shaftoe

I have a similar experience with my children. From an extremely early age, my daughter has "tucked in" toys to bed, rocked them to sleep, etc. She was NOT taught to do this, but just did this as play. My sons can't seem to find a toy that cannot be used as a sword or a gun, to my wife's constant annoyance.

Even with the SAME toys, they are used very differently. For example, all of my kids play minecraft. My daughter loves to build houses with kitchens and bathrooms, bake, and invite people into her house for dinners and parties. My sons fight the monsters, build elaborate towers and castles, and play with explosives.

This image summarizes my experience: http://imgur.com/AT2Ak

In that scenario, I don't know anyone who would defend the prejudiced team member.

Can I give you another that I've experienced? "You rejected this interviewee? Can you give them another look? We need more diversity."

What is the proper way to proceed in this situation?

That's all well and good, but one of the core instincts of libertarianism is a deep distrust of angry mobs.

I don't think the SV crowd gets how reasonable the author looks to everyone else and how unreasonable the angry rants on Twitter look.

He didn't rail against diversity, he railed against what are effectively affirmative action policies. Several times he went to pains to point out he wasn't against diversity of people, just the initiatives at Google.

He railed against the idea that pay and hiring gaps must be caused by biases and, once you rule out bias, what you're left with must be some combination of cultural, biological, and personal factors. Better to discuss and address real issues and not perpetually pretend that everyone is a closet racist and sexist.

Delphi is #9? Delphi? Where in the world of software development is Delphi not dead?

Real life is complicated. Who decides what is in their control? What if it's a combination?

This is fatalism and societies that adopt this attitude fall into some nasty traps. For example, there's no point to solving problems because it's the will of God.

While I agree with what you're saying, allowing politics tends to mean EVERY thread gets a discussion of politics over time.

I've watched a lot of forums gain the axe grinders who don't debate, they fight. Over time, it's simply people yelling at straw men.

I don't come hear to get lectured, and that's what most political discussions and articles really are. I come here because of the creative techy vibe and relevance to things to which I can actually make meaningful contributions. I have a dozen other places to read impassioned rants about the issues and hot buttons of the day. I don't respect nor value those sites because they're junk food. Politics is where celebrity gossip meets sports.

I often read hacker news articles and threads from ten years ago and find value. Go find a political argument that old that isn't as quaint as the things we wrote in our high school yearbook.

Keep hacker news focused on what it does well. Don't create division.

These are truly first world problems.

Many people who have lived under actual communist governments see communism for what it is - evil.

I work in healthcare. A lot of the complexity is FROM government attempts to help.

Look at HIPAA. Originally about medical record portability, now it largely deals with security, privacy, and availability. These sound good, but it is frustratingly vague, subject to massive reactive fines, and assumes a lot of practices that always feel out of date. It's way more of a pain than private compliance frameworks like PCI.

The problems in US healthcare are complex, entrenched, and Brook no simple fix. The government is incredibly buearacratic, designed by lawyers who value an openness to interpretation by courts that creates ambiguity, and creates solutions in their own mold.

Honestly, when we say size, we mean diversity. Countries used as success examples are far more homogeneous in their population and culture.

I stopped reading after paragraph 5 when I realized he was nowhere near making the point alluded to in the title.

I'm tired of the "check your privilege" crowd bringing their guilt mongering into everything.

You know what I love about free software? It's ultimately judged on merits.

I use software everyday written by all kinds of people, many of whom I would otherwise have little in common with. I don't care about their personal lives, political opinions, or baggage. I care about what they've produced and vice versa. It's the ultimate level playing field.

Please keep the social justice fighting out of free software or you'll kill the openness that has built a worldwide ecosystem.

Of course wealth will be distributed unevenly if it is created unevenly. Anything else is both unfair and unwise.

Poor people in the United States, today, have a significantly higher standard of living than my grandparents, who were neither uneducated or poor for the time.

Poverty has moved way up Maslow's hierarchy.

Also, I wouldn't include docker in that list. It's evolving rapidly into a core component of many platform frameworks.

That sounds great, but there's no free lunch and when you ask people to pay (a lot) for something, you're going to get their opinion.

Here's mine. I roughly divide human activities into jobs and hobbies. One ultimately builds enough value to support existence, one is primarily done for enjoyment. Education for the former can and should pay for itself over the long haul, so we're discussing who pays for hobby education.

Personally, I don't want to pay for other people's hobbies. I've volunteered to teach people some of mine, spending hundreds of hours with educational groups. But, I can't imagine forcing taxpayers to pay for university education in these things.

So, improve equality of access to education. We already have multiple top computer science programs publishing their courses online for all for free.

So, lower the barrier to getting started and learning from hands on experience. Github and other sites host code, discussions, and documentation for more projects than a lifetime of hacking could touch. No one knows who you are behind a handle.

You seem like one of those people who thinks that quotas will magically improve companies, diversity, and people's lives. You are falling victim to the soft bigotry of reduced expectations. This isn't fair, particularly to the groups in question.

My caricature is more aimed at urban 20-something hipsters I know, not anyone in a city.

My comment about mugging and race is from repeatedly watching people try to describe criminals in a politically correct way. "20s black guy in athletic gear" makes a lot of people uncomfortable to say when describing a criminal to watch for.

That article struck a chord with me. I live in a city, but I am not of a city.

The no-car, 600-square-foot-apartment, minimalist, trendy-restaurant, latest-social-justice-fashion people that surround me feel like a gang of condescending children. They wave policies with reaching consequences like foam fingers at a sports game. They are mugged and then bend themselves into a pretzel to avoid describing the attacker as black and explain the crime as a symptom of economic injustice. They pretend like Hillary doesn't have 20 years of corrupt history and an attitude that approximates the worst of European nobility.

I don't like Trump, but sometimes a giant orange middle finger is needed to break out of a rut.

I think you'd find stereotypes of European males similar.

If I may make a suggestion that has proven valuable to me as an American in the deep south: don't project your local politics and assumptions when understanding others. Only when you walk a mile in someone's shoes, do you realize most perspectives have a point and reality is fractally complicated.

Oversimplifying viewpoints or dismissing them is objectifying and othering. We all do it, but the group that does it "for tolerance" is the one that just lost an American election.

That would certainly go a long way to cutting bureacracy and restoring efficiency.

The United States is/was a collection of independent state governments. At one point, many state governments selected the electoral college representatives from their states. Until it was amended, states governments chose their senators.

There are political and historical reasons for having the system work this way, much like how the ordering of primaries is a contentious and complicated arrangement.

My favorite vanity licence plate is NULL.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11361757

As someone without chronic expensive health needs, I've been on a HDHP with an HSA for almost a decade. They're great.

With a low deductible, I'm paying more up front so I can pay less if I need care. With an HSA and HDHP, I'm paying less for insurance and putting the difference into an interest-bearing account that I keep with me. Two different jobs that offered HDHPs also offered HSA contributions or matches.

Over time, my HSA has grown to roughly 3x my family's deductible. Tell me how I'm losing out?

I think we need a new law to augment Godwin's Law, that all debates about this election devolve into agreeing that both candidates are grotesque and disagreeing about which one is worse.

How is a lector different from audible/youtube/podcasts?

This would make a great basis for a video game.

I don't see HDMI on that list.

I'm always amazed to see minimalist used to describe a dozen placeholder directories and files. That said, the code is clean and modern php.