans, it's manifestly obvious that modern American culture is superior to American culture of the 1850s.

But it might be hard to convince a 1850s white American to adopt that standard.

It's tautological to say that as by definition 1850s white Americans culture is extremely distasteful to a modern HN commenter.

Any culture that isn't similar your culture is by definition inferior when held to your cultural standards, so there is no reason to do so.

All you need to decide is if the other culture is similar enough to tolerate it.

You might say that multiculturalism is a cultural value in itself, and perhaps some might value multiculturalism more than the survival of their culture.

My view is that syncretic cultures are dominant because they are capable of absorbing other cultures and adapting to change, whereas rigid and intolerant cultures can only last as long as their particular moires are relevant.