cheekybillberry

I think this might be one of those cases where we just have to agree to disagree, but I, well, disagree with the premise that the reaction to men is any different on this point.

There are regularly posts here linking to articles about misattribution of credit in science and technology, the problem with the "great man theory," laments about the role of social media in creating hype, and there are plenty of male figures discussed here who engender bitter discussions about how credit should be assigned. I honestly don't see any difference between this discussion and any other discussion. I seem to remember similar discussions emerging about discovery of the Meltdown and Spectre hardware vulnerabilities, and many other physics discoveries involving large teams of researchers, just to take a few examples.

The way credit is assigned in science is a significant moral crisis in my opinion (as it is in work in general; cf. rampant income inequality), and it really doesn't matter what the genders of the individuals involved are. Strangely enough, I think attention is being paid to this argument here because of her gender. It's one of these unfortunate circumstances where I think two competing ethical goals are kind of conflicting, one being the better representation of women and minorities in science, the other being lack of fair representation for all in credit.

Not just CS, but depending on the discipline, math and statistics more generally.

I wondered this as well. It seems like a significant problem when doing this sort of thing.

I think bitcoin has been really overhyped (and manipulated in many different ways), and would be happy to see it fade into history (if not some of the technologies and ideas it's based on).

However, I'm not happy to see an outright ban on it, for all sorts of reasons. Not only are there fundamental freedom of speech issues involved, but it sets a dangerous precedent with regard to decentralized computing in general. I also believe that the best way forward in a bitcoin-free future is to leave things be, expose rather than suppress, and to let people do what they want so as to encourage transition.

I'm surprised to see so many comments supportive of this move here. First they come for bitcoin, then they come for Matrix?

I've never really thought about it quite this way before, but: pure functional systems basically want to ignore time. In some contexts this is ok or even desirable, but in other contexts it is counterproductive and futile.

Time is pretty critical to physical reality, one way or another, and the closer you get to it with lower and lower-level language systems, the harder it is to ignore.

It seems to me there needs to be some very basic computational/mathematical theory that integrates time more fundamentally into language/instructional design without being procedural per se. There probably is one but I don't know what it is, or am not recognizing it for what it is.