Its people like you who are the problem. What an idiotic statement. Youve clearly never watched a single campaign speech from trump. Youve never investigated or even contemplated how his campaign really worked or the issues of his voter base. You dont understand anything because youve never attempted to view the whole thing objectively. Please just shut up.
The UI is not perfect, especially the tiling designer (but once you master the keyboard shortcut it works okay). And sin of sins, it's written in Java! But I do think some of the built-in example are nice. I'm biased.
What a crock of utter and complete nonsense. If you isolated the simple statements of fact then this article would still be a long and enjoyable read, but instead i am assaulted with corresponding insane ranting; accusations against huge swaths of people that are totally unsupported. So nobody googles if their daughter is smart? Maybe its because parents are worried that looks and not intelligence are important for cohesing in school and not getting bullied, for girls. Maybe the same for boys, but with social quickness and intelligence. Maybe they are responding to the behaviour of the kids themselves, who might openly worry about being smart or ugly; perhaps girls and boys have their own tendancies about which one worries them because of the small fact that they are differnt biologically, and that visual attractiveness is much more important for men? Not a single alternative is explored by this author and it should be no surprise because when you zoom out and look at the whole picture of this article its obvious that this guy is simply using these issues as a tool for popularity and self advancement. Im not saying it shouldnt appear on hn because the phenom of using these issues for personal gain and the death of journalism is in itself an intellectual curiosity. But i will die before letting this shit go uncommented upon.
> accusations against huge swaths of people that are totally unsupported.
The search data is meant to support the accusations. A main point is that other methods of supporting such statements (like surveys) are unreliable.
> So nobody googles if their daughter is smart?
The article doesn't say that, it says parents are about twice as likely to google if their son is smart vs daughter.
> Maybe its because parents are worried that looks and not intelligence are important for cohesing in school and not getting bullied, for girls.
This seems like exactly the problem the author wants to bring up and address. Society values appearance above intelligence in women. This is apparently also true in how parents see their children.
The author doesn't draw conclusions about this prejudice, he is merely remarking that it exists.
While we can blame society for it, we can also see the same pattern in dating strategies of men and women. Men selects mates on appearance, causing social status for women to be primarily based on appearance. Women selects mates on wealth, causing social status for men to be primarily based on having or the ability to raise money. A theory would thus be that parents that want their child to have the highest social status will among other things try to maximize those attributes.
The author conclude that this mean there is a bias against girls.
> Society values appearance above intelligence in women. This is apparently also true in how parents see their children.
Sure, parents who are interested in their children's well-being will also be interested in what society thinks of their children.
This data seems like a weird source for the claim, though; I'll bet the people searching the internet for "is my daughter smart" significantly outnumber the people searching for "is my daughter pretty".
"is my daughter smart" and "is my daughter pretty" both show up as 0 in google trends (as I search today). What does "daughter pretty" include? I would predict massive public interest in questions of the form "is Reese Witherspoon's daughter pretty?"
Yeah, they don't show up with a zero, it just says not enough data to show so hard to draw any conclusions. I agree this is an imperfect proxy and it's not definitive but I'd still absolutely take you up on that bet (conditioned on there being some way of actually resolving it).
But maybe the real question is, why aren't people asking "Is Reese Witherspoon's daughter smart?"
In specific, obviously because Reese Witherspoon is known for being pretty. I'd also bet that "Is Bill Gates's daughter smart?" is a more popular search than "Is Reese Witherspoon's daughter smart?"
I can honestly say it's never even crossed my mind to do a web search on a phrase like "Is my wife cheating" or "Is my son gifted." I really can't see finding the answers to questions like that on the internet.
>What a crock of utter and complete nonsense. If you isolated the simple statements of fact then this article would still be a long and enjoyable read, but instead i am assaulted with corresponding insane ranting; accusations against huge swaths of people that are totally unsupported. So nobody googles if their daughter is smart?
Millions do. Just 2 times less millions that people who wonders if their sons are smart. Which was explained in depth in the article.
>Maybe its because parents are worried that looks and not intelligence are important for cohesing in school and not getting bullied, for girls. (...)
