News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Shirley Cards. Parent comment

Re:Shirley Cards by pseudalopex on Monday November 15, 2021 @12:05AM (#29223912)
The article didn't say supremacy. I think the closest it came was bias. It cited a former manager of Kodak Research. And 1 of its points was holding all else constant was part of the problem.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Shirley Cards by TedDoesntTalk on Monday November 15, 2021 @03:27AM (#29225066)
That former manager, Earl Cage, is long dead. I don't think he was interviewed for this article.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Shirley Cards by pseudalopex on Monday November 15, 2021 @08:53AM (#29227351)
The interviewed a professor who interviewed him. Does it matter?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Shirley Cards by TedDoesntTalk on Monday November 15, 2021 @03:30PM (#29232282)
Yes? Original source vs not original.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Shirley Cards by LogonType10 on Monday November 15, 2021 @01:38AM (#29224459)
Do you think it's impossible to imply something without saying it ("dog-whistling", if you will)?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Shirley Cards by nicoburns on Monday November 15, 2021 @05:13AM (#29225731)
I think it's certainly possible to imply something without saying it. But I think it's important that we don't assume that anybody who doesn't say X is implying X just because they talk about Y which other people use to imply X. Otherwise it becomes impossible to talk about Y.

If you think in this specific case that the authors are implying X by saying Y, then you need to explain why you think that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Shirley Cards by arrrg on Monday November 15, 2021 @03:49AM (#29225194)
Didn’t even imply it. The criticism is pretty clear: even though this was obviously a problem it wasn’t addressed for decades.

That’s the point. There is no talk about the initial design.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Shirley Cards by LogonType10 on Monday November 15, 2021 @11:44AM (#29229376)
Didn't imply what?
[ Parent | on HN ]