Raymond Hettinger, Keynote on Concurrency, PyBay 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zinZmE3Ogk
Ask HN: What’s your favorite talk from 2017?
111–118 of 118 posts
Re: Ask HN: What’s your favorite talk from 2017?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
>when you see a random black person and a white one and an asian, and a jew, your average racist will factually be right in guessing their relative intelligence Wrong. Individuals are not populations. The most you could say is that if someone guesses a large number of times they'll be right slightly more often than not. This is not a trivial point.
* Unpopular comment alert * I get where you're coming from, racism sucks. Statistically the odds are different, stereotypes are usually pretty accurate. Think recruitment and probability, let's say it cost you $200/hr to screen a candidate from CV to interview and you have $1000. We have law to ban it as an assessment criteria, on paper. It's also morally wrong (at level 3 or level 4 of the moral pyramid). Warm fuzzy…
You miss my point which has nothing to do with warm fuzzies or political correctness.
I'm not accepting as fact that there are innate intelligence differences, but for the sake of argument let's postulate small differences between race/ethnic/gender populations. When you screen that way you throw away almost half your candidate pool for no good reason. You achieve worse results than if you use some other, not quite as lousy, method of culling. You'd probably have to work at it to find as weak a correlation. Sexism and racism aren't only evil, they're stupid too - even if the tiny intelligence differences that disputed authors claim to have found were real.
So in what way are stereotypes "pretty accurate" in the context of hiring? You aren't hiring a population so small population differences aren't super useful - except perhaps at the tails of the distribution. If you attract just the cream of the crop, you might have an argument. That population is likely to be very skewed.
Re: Ask HN: What’s your favorite talk from 2017?
#113How to Create and Start Successful Revolutions | Ben Horowitz
Saw this in-person and really recommend it. Detailed historical example of revolution and key takeaways for establishing a great culture at your company.
https://www.startupgrind.com/blog/ben-horowitz-on-how-to-cre...
Re: Ask HN: What’s your favorite talk from 2017?
#114Has to be this Farnam Street interview with Naval Ravikant about reading, habits, decision-making, mental models, and life. Surprisingly insightful! https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2017/02/naval-ravikant-read...
+1. Wonderful tips for optimizing self. Definitely stretches your intellect, with great book references.
Re: Ask HN: What’s your favorite talk from 2017?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a coincidence! I just discovered Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan show few weeks ago and been binge watching his talks since then. I get a certain feel of skepticism every now and then whether he actually represents any fascist ideas. Not because of his talks, but rather how they are edited out of context, used in "Stupid liberal got owned by Jordan Peterson" videos with these kind of aggressive titles. That aside,…
I'd heard a lot of good things about JBP and my first experience of him was his first conversation with Sam Harris[0]. His attempt to redefine the word "truth" was frustrating and consequently I've struggled to work up the energy to listen to anything else. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdpyzwOOYY
I know, right?
Sam wanted to use Truth as in "Fact", a shared reality forced upon all of humanity, almost irrespective of humanity, the reality of the physical Universe itself. It makes sense that Sam wanted this definition given his atheist materialist world view.
JBP wanted to use Truth as in "Shared Values". God is real when you look at how 1.5 Muslims behave, or 1.2 Christians behave or 1 billion Hindus behave with respect to the idea of God. You have to work with the fact for close to 7 billion people God is real and then that itself becomes the fact that God exists, albeit as an idea in those people's mind but still an idea that has very concrete real world implications, hence you have to take it as a Truth. JBP wasn't opposed to Universal laws being heralded as Truth, but he wasn't open to limiting the definition of Truth to just that. I think his was a very reasonable position to take.
Sam appeared overly theoretical to me, JBP more practical "rubber meets the road" kind.
It was funny that people found it waste of time. I actually liked it. They were both fighting over their world view, which one was more realistic or better. They ended up doing so over the definition of the world "Truth". It would have still been the same discussion over the two world views even if they didn't appear to get stuck on the definition of "Truth". I was happy with the way it went. They discussed their world views anyway.
Re: Ask HN: What’s your favorite talk from 2017?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
To those wondering why alt-right/neo-nazi/1488-type people are flocking to Jordan Peterson: this comment accurately describes both Peterson's views and the alt-right view on race. Many alt-right people claim they acknowledge "factual differences" of race, which is the basis for their ethno-nationalist views. Here's a discussion on the alt-right following of Peterson on his subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPe…
You're grievously slandering a man whom it appears you have made no effort to understand. You should be ashamed of yourself. Prof. Peterson is possibly the furthest thing from a "neo-nazi".
It's called libel when it's written down. Would the furthest thing from a neo-nazi tweet this, which is full of alt-right dog whistles?
> KEK boys. Seek your 4chan. Don't stay in the underworld. Author your future. Code PEPE. Free 4 U 4 1 wk.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/85146415170895052...
Re: Ask HN: What’s your favorite talk from 2017?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
To those wondering why alt-right/neo-nazi/1488-type people are flocking to Jordan Peterson: this comment accurately describes both Peterson's views and the alt-right view on race. Many alt-right people claim they acknowledge "factual differences" of race, which is the basis for their ethno-nationalist views. Here's a discussion on the alt-right following of Peterson on his subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPe…
That comment/subdiscussion you're linking to on the subreddit seems like a pretty good examination of the relationship that's developed between him and the alt-right. Or at least part of one. But I'm puzzled by the statement that the comment you're responding to accurately describes Peterson's views on race. Except maybe in narrow categories that don't match up particularly well with a broad conception like "race" (e…
I think Peterson is a little too intelligent to speak frankly on race, so he speaks in code to his followers that are in the know and allows them to make the logical deductions he leads them to. There's a discussion on his subreddit[1] that examines exactly this.
My main point is that it is not a surprise that he attracts alt-right types when he is tweeting dog whistles[2] while claiming not to be a member of that group.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7hkbzo/is_j... [2]: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/85146415170895052...
Re: Ask HN: What’s your favorite talk from 2017?
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're grievously slandering a man whom it appears you have made no effort to understand. You should be ashamed of yourself. Prof. Peterson is possibly the furthest thing from a "neo-nazi".
It's called libel when it's written down. Would the furthest thing from a neo-nazi tweet this, which is full of alt-right dog whistles? > KEK boys. Seek your 4chan. Don't stay in the underworld. Author your future. Code PEPE. Free 4 U 4 1 wk. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/85146415170895052...
Yes, it would. Someone who donates a product for psychological therapy to the "alt-right" may very well be the opposite of a neo-nazi.
Again, you should be ashamed of yourself.