occultist_throw

Reading further in, it was a screw-up on the paper envelope that had too big of a window and referred to HIV treatment connected to the person's name. This is really bad, but it was 12k localized instances of crummy physical mailing.

Its pretty bad, but it's not like this was "300k people leaked by hackers for ransom".

You want evil? I can give you evil.

ASM.js or similar like Webassembly. Use it, create a polymorphic VM in the browser that forces a user to compute the ads in order to get content.

Now, trap the content in each VM (and no, not as a downloaded plaintext). This will be an encoded bytestream, that the easiest way to decode will be through the browser VM, and displaying ads along the way.

That's evil, and I would highly assume it works.

that may be true. But in light of the no true scotsman argument, perhaps we should re-evaluate whom calls themselves nazis.

I'd be perfectly fine banning whom calls themselves nazis.

perhaps I'd be bad about running the 'pipes' of the internet.... oh wait. I do.

They already do, with TOR.

They can die in a gutter, for all I care. They made their line, with the political dissenters, the quiet, and the the hidden. But you know, blame the "bad people" and the "abusers".

Indeed.

Any service online, where you do not explicitly pay money for goods/services rendered, you can rest assured that you are paying with data or influence (advertisement).

HN is no different. They control the news, and how the news is displayed. They run the YCombinator venture capital fund. You do not pay them, but they control influence (advertising). I would expect different if I paid YC for news access... But I dont.

well, the easiest way to refute is to call him racist, sexist, and ageist, all the while beating the "FIRE HIM NOW" drum.

it works rather effectively.

(seriously, the dh0 "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!!!" is a terrifying force, when seen and used as in a group or mob.)

Well... interesting.

According to the PDF(0), it states on page 6, footnote 6

...Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done)....

The smoking gun here is "which is illegal and I’ve seen it done"... Well, shit. That seems to answer your question, "YES".

However... On James Damore's official website(1), it states the following from the same quote area.

...or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal).....

Which is illegal. No more claim of being a witness. How interesting. That would not validate your claim/question.

(0) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

(1) https://firedfortruth.com/

How interesting. If I read between the lines, it would make fiscal sense to be ruthless and Cutthroat early on. Then after guaranteeing some certainty of income, sell the business to a nice player.

That way, you could get the best of both worlds being a bad actor in the prisoner's dilemma and being a tit-for-tat member. They only hope would be is that nobody finds out this grift.

That's very true. That's why I provide generic usernames and everything. Because how the current providers offer service is as through a debt system. You rack up the $$$, and they tell you after the fact.

I would greatly prefer to pay up front, and have services take my credit. That way, I could control my costs directly and concisely. No surprise billing. DOS'es get stopped by no more funds- they aren't the infinite money piggybank they are now with debt.

I also understand why some clients would want a debt based system where they can expand and contract their costs. I'm cool with that, as long as you know what you're signing up for. The person in this article didn't, and surprise billing is majorly at fault here.

My solution would stem this "You owes us $20,000 by end of month", to "Your credit is exhausted after 10 minutes. Something seems wrong with this account cwhen compared to history."

They didn't a year and a half ago. Created a 3k bill for my employer over RemoteApp. Yeah, charge per user, they said. Oh yeah, min 20 users, and we round up - of course in small print at the time.

Unless I have hard guarantees, I give "cloud providers" re-loadable cards. Can't take more money than what's on there.

> Never use a pay-per-use service that does not include a reasonable "turn off after $X" feature and appropriate warnings.

None of the "Cloud providers" offer that. They "claim" that it could impact service - yeah, service of debt that you owe them.

Like I said, I'm not ascribing any sort of nefarious or dastardly actions by you. It's more of a gut reaction of the idea of "Cloud everything".

I'd be much more interested in running my own backend, than frontend db. Yeah, I'm a control freak, I guess. But at least my data stays mine.

I first thought it was neat. Personal library, like how Streama is a personal Netflix. Then I saw it's another service owned and controlled by someone else.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know you, and im not going to assume bad behavior. But this is a treasure trove of data, and you cannot guarantee that if acquired, another party wouldn't exploit it. If it were local or on a machine I controlled, then I could guarantee data security and privacy.

Enough of my life is on the "cloud" controlled by interests that are different, and sometimes oppositional to mine.

Thank you, but no.

Actually, due to transparency, I would want the ability to drill that deep into the financials of the county, state, and country I live in. Even if it is a net positive offset by an exact equal negative.

The problem is when government is opaque, we get things like "Govt services are horrible, blablabla". Whereas if funding wasn't in omnibus bills and covered up, we could see "Yes, their performance is low cause they are understaffed and working on a shoestring budget. They couldn't even afford office supplies."

