ugwigr

The community should know when the content is materially altered.

in your opinion it is right, in my opinion it is wrong.

"more than any other online forum would do" - still does not mean it is right

"super labor intensive to boot" - it should be in the CMS code to show a flag if "edited".

got it. Makes sense.

- "you expect"- wrong! - at no point did i express my "expectation". I was voicing my opinion on how I think the UX should work for this use case

- "instead of the way it already worked when you joined." Just because it worked this way does not mean it is right.

- "HN -> HN's rules." Yes, Captain Obvious. this does not mean their rules make sense and certainly does not mean a user voicing an opinion on how the rules should be changed is entitled.

why would i want HN to hold my hand?

ok. what did you disagree with if not my point? I do not care in the least bit about HN's karma

exactly

does not mean it is right

in the comment? how many people would read his comment versus the subject line?

Also the fact that he can fundamentally change what a user posts and then choose whether or not to disclose it in comment section is a flaw.

add an indicator to indicate the admin changed what I (@ugwigr) posted. Materially changing the content your users post is wrong.

the HN admin changed the link I posted. this is unethical - You are fundamentally changing what I posted. As a product manager here is a better solution - A.) Add a clear indicator that admin changed the link to redirect B.) Delete my link and post yours.

Shawdow changing what users post is wrong.

looks like a legendary class

I really enjoyed doing this interview

Thank you. it took a couple of hours. I used a nocode tool called kgbase.co. Also I am a cofounder of thinknum.com where we scrape job listings (and other data) for hedge funds, large companies so I set up cron script to pull data from our API into KgBase's API

will investigate. when I click the VC firms I get links like this http://vcjobs.kgbase.com/?cat=500%20Startups and they all have jobs.

we are hoping that would change if more VCs start listing their jobs publicly so anyone can apply.

Very useful feedback - Thank you. We run a startup, Thinknum.com, that scrapes all types of data for Hedge funds or business intelligence folks so we get the data from there.

Will iterate on feedback and figure out why Techstars links are not working.

Thank you for feedback.

the US Treasury controls the IRS, funds the US govenrment and is in charge of all money printing in the US. Every man (and woman) is equal before the law/govt. Hence it makes sense to analyze how the activity of the US Treasury benefits one group over another.

The correct base rate to use to determine 'effective' discrimintation (as intended or unintended consequence) is the general population.

- This article describes how the government PPP policy effectively discriminates against Black People - that is a problem in my view - once again there could be other problems.

- 'White' is capitalize cause as used it represents a racial identiy, please see https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/time-to-ca...

- The article is not attempting to establish an "intent" to discrminate so it is irrelevant if Black people are underrespresented as owners of eligible companies. The article is only showing the policy does effectively discrminiate (whether as an intended or unintended consequence).

it is a self-selected sample - which is a sample. Ofcourse it introduces seld self-selection bias. However a vast majority of studies on race in the US rely on self reported data (for thical and legal reasons) and include some element of self selection bias. The end.

A vast majority of studies in the US on race use self-reported data.

majority of studies are based on sampling

if the article was claiming to show "intent" to discriminate then it would have been misleading. I wrote the article and I never claimed to show intent. I was just showing what as effectively happening and for that the diffeerences in ownership of eligible companies by race is irrelevant.

I am the author of article. looking at difference in ownership of companies more broadly would be useful to establish intent to discriminate but that is NOT what the article claims to show. I simply show what is effectively happening and for that the stats on ownership of eliegible companies by race are irrelevant.

I, the author, was not claiming intent to discrimnate. I was only showing the effect of the policy so the stat you mentioned is irrelevant

I, the author, was not seeking to show intent to discrimate. I as only showing the policy effectively did discriminate. In order to show intent I would need the statistics you mentioned but to show the effect the stats you mentioned are entirely irrelvant

a majority of modern studies on race rely on sampling. The sample size here (14%) was large enough statistically

The sample size (14%) was large enough statistically.

A majority of modern studies about race rely on sampling.