Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Build Impossible Programs

jvns.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Build Impossible Programs

#51

Post by zerogvt »

AJRF wrote: post #31

Anyone know what Julia is using for those handwritten slides? I absolutely love everything Julia writes. She writes in a way that makes absolutely zero assumptions about your level of technical competence. You could be a junior, mid, senior and still get something from most of her articles. Anecdotally; Almost every female engineer I work with writes and communicates in this fashion and I really bloody wish more of m…

I cannot upvote enough your comment (and I am a guy). Computer Engineering and IT are overcrowded with males and male behaviors which hurt the field and drive away a lot of people that are smart and eager to offer but they cannot tolerate the machismo of the field. A sad state of affairs for any profession.

I'm not saying that all males are exhibiting these behaviors but the ones that do are prevalent (and it seems that by doing so they're gaining an edge which makes them successful memes that stick and expand).

Re: Build Impossible Programs

#52

Post by thecatspaw »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #25
thecatspaw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I admit that I didnt read the whole thing, but this seems more like yet another push for bitcoin, and not actually about philosophy? > So lets focus on that, the impossible thought: How can we live together in peace and prosperity with each other and nature? By fixing ethical misstandings, improving laws and destroying borders where none need be. > So again, blockchains and ethereum are software and you can do any…

"Sure, you might be able to hit your girlfriend with the hammer, but the relationship would probably improve more if you talked about the problem." Or, rather, if the relationship ceased before violence entered the equation. (In case anyone complains about pessimism, a friend of mine says often: "Relationships can only end in one of two ways: death or breakup." I'd rather think of it as a stoic position.)

well yeah, I didnt mean it that literally

Re: Build Impossible Programs

#53

Post by Elrac »

callahad wrote: post #46
Elrac wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have liked to see the slides, and I see a paragraph headed "Slides" but no link. Am I blind or is it my browser? Would appreciate a pointer.

It's a SpeakerDeck embed; your adblocker might be a bit overzealous? https://speakerdeck.com/jvns/build-impossible-programs

Could be; I'm at work.

Your link works! Many thanks.

Re: Build Impossible Programs

#54

Post by wscott »

ensiferum wrote: post #10

But if it can be built.. then it's not impossible. Hence the topic should be "Build possible programs".

Don't assume something is impossible. Or assume that if your idea was any good then someone else would have already done it.

Re: Build Impossible Programs

#55

Post by AJRF »

Wintamute wrote: post #47
coldtea wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generalizations are the basis of all thought and science -- it's all about abstracting the chaos into a cohesive taxonomy and laws. Without generalization we are lost in paralyzing (and inane) case by case judging of everything. In CS terms, generalizations are basically pattern recognition. Can they be bad? Sure. But not because they are generalizations. I'm not even sure what you're getting at. That you can find al…

I agree with you. My admittedly snarky/oblique point was that these days it's personally, professionally and politically advantageous to make negative generalisations about males, but not about females. Just pointing out a fashionable double standard, as I see it.

I was providing localised anecdata about the people I specifically work with.

I don't think its against site rules to state personal experiences, actually it's the basis of healthy debate.

If I said something along the lines of "all female engineers" without the context I provided; i.e its most of the female engineers I personally work with, then yeah I could see how that would be construed as virtue signalling. I assure you that's not my intention, and apologies if it comes across that way.

Re: Build Impossible Programs

#56

Post by albertgoeswoof »

AJRF wrote: post #31

Anyone know what Julia is using for those handwritten slides? I absolutely love everything Julia writes. She writes in a way that makes absolutely zero assumptions about your level of technical competence. You could be a junior, mid, senior and still get something from most of her articles. Anecdotally; Almost every female engineer I work with writes and communicates in this fashion and I really bloody wish more of m…

> Anecdotally; Almost every female engineer I work with writes and communicates in this fashion and I really bloody wish more of my male counterparts would speak with less jargon/acronyms for the sake of new starts/non-engineers.

It’s not a good idea to generalise and push gender stereotypes in this way. You’re saying that female engineers have better communication skills than male ones, setting the bar higher for female engineers.

You might think you’re improving gender equality with statements like this but really you’re setting a different bar of basic competencies for males vs females.

Re: Build Impossible Programs

#57

Post by dentemple »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #56
AJRF wrote: post #31

Anyone know what Julia is using for those handwritten slides? I absolutely love everything Julia writes. She writes in a way that makes absolutely zero assumptions about your level of technical competence. You could be a junior, mid, senior and still get something from most of her articles. Anecdotally; Almost every female engineer I work with writes and communicates in this fashion and I really bloody wish more of m…

> Anecdotally; Almost every female engineer I work with writes and communicates in this fashion and I really bloody wish more of my male counterparts would speak with less jargon/acronyms for the sake of new starts/non-engineers. It’s not a good idea to generalise and push gender stereotypes in this way. You’re saying that female engineers have better communication skills than male ones, setting the bar higher for fe…

If there's a generalization worth making, it's that software engineers--as a whole--are generally garbage at communicating technical concepts.

The talk presented here is a great example of what we could be doing instead.

Re: Build Impossible Programs

#58

Post by fabricexpert »

dentemple wrote: post #57
albertgoeswoof wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anecdotally; Almost every female engineer I work with writes and communicates in this fashion and I really bloody wish more of my male counterparts would speak with less jargon/acronyms for the sake of new starts/non-engineers. It’s not a good idea to generalise and push gender stereotypes in this way. You’re saying that female engineers have better communication skills than male ones, setting the bar higher for fe…

If there's a generalization worth making, it's that software engineers--as a whole--are generally garbage at communicating technical concepts. The talk presented here is a great example of what we could be doing instead.

That's true (and it's not because they're male, it's because they spend a massive amount of time communicating with machines and not so much other humans)

And yes, this talk is very very good.

Re: Build Impossible Programs

#60

Post by irishsultan »

DennisP wrote: post #49
Wintamute wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to share any anecdotes that make sweeping generalisations based on gender that paint female engineers in a bad light instead? Nope, didn't think so ...

There's no generalization in this: > Almost every female engineer I work with writes and communicates in this fashion and I really bloody wish more of my male counterparts That's just reporting facts about the specific people he happens to work with. It would be generalization if just said "female engineers," without the qualifiers "almost every...I work with." I guess you could claim that he's implying a generalizat…

Would you honestly proclaim the same thing if the genders were switched?

Also note how almost every female engineer he works with writes communicates in that style, but somehow his wish for others to communicate in that style only extends to his male colleagues.

Post reply on HN