451–460 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that's true. But any standard implementation is going to use %...
Sure, but the important bit is that if you completely blank and forget about % (I have done so) you can still solve it easily if you're a half-decent programmer. Not to mention that if I see a candidate is stumped on the modulus part I'll offer them % myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because without throwaway accounts people can't express views that aren't politically correct? Look through my history, I express such views all the time. I just don't think virtual points are so important that I need to make sure they're always going up.
I looked through your history but couldn't find a comment where you were being not politically correct, but I didn't try all that hard. Regardless there are certain sentiments that you can't express even though they may be true, to me that is what "politically" correct means. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers . You can't even bring up the possibility that women are different than men as a re…
This is about throwaway accounts (people creating accounts on the spot to say shitty things, while having their other account for non-shitty things, so they never lose points), not anonymity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men. That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement. I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them (fewer peers and role models, less experience, etc.) so any evidence they get confirming that hypothesis is more likely to push them into giv…
>All that is evidence of is that women give up more often than men Yes, that's the point. >That doesn't provide any evidence that it's because men's value is tied to achievement. Indeed, that's what we're offering a potential explanation for. >I could just as readily argue that women give up more than men because they have stronger priors of tech not being for them Then do so. Saying "I could make a bunch of other ar…
Sorry, I should have been clear: I do believe that my explanation (women quit more because they have a stronger prior of tech not being for them) is much stronger and more likely than yours. At the very least, its assumptions are backed by basic evidence (that there are fewer women in tech to look up to as role models).
I'm waiting with great anticipation for the politically correct outcry to solve the problem of not enough women being represented in the mining, construction, sanitation, logging, or deep sea fishing industries, or for there be a popular movement to get more men into teaching or nursing where they're also dramatically underrepresented there. Let's see if there's any intellectual honesty here, or maybe there's somethi…
Personally I'm happy to make an argument that given a lack of evidence that gender plays a negative roll, we have a moral imperative to eliminate unfair and discriminatory barriers to entry because its the right thing to do . But lets say that isn't a compelling argument for you. Our industry has a disastrous success rate. Something is wrong. Most software is not getting written correctly, on time, or on budget. On t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't "just have strong foundations in CS," you also have strong foundations in interviewing, whether you consciously developed those skills or not. The problem is that those interviewing skills aren't really relevant to the job, so they shouldn't be part of the interview. I once had a candidate who completely bombed the interview, one of the worst interviews I've ever done, but he had a great portfolio. I took t…
I've always thought that if I started my own company, I probably wouldn't even interview people. I'd search specifically for the people I'm interested in, bring them in for a meeting just to make sure they aren't crazy, and then hire immediately. If someone sent me an application wanting to be hired, I would give them a work sample to be completed in one week and hire on the basis of their performance on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am less inclined to believe there is systemic bias against women, and minorities, and instead a culture difference between groups who are well represented in engineering, and groups which are not. And that cultural difference is INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. When people are free to choose whatever they like, because they aren't scared of starving, which is true in Western countries, they overwhelmingly choose gender stereot…
> they overwhelmingly choose gender stereotypical professions Oh? Which ones are those? There used to be more women employed as computer programmers than men, for example. The shift happened because computer programming turned a corner and became prestigious, at which point it became "stereotypically male", and the pattern of "stereotypically male" = prestigious holds through a number of professions. Men are doctors…
I think you meant 'computer'.
My grandmother was a computer. That is what they used to call the women who performed calculations in the old days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer
It's interesting history but this could not honestly be described as computer programming. Looking around online it appears there are a lot of articles that have conflated the jobs. There certainly were women in computer science back in the early days, Lovelace, Hopper come to mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe I asked you, but sure, jump on in. Is there a contrary assertion you would like to make and present evidence for? I'm all ears. I should point out I can't stop asserting it's true, because I never started doing that. I said "I feel [...] I want [...] I think [...] For me, the theory [is ...]". Did you really not understand I was expressing my educated opinion?
Historically, most things done well have been by a group of like-minded people banding together to do something in a way that minimizes individuality and differences between them. They focus on a single vision and unite around it to become successful. You won't find a lot of studies on this because it's not a politically correct topic. Nobody wants to do the study that confirms you're better off just hiring whoever's…
Taking recent history, America has been enormously successful and prominent, especially in technology. And America, as a nation of immigrants, has unusually high levels of diversity and inclusion. What in modern America qualifies as non-diverse would still historically be very diverse.
> Nobody wants to do the study that [...]
It must be nice to be able to read the minds of thousands of academics around the world. I'd probably use my powers differently, but I guess you have to start somewhere.
> hiring whoever's the most qualified
Yes, I'm hiring the most qualified team for the problems we're tackling.
> I also feel like it's a false equivalency
It's nice when people share their feelings. Do you feel better? If so, good.
That aside, I'm not sure why you think the feelings of J Random Commenter would be relevant to me as compared with my years of experience building and running teams. Given the throwaway account, even you don't appear to take your opinions very seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looked through your history but couldn't find a comment where you were being not politically correct, but I didn't try all that hard. Regardless there are certain sentiments that you can't express even though they may be true, to me that is what "politically" correct means. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers . You can't even bring up the possibility that women are different than men as a re…
Um.... "persecuted"? HN accounts have full support for anonymity. Why do you care if an anonymous account on some board gets "persecuted"? Where "persecuted" means you might get a -4. This is about throwaway accounts (people creating accounts on the spot to say shitty things, while having their other account for non-shitty things, so they never lose points), not anonymity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the counter-argument is that when you fire someone, their co-workers, generally speaking, become at least a little uneasy (usually the level of unease is directly proportional to the level of agreement that the person getting fired wasn't good enough or otherwise had it coming, but there is still some unease even when it's obvious that it's the only way forward.) Now, you can try to get around this by a real trial pe…
you're right, people get uneasy about it, but they get really uneasy when you keep bad people. I've seen entire companies evaporate because a bad apple stuck around, people who had to work with them quit, then more quit, and eventually the whole company was just mediocre or bad people and they couldn't run with that anymore. Kind of the broken window problem applied to people.