Wow, I can't believe these comments. I give. HN is stupid. Programmers are by and large stupid, we just have a set of specialized skills.
I'm starting to understand now why so much code is documented so poorly.
And yet, there's smart posts like these that give me some glimmer of hope. Thanks for stemming the tide. I hope those of us not totally brain dead can figure something out.
> "... that diversity hiring yields both better individual and group performance."
This is a well-known, well-researched fact of organizational psychology. Are you guys really this stupid? Think about it from a problem-solving perspective, in terms of the solutions individuals and groups will come up with.
Sexism, racism, and discrimination in general doesn't benefit anyone but the wealthiest few, and only if they're really, really stupid.
then you're arguing for diversity of opinion or viewpoint, rather than gender or skin colour? Because that's the opposite of the approach google is taking here.
I'm arguing for diversity of gender, skin color, cultural or sub-cultural background and identity. Diversity of viewpoint should already be a given.
In order to promote tolerance you have to shut down and remove the people who support intolerance. Firing this guy is clearly in line with that mission and improving productivity.
We learn this in grade school, are you all foreigners or something? Or has American education really been gutted...
well for one thing I'm British. I agree that it's fair game for companies to seek to remove people who are actively hostile to other employees but from what I've read about this memo (admittedly I haven't read the original itself) it seems like he wasn't saying "quick, fire all the female engineers!" but more like "Google's diversity initiative to get equal representation amongst male/female engineers is nonsensical because women are on average less likely to become engineers due to natural temperament differences in men/women". Maybe I haven't bought into the ideological argument but nothing there seems particularly contentious, nor does it seem like he's saying women shouldn't or can't be engineers.
Can someone please flag these shills. The article is about how evidence-based behavioral therapies like cbt can reduce crime, and should be applied as an alternative to prison for kids. For those that don't know anything about cbt, in this context it's basically about reducing cognitive distortions that convince people to commit crimes.
You can't generalize all agencies or all departments within an agency either. I'd be surprised if anyone working with Comey would give a damn based on what he tried to do to Apple, but I doubt everyone in our three letter agencies is going to violate the current system and read data without authorization and a warrant.
Well, scraping has taken place, so you've violated a eula and potentially committed theft. But you haven't violated copyright, as long as you do not distribute the data either, (through any means) pretty sure that's fair "use."
Ymmv, not a lawyer and this is internet bullshitting, not legal advice.
The government can exempt themselves from IP laws. For example, the government has exempted itself and defence contractors for violating patents (to build top secret devices) in the past.
...yes? Couldn't there be valid causes of action for government acts? Are we simply assuming bad faith on the part of the government for any possible scenarios?
This isn't really a secret interpretation, I and a lot of people I knew noticed the same thing over a decade ago by reading the privacy policies of tech companies. Reading the data requires a warrant. Recording the data doesn't.
The important aspect for the NSA's interpretation is that algorithms can look at and process the data and create metadata or synopsis information from it.
Having an intelligence system ingest this metadata and synopsis is not considered "collection".
Essentially, if it can be automated, it isn't collection. If a human gets pulled into the loop to look at data, that's when it's collected. However, a human could be shown a synopsis or an inference about an American target and this could still not be collection, as the summary information being viewed isn't considered the person's private records.
Basically a loophole in a loophole. I'll be happy to keep databases of, and run software over, our national security records. I won't collect any of it, though. I won't even look at it. I'll just get summaries of the information contained in it from my algorithms - and if I want to look at a specific document I'll punch a rubber stamp on it first.
Curiously, a fair amount of genetic research is done this way: the genetic info is PHI, but the covered entity holds the data and the computer capacity. The researcher just pushes an algorithm to the cluster and gets aggregate results back.
That's the idea, but in practice GA4GH is still working on the API's and protocols to make this work in an automated and containerised fashion for modern genetic data. We do often send the algorithm to the data but mostly by way of granting an account to collaborators and them sshing into a remote cluster because copying 120 terabyte datasets is no fun.
well, it's a secret interpretation of a particular executive order (EO 12333 signed by reagan, if you're curious), in the sense that it's not obvious on its face from reading the order that one should come to the same interpretation as they have, and that they don't officially divulge that interpretation.
prior to snowden, almost everybody (you and your clever colleagues excluded, obviously) would think it was paranoid to believe this was the case. at least, there's no way i could make the leap from:
'EULA's state that recording activity on a company's servers by that company [i assume this is what you mean?] doesn't require a warrant but the government reading it does'
to:
'the government records incomprehensible amounts of domestic traffic but it doesn't count as warrantless surveillance because they don't read most of it'
EO 12333 doesn't redefine collection. Data collected abroad under 12333 is still "acquired" according to the definition in the NSA's documents leaked by Snowden. Do you have any documents that you can point to that say otherwise?
i should have been less ambiguous, sorry -- USSID 18 is derived from EO 12333, and USSID 18 nominally provides protections to US citizens from being spied upon; USSID 18 also is what has a secret interpretation by NSA lawyers that most people would probably feel is not in the spirit of the EO. here's a very nice writeup:
Why don't any of Snowden's documents confirm that they're using this interpretation and instead show that they are interpreting it as everyone else does?