This sounds more like a "totally unsupported" claim that what the article suggests. And even if that was the case, it would show the same stereotyping done by the parents as the article already suggests.
Team friendlyness, simplicity, readability, tooling, native compilation, built in syntax for concurrency and really fast compilation times for large projects.
Few of these, honestly, benefit one man side projects. If you want to learn Go (for whatever reason) its fine, but otherwise I personally would prefer more expressive and less dogmatic language.
Two people see cool sideproject in Go, his thoughts "damn this looks good, I need to learn Go", my thoughts "Whyyy you do this in Go and not D? Simplistic Go has no strong sides here! Why nobody promotes my favourite language with things like this, it deserves hype no less!"
I guess it's because no one is writing anything "cool" in D?
Simplistic Go has a lot going for it - focussing on knocking out cool projects rather than the minutiae of build/package/dependency systems is one of them.
Its because D has way less developers, support and, consequently, way less hype, than a language backed by one of the biggest world corporations in existence.
Anyway, care to elaborate whats wrong with excellent build/package/dependency system in D called Dub? Never had any problems with it.
People talk about whether or not it can be afforded and then point out the dollar coat of living, taxes and so on. Money is not a real thing, its a construct. Its so complicated that nobody here is going to be able to prove we couldnt afford ubi. But rhat doesnt even matter since money is only a framework we use for our markets and economies. Instead of fussing with money figures, which will never do anything besides confuse people, we can look at concrete things instead. The physical and chemical reality of this world. It is undeniable that because of automation, a complete restructuring of our society will be needed. The only limits in such a reorganization are those of the physical world, not those of our current paradigm. So, how much energy is there to go around? How much food and how many materials? What is the maximum amount of any of those things that we might collectively have? What are the limits of physics for how much energy we can harvest from the sun? That is where the conversation needs to begin. And i think we will all find that even with todays technology there is plenty of everythong to go around.
Not really a big deal to be honest. Innapropriate but not enough for a scandal. She was inebriated and she gracefully fails to mention if he was, and he was probably. Its not exactly the next cosby is it?
I live by this rule. But I also don't really have many opportunities to meet women outside of work either.
At this point I just accepted that I'm gonna be lonely for the time being and am biding my time to save up money and leave the Bay. A human connection and romance just isn't worth the social cost these days.
"Don't shit where you eat" is a good rule of thumb once you realize that its not a game you can win.
I wonder about people like you. Do you live in the real world, and interact with real people? Do you have real friends? Because it doesn't sound like it.
Not dating your coworkers is a sensible rule that some people follow and some companies may have policies around ... but a rule you have no hope in expecting to be universally adhered to. Case in point: The sheer number of (happy and unhappy) couples who met at work.
I've worked with plenty of workplace couples, I'm not casting aspersions on them. It can and does work out great for many. I just personally believe in separating work and life. Sorry for the un-nuanced answer.
Not my intention, sorry you took it that way. What I'm trying to convey is: if the original person asking the question was looking for advice, you probably don't want to cross that line. Work is work. Other stuff is completely separate.
I could totally be wrong and love of his/her/their life is out there in cube H206. I'm just some person online.
Your sentimemt is totally wrong. Hydrogen is jusy as dirty as battery technology, you have to produce the hydrogen some way, and producing and expending hydrogen fuel uses far more energy than charging amd discharging batteries.
Yes, but they don't make a record of your gait at the DMV and print it on your official ID card, do they?
They might be able to track John/Jane Doe #1 across a plaza, and maybe match that up across multiple cameras, but without a reference database connecting gaits to public identities, there is a possibility that without reasonable suspicion, the data for John/Jane Doe #1 would have to be purged before it could be linked to you.
Of course, a state-level actor that chooses not to obey the law could retain those data indefinitely, and eventually identify you via statistical analyses. If you don't want that to happen, you will need to get politically active and make public oversight of agencies that perform surveillance of the public an issue.
Otherwise, you might have to wear specialized clothing and shoes that change heel height and sole shape as you walk.
