dongslol

There is basically 0% chance you will get in trouble for this. Worry about making your site good.

The principle of charity would mean editing "to" to "which" in your sentence.

Does that say 75 feet? How on earth do you survive that?

Ok, thanks. (I think I shouldn't have used the word "just.")

I see the phrase "tone-deaf" everywhere and still don't get what it means. Is it just another getting-along-with-other-people thing?

It's a stupid headline, optimized for page views, intended for an audience of people who they think don't know better.

No one's saying she isn't a clever, energetic, talented person.

Why don't adblockers work on these? Don't they just block elements based on CSS selectors? If so, why can't we collect a database of CSS selectors for the top 1000 sites, CSS classes used by popular modal popup libraries, etc.?

The critical question is, why haven't they charged him? It is disingenuous of them to bring up the evidence they currently have essentially in an attempt to demonize him. Their evidence is sufficient or it isn't; if it is they should charge him; if not they're demanding self-incrimination.

Update: HISTORY IS ON MY SIDE

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13663037

Well, loldongs was taken!

As somebody who thinks messaging is everything, I must protest this name as bad marketing surrounding a potentially good product. Insects evoke in humans a visceral feeling of disgust and sickness. If my work tools were ever being audited I would not be able to explain to my boss why there I am employing an "insect" in my computer.

First impressions are everything. Please see in "The Psychology of Human Misjudgment" the excellent description of humans' "Influence-from-Mere-Association Tendency." The technical merits of a product will not matter if people can't get past their initial feelings. This is highly inconsiderate.

Until the name is swapped out for a more sensible one, I will not be downloading this software.

Get your feet wet:

* http://cs231n.stanford.edu/ (the course notes are excellent)

* http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/

* http://www.deeplearningbook.org/

Use Tensorflow to train a few small neural nets. Move on to CNNs and RNNs. Make sure you actually do this. By this point you'll have read a lot, and retain none of it if you don't put it to use. Look at reinforcement learning. Use the book by Sutton and Barto, the new edition: https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~sutton/book/the-book-2nd.htm... Read the first 4-5 chapters, then go online and read about Deep Q learning, policy gradients, DDPG, etc. Then try to solve some problems on OpenAI Gym.

Once you have an idea of the kinds of problems you can solve, and have a couple you're interested in, go back and learn the foundational math, and start reading research papers.

In general, start with modern books that mention deep learning. With older books or high-level-overview books, you'll get frustrated when you see something cool on /r/machinelearning and can't find any mention of it in the book.

People would still differ genetically. Right now we skirt that issue by saying that we can't control genetics, but we can control how society treats its people. But presumably someday we will have the power to control genetics, and we'll repeat the same debate all over again.

So long as there is inequality of outcome, there are probably always going to be people who assume unfairness---not just in people who lack a sense of agency and self-responsibility, but because I think humans generally have an instinctive dislike of inequality of any kind. This will continue until the end of time: if you believe in fate (whatever that means), some people are always going to have better fates than others (unless you want to give everyone the same life), and people will keep getting mad.

Dismissing this argument with "because women are undervalued" amounts to saying that every company thus far has been too obtuse to manage their biases and collect 23% in discounts.

Say people do have widespread, subconscious biases against women. 23% in savings is enormous. If it really exists, someone out there is going to try super, super hard to exploit it while all the other suckers are stupidly paying 100/77 times more than they have to. Are you saying that despite this opportunity, no one has succeeded, because we're all too stupid to view women equally—every last one of us? If not, where is that clever company?

A more likely explanation is that the people already tried doing this, and found that the opportunity they were trying to exploit didn't exist.

So is the argument that while companies can expect to save money on the whole whenever they hire women, not enough women apply? If so, women should have a much easier time finding work than men but get paid less. Is that what's happening?

The suggestion here is that even though companies can save a bunch of money by flooding their workforces with women, they are all too obtuse to do so.

77 cents on the dollar is a huge discount. Any company that exploited this would gain an enormous advantage. So even if nearly everyone is somehow blinded by their biases, surely at least one company somewhere is smart enough to discount their biases and collect 23% in savings. Where are they?