I mean seriously, we value provenance in software with tools like Git. Why not Government and expenditure calculations? I certainly see a value there, regardless the party.

Uh, huh. "Charity". AKA corporate tax writeoff.

Nope, parent poster said explicitly "Money from auction goes in pool and split between everyone who doesnt park."

I'd like to see the same kind of idea with moving violations. It's wronging the communities they're cited in; it should go back to us, directly. Not to some enforcement arm that buys MRAPS and shit.

Read footnote 6. That to me, is a pretty smoking gun of a comment.

"6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs"

....discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done)....

Wonder if he has proof?

I attributed it to Googlers that had accounts here, and were running a flag-campaign to keep these articles off of HN.

perhaps some of the mods could chime in as to whom was doing the bulk of the flags.

Reasoning: its a political hot-potato, with their DoL lawsuit accused of paying women substantially less for the same job. Last thing they needed was more 300+ HN posts every day for a week. Rage-media has mostly moved on to N Korea, or whatever other special cringe-worthy topic.

That also depends on how many submitted talks.

It would be a farce and ridiculous if 100 talks were submitted, and 99 of them were <gasp> males, and then they shut down and complain because no females were chosen.

It's called statistics.

It was the word I could think of that expressed the sentiment. Would you prefer "Moderate centrist Republicans"?

Or... you know, the term everyone knows. Republican in Name Only. There's also DINO as well.

Ive had a handful of previous Democratic voters, whom are classify themselves a Liberal, observe the same actions.

"We support free speech, as long as you agree with the core tenants of Political Correctness, Affirmative Action, Feminism, and Liberalism."

Whereas, Republicans/Conservatives have a much greater variance of ideas. There's the RINOs, the Moderates, the Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and more. Yes, there is infighting.

But in the end, they all acknowledge each other as Republicans. They may have spirited "discussions", but they are all allied with the same goals in mind. Reagan taught them that well.

Yeah, I heard he eats babies by the "progressive media" as well.

Maybe I should believe that too, and be completely ignorant about the contents of the actual document....

<insert rage, anger, mad flailing of arms>

ObOntopic: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

Pay attention to the PDF's page 6 footnote (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...)

" Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs."

....discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done).....

If that's true, then he could bolster the case with Department of Labor - which directly has to do with the claims that Google is paying women engineers much less than their male counterparts.

This is going to get ugly, and fast. (err, wait, it already has)

> ....Because I've met COUNTLESS people who make comments like "We shouldn't hire her because she'll get pregnant" or "it would be too distracting to have her work here" or some crude variation of "I'll put in some extra hours on her".

Well, the pregnancy avenue is a significant area of unfairness between the sexes. Women of childbearing age DO have that hanging over their head precisely due to federal law.

There's 2 ways to fix it. Get rid of the federal law (and deny that pregnancy carries complications!) or offer the same benefit to the male.

I'm for offering the same benefit to the male. And now, that both have that law, the differentiation becomes moot.

Because it's not politically correct to hate, denigrate, insult, or deride Non-white people.

Infanticide? Sure, cool. Homophobia because of religion (not Christianity)? We're fine with that. Honor killings? Its a pass. Killing goyim/kaffirs? We're down with that. Have a weird hangup or otherwise cultural thing that's completely disgusting, abhorrent, and/or unethical? It's obviously cultural, and it's OK!

------------------------------------

Wait, you want to talk about something white people do? We can't allow that! That's against our diversity training.

You're fired.

------------------------------------

It's because multiculturalism isn't about learning other cultures, their languages, their histories. Nope. It's about how evil Western culture is. I've sat in those classes, bemoaning how horrible and evil our ancestors were. And the only way to "win" the grade is to regurgitate what's said.

And in avenues like this, "Winning" is silence, and losing is saying anything against the current groupthink with your real name.

You're right, in that does seem to "make sense" on a first pass. Who doesn't want to work with others that you get along with?

The darker picture behind that. So we should choose for interpersonal communication and "getting along", no? Then I should hire fellow white males, since they share my culture. And I'll also choose from a similar age group, since I know we'll connect quick due to shared culture. And we can make wiseass cracks about women, share "conquests", make nasty jokes. (Hmm, just described Uber.)

Or I can hire from people whom are good at what they do, get down to work and finish a job, and go home where you make the culture you want there, and not a forced "culture" at work. I don't go to work for culture, or friends, or any social reason. I go to work because I get paid to do a job and I do it.

If working with/for someone is uncomfortable, I bite my tongue, grin and bear it. If it's past social norms and ventures into illegality, either talk with HR about harassing workplace (provide proof), or find somewhere else to work.

Good luck trying to explain.