What bearing does a private company's privacy policy have on warrants? I think I see what you're getting at but what a private company consider warrant-worthy or not is irrelevant when discussing the governments position.
Reagan was an actor, not a businessman. He did shill though.
Zuckerberg is waking up
to how easily manipulable the portion of Americans who voted for Trump are. It's too easy. Just look at the republican response to sb18 in CA. The counseling association was suppossed to be working on an initiative to help but I'm starting to worry.
There's some truth in this (I assume), but there is quite a bit of evidence that those on the right value conformity with a leader's views more than those on the left. The infamous poll results on the Syrian strike[1] show this behavior. I'm not sure this counts as manipulation exactly, but sometimes the effect is the same.
There's some truth in this (I assume), but there is quite a bit of evidence that those on the right value conformity with a leader's views more than those on the left
It's tough to justify this generalization in a world where leftist leaders like Stalin, Castro, Mao, and Chavez are still warm in their graves.
I used to believe the same thing until the aftermath of this election. It's not even remotely in the same ballpark. It's like the Dunning-Krueger effect except there's two more peaks in the 0-20% range, and a lot of people with an island of intelligence in their career path outside that range.
it's actually very much in the same ball-park. The sheer fact that many liberals believe that a sizeable portion of Trump's supporters are fascists, or that he himself is a fascist, is proof of this. In fact, in my experience right-leaning people tend to be more skeptical than left-leaning people - too skeptical in some cases, leading to things like conspiracy theory and climate change denial.
I know far more people who believe Trump represented military aggression and big business while Hillary'just wanted to help people;' which is a very strange idea given that Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and Saudi Arabia donated more money to her than any of them donated to anyone in history.
Meanwhile Obama prosecuted more whistle blowers than any candidate in history after campaigning to protect them. Then dropped 26,000 bombs on Muslims last year.
What about the evidence that came out that the Iraq War's WMDs were a fsbrication of the Bush admin's? Who has gone to jail over that? I personally know Americans murdered in this fabricated war for profit and oil. Even insiders like Greenspan wrote about how that Iraq War was for profit and oil.
The people who are represented are not the working class, productive and honest citizens. You are all too tied up in the Dems vs Repubs debate and other politics to notice this though.
Oh no I'm actually completely with you on that one. I think Bush and Obama were two sides of the same coin, although I don't think anyone knew that in 2008.
Living around a great number of conservatives, but interacting with a great number of liberals online, my experience is that it simply goes both ways. It's a much-remarked-on idea that "red" and "blue" America are increasingly more divided. If you see people being skeptical today, it is rarely based on the content of the idea but rather on the political implications of it. Right-leaning people are suspicious of things that left-leaning politicians say or promote, and vice versa. I don't think either party, as a whole, is more skeptical or, conversely, more incredulous. Ideas have become more political, and to the extent that one idea is more or less accepted at face value it is probably because that idea has already been normalized by the mass culture.
You're saying your own personal denial of this election's results led you to double down on accepting your own personal biases as fact and justify your resulting increased conformity in believing 'what should have happened' onto others whose non-conformity bothered you?
Not a Trumper, but the 'boo hoo' media pity-party in the aftermath of this election has been oh-so delicious to watch after seeing through the level of spin in the last couple of years...
"But we told them to vote for Hillary, and they didn't! What went wrong??? Must be 'facism' and 'russian fake news'! Anything but people actually disagreeing with the moral/philosophical/political position I have absorbed without thinking from MSNBC-Universal-Vivendi funded Saturday Night Live skits!"
But yes, absolutely, the 'conformity' is entirely on the 'right'..
No, that's not even remotely close to what I'm saying or believe, you've constructed a strawman.
But your comment is shockingly similar to what I've heard from people who still support Trump irl. Do you personally ever talk about what's actually happening in washington, or just stick to this he-said she-said crap?
...you must not know many people then. There's lots of opportunity for a middle class life in non-it-related professions. Something I found pretty shocking after I left the sv bubble.
Marketing, sales, numerous supporting jobs in entertainment, skilled trades and engineering, (as many mentioned) white collar food industry jobs, logistics, accounting, statistics, mediation, community builders, I could go on and on. So many diffierent types of jobs, even when you exclude all the shitty ones that make the world a shittier place, like low-information political shills and propagandists, (tiny conservative talk radio shows and online communities do decently, moderate and liberal not so much) junk and junk food marketers.
I'm starting to understand now why so much code is documented so poorly.
And yet, there's smart posts like these that give me some glimmer of hope. Thanks for stemming the tide. I hope those of us not totally brain dead can figure something out.