newsgourmet

"Authoritative collectivist monocultures are doing great with this pandemic"

They are great at controlling the flow of information.

Is "The Dip" a worthwhile read?

I wonder what YCombinator thinks about career aptitude tests. Could the YC interview be replaced by such a test? I suspect the answer is no.

Have you been working on any side projects? If you can finish and launch a software project, then you are OK. The consensus seems to be that interviews are bad at identifying capable people.

I think JK Rowling's Harry Potter books were rejected by 10 publishers, so fuck other people's judgement.

Unless it becomes illegal to post "false information", and the fact checkers get to decide what is false and what is not.

The other day I was looking around in my living room and every family member was staring at a screen.

You just need a VR headset for everybody...

I think you have it backwards. The risk of the individual surgeries is not increased. Only the risk that a surgeon will be confronted with an above average critical surgery is increased.

It is not even clear that there actually is a problem. It's just a weird way to slice the data to produce an effect.

What if they made the same rules about news outlets, would people also cheer them on?

In Germany Facebook has already given power to "trusted fact checkers" who happen to be extremely left leaning. None of this is a good thing.

Facebook is an example of the type of big company you were talking about.

Presumably by installing Linux?

I stopped playing Ultima Online (same led designer as Knights of the old Repbulic iirc) when I did the math and realized to become Master Alchemist, I would have to mix 3000 potions, always with the same repetitive clicks.

"since covid19 causes some deaths that would not have happened historically"

That would not be a given assumption (under your scenario of zero excess deaths). Old people who would otherwise have died from another reason could die from Covid19 instead.

Or imagine testing everybody for the common cold, and if somebody dies with the common cold virus, they would be counted as a "common cold death". Then you would see a lot of deaths "from the common cold", without any actual change in death rates.

So what is your knowledge of Epidemiology? Are you an working in the field? Or do you just believe that science happens to agree with your view?

There is actually no clear cut scientific story about Sars-Cov-2 yet. That is part of the scare.

I also don't think your logic is sound - influenca used to spread rapidly through populations in all previous years, despite of previous immunological exposure as you describe. There is no reason to assume it would spread less rapidly this year because of "previous immunological exposure".

The effectiveness of masks and social distancing also does not depend on previous immunological exposure.

So 10% is the magic number? Men falling behind in academia doesn't count yet? Once there are more than 10% women in IT and startups, we can officially stop the diversity movement?

Sun and now Oracle's business was to lend out consultants, so they benefit from a complex enterprise architecture.

Aren't we also eating lots of other things that are non-digestible (for example, tiny spores from algae in the water)? Maybe our bodies can handle the plastic, after all.

Another simple example of indigestible things that could be in our food are stones and dirt.

Wasn't the story of the Nobel with Meitner, that they took her off the list to protect her from Nazis?

In any case, she was given the highest possible honor by having an element named after herself, Meitnerium. It's absurd that she keeps appearing on those lists of allegedly overlooked female scientists.

Sure, she may have had to fight for recognition, but that is not unique to female scientists. Einstein had to work in a patent office, for example.

Similar with the story of Bell - not sure what exactly happened, but in any case she is not the only scientists who didn't get credit for her work. It happens to men on a regular basis, too. The assumption that it happened because of her gender may simply be wrong. (Edit: in the meantime she received 2.3M GBP via the "Special Breakthrough Price in Physics" https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/journeysofdiscovery-pulsars - as for the Nobel, they are a private organization, and it may be difficult to judge for outsiders what is the elementary work in a discovery. Maybe the people who designed the telescope are more deserving than the person who manned it, or whatever).

Sadly, there are few sources discussing why women were excluded from academia in former times. I suspect part of it was the church, another economic reasons as women had a high risk of dying from childbirth, making their education a risky investment. Even today, women work less on average over their lifetime compared to men, so investing in their education has lower returns.

For those reasons, I think it is likely they have better odds with VC investors, too. It just depends on what data you pick to make a story.

What if non-sexist gender differences make it harder for them to succeed, like the higher likelihood to drop out to have children, and overall less pressure to succeed?

I don't immediately trust such studies, which are created with ideological bias. Afaik even the famous "blind orchestra auditions" study has been debunked by now.

Most VC capital comparisons like that neglect that women tend to do startups in other industries than men. At least the one from the HN submission here tries to correct for that.

Theranos has shown that women can raise a lot of capital.

Edit: from the first link "VCs who are scouting for extreme outperformers may be underwhelmed by women’s more measured pitching style." - this could be a huge part of it, if women tend to do less ambitious startups. For example. The basic assumption that men and women do the same startups and the only difference is their gender is probably wrong.

Edit: the second article argues with the usual "only x% of vc partners are women" and neglects to mention that far less women try to do startups.

I'd scrutinize the study more before jumping to conclusions. for starters, there may be few actual women affected by it, as few female founders tackle "male dominated industries".

Another thing that stuck out to me immediately was the "venture quality" metric - apparently an evaluation by the Tech Crunch Disrupt competition? It seems possible that women got elevated scores there (as for example girls are known to get elevated grades in school), as no money is at stake for the judges, but the elevation bonus goes away once real investor money is at stake.

Other factors might play into it, too (just as with the gender pay gap, which is not at all what it seems), but it takes more time to parse the paper.

In any case, the suggestion to use the results to beat other investors by specializing in women seems sound. If you believe the study, why wouldn't you?

At the very least, an official degree. You can legally call yourself MSc or whatever degree you went for.

Afaik reports found families with clear division of labor to be more happy. Of course that doesn't mean people should be forced to do it that way. It's just a data point.

For various reasons, many families don't even have the choice anymore. They need both parents to work fulltime to make ends meet.

Unfortunately that translates to "poor people shouldn't have children", which is not a politically correct demand to make.

They haven't gotten the short end of the stick. They have higher life expectancy, and get to spend more time with their children. The reason for that is that they have the better bargaining position when it comes to the division of labor, because they have the wombs. Basically men have to offer to provide for them in exchange for women bearing their children. Some other aspects of physiognomy, too, like body strength - basically nature decided some of the division of labor for us long before humans gave it a conscious thought. Like it would have made little sense to send the women out to defend their village against neighboring tribes, while the men stayed at home to nurse the children.

The one place where they historically had the shorter end of the stick is the high risk of dying in childbirth. Things have improved much with regard to that, though.

"where the women do all this crappy work."

Cooking is not "crappy work". Risking your life in coal mines, fixing broken pipes of shit, garbage disposal, being shot to death in useless wars, those things are crappy work (although apparently many miners like their jobs).

You can perhaps argue about having a choice, but even that works both ways. Men rarely have the choice to stay at home to do the crappy work, rather than risk their lives in the outside world. But that is for another discussion. I just wanted to point out your obvious misguided bias about cooking here.

It doesn't seem impossible to stay living close together and still give people more options. Most freedoms were won by the invention of the washing machine and other modern appliances, making household chores less time consuming.