Is it possible that some company out there with unscrupulous management has already tried moneyballing the job market this way, and found it didn't work?

I'll check it out.

I wish comments were scored in a way that was weighted by the degree of bravery it took to write them.

What a shame that most of the top comments here are boring, stand-up-for-the-vulnerable types agreed with by the majority— "women face difficulties in tech, and we should help them whenever we can"—while the downvoted posts are the ones trying (not necessarily successfully) to arrive at politically incorrect truths.

JavaScript is not an object-oriented language, but a prototypical one. JS "classes" are really an attempt to use syntactic sugar to beat one concept into another. This is inherently ugly.

For anyone convinced they hate JS, I encourage looking through Crockford's JavaScript: The Good Parts, in which he talks about the idea mentioned above, before swearing off JS forever.

The paper has a few: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/02/03/1621345114.full

Secretly, I think Uber is doomed, but not so much because they fail as a business, or because they maltreat their employees. They're doomed because they're not truly building the future.

Uber wants to be the world's transportation infrastructure-- the default way for people to get from A to B. Their thesis is that the way to do this is to write software to hook up drivers with riders. Essentially, a taxi replacement. But this marketplace is an artifact of the fact that cars need human drivers. Without that need, the marketplace disappears.

In the next year or two, Tesla will come out with gorgeous, highly efficient, self-driving cars, with fabulous software, all talking to each other on a network that Tesla totally controls. That will put them in a much more powerful position than the company that owns the software to route random cars around. When that happens, Uber will be screwed. Maybe they could build their own self-driving electric cars, but so far they're not doing too well. They're learning, like everyone else, that it's not a problem you can just throw money at.

The Model 3 will cost $35,000, and allow drivers to make automated, passive income by having their car drive people around while they're at work or something. Why buy an ordinary car and drive it yourself when you can buy a slightly more expensive car and essentially collect rent?

Uber riders care about two things, the experience and the price. Tesla wins on both fronts. Teslas are gorgeous, and feel like spaceships. (Take one for a test ride). And the thing about price is that with self-driving cars, with each ride you're basically paying for electricity plus a fee to the owner of the car for its depreciation. The cost becomes less about server maintenance, and more about who is better at building cars and writing car software. And by the way, you can't just have self-driving cars. If you want to win the unit-costs game, your cars have to be electric.

The fact that Uber thinks of itself as a taxi replacement is a sign of their oldness. The end game for transportation can't be a taxi replacement, because it'll be unheard of for people to drive each other around.

Tesla will have production limits, of course. But they demonstrate that building the future of transportation consists of (1) building cars and (2) getting them in front of people who want them, and that part 1 is by far the harder and more valuable.

I've been dumping my savings into Tesla stock, and look forward to being rich in ten years.

I spent the last half hour thinking about this on and off, trying to shift my perspective. I feel sort of guilty. Advocating for objectivity and dispassionate truthseeking is the second easiest way to curry favor on HN, and it feels cheap. (The easiest is still outrage, never to be topped anywhere :))

If anything, I find it sort of funny that Travis got mad. He handled it pretty well at first; they were just having an honest disagreement. Then it was like he just decided, "fuck it, I've had a bad day, and I don't need to take this guy's shit." He might meditate on the fact that this guy spends his evenings being the reason that Uber's business model works.

That's interesting; I hadn't thought of that.

Twitter always makes me sad after going on. It also makes me resent people I otherwise like, because I see them make nasty, jeering comments that they wouldn't on, say, HN. It's not because they're nasty people who jeer. It's hard not to when you have to pack criticism into 140 characters, because the most concise way to do that is to tell a joke. That's lovely, but when discourse consists of joke after joke, it gets pretty empty.

Debate never happens on Twitter. People take stabs at each other and retweet snarky putdowns. When J.K. Rowling makes some witty comeback at some random person spouting their mouth off, everyone applauds it. This kind of discourse makes me nauseous. I often see tweets that make me go, that's wrong! And in my head I start writing counterarguments. But I never get to make them, which breeds resentment. And if by some miracle I do, I don't feel like my audience is a quiet, thoughtful one that will reward me for making good points. I know that's not an empty ideal, because I feel that on HN, and sometimes Reddit.

Twitter