Fact of the matter is: there's a small portion of women represented in computer science than the average. Anyone whom tries to "guess" why, either based upon fact or unproven postulate, is blackballed and/or fired.

As per "diversity hire" or many other mealy-mouth ways of saying it, comes back to political correctness and affirmative action.

Affirmative action means, for a decision right now, to use attributes you cannot change (sex, skin color, race, age, height) as an equal or primary stat in deciding policy - whether to give you money, whether to hire you, whether to rent to you. It also is an (sex/rac/age)-ism. That's because of X events in the past, and collective guilt or something tries to overcompensate.

The insulting part of this, is that if you, well, aren't a white male, then you might have been hired because of unchangeable attributes, and not because of your skill. Doubly so if you work in a position that entails "diversity" in its title. In those cases, the job was created for your attributes, and not intelligence.

The other half, is that you're not allowed to talk about it. Full stop. End of story. Do not mention the elephant. There is no elephant. Anyone who mentions the unmentionable is summarily disposed.

Tl;Dr. We need a hiring test equivalent to a Turing test. No race, no sex, no body-type, no nothing other than "Can you type the language we're using, and can you answer questions pertaining to the job at hand?"

> I'm not saying you're a bad person, only that the conversation is important to people who don't have the option of ignoring it. No, you can't change the world but that doesn't mean we should give up and not even talk about the problem.

Thank you. I do try the fight, when I see a potential gain. I also see a great deal of flailing around, just because. Maybe they're trying to find their area they can change things. Who knows.

I do know I'm a white guy. Tall one.I know Ive never bought into the victimhood culture of SJWs, but yes, bad shit does indeed happen to women and minorities. I've seen it.

> Also, having spent a fair amount of time in academia, describing it as liberal utopia is simplistic to the point of being wrong. Right-wing media loves to describe it that way but it's not example hard to find examples of universities fighting against fair wages, unionization, etc. — just watch what happens if someone suggests grad students or adjuncts should have financial security — and there are no shortage of examples of men who might even make a pretense of being feminist while ignoring or even stymieing support for working mothers, fair hiring or promotional practices, etc.

Err, not quite. Yes, the University is still subject to capitalist forces. So they're against graduate student rights, uses a great deal of temp and "part timers" to skirt around full time employment benefits. I know there's a few profs in Labor Studies that rattle the Communism banner. But they can, because they are tenured.

Me? Since I'm IT/professional, I don't qualify for the union. So, no protections. That means anonymous commentary. Cause just like this (presumed) guy, I nor any of my co-workers can speak out.

Look at how upper management is already responding to this? "If he reported to me, I'd fire him myself"... Literally anyone who shares even partial agreement with his email is being blackballed.

Some of my friends called it the Liberal Circular Firing Squad. If we all don't get in line, exactly as others have, we're wrong. Blammo. The Republicans don't seem to do that, although they do have their spats.

> Shrugging it off with “what good does it do?” is only possible if you aren't affected by that and it's not a neutral position since it's effectively saying that the reactionary position is okay with you.

You know nothing about me.

I work in academia. We have one of the largest "Gender Studies" (Read womens' studies, men need not apply). Yet our IT in my group is 100% sausagefest.

I know of women who've applied. I'm not privy to the interviews at my time and tenure... but it's completely bullshit to say that every woman is not competent to do my job.

What can I do? I'm sure I could do an email campaign like this. But I'm 1 person, and I'm looking to work elsewhere due to managerial "issues". It's not MY problem to solve ineffectual and bad management. But my solution is to leave.

> It also ignores a lot of good which has come out of these discussions. I've seen a number of colleagues become far more thoughtful about interaction patterns, social structure, etc. in response to this discussion and they've uniformly reported that this has improved the quality of work, too.

If one of the most "Liberal" universities can't get it right, why would I expect most anywhere to?

> That should not be surprising: after all, do problems in your applications go away if you don't monitor or discuss them? You may similarly have to deal with the guy who's really defensive to protect his perceived status but … he's not going to cause fewer problems if you don't.

The nail that sticks out gets the hammer.

There are some boneheaded things in there.

I'm also seeing a lot of legitimate grievances too.

But because of some boneheaded things, other areas with much more substantive proof and claims are being completely ignored.

And the narrative is being sold as "Your gender means that you’re biologically incapable of doing this job and should never have been hired". Of course, paraphrasing into a inflammatory tidbit is easy to burn that strawman.

Again, I go back to my initial comment of "What use is there to discuss it, since each side demonizes the other?"

In a way, silent modding down (now -1) posits the view that the guy who posted that 10 page paper had issues with.

If anyone dares discuss it, it's because they are on the "Wrong Side", and thus blackballed, punished, or fired. In my case, silenced.

This paragraph in the 10 page document says the following:

"De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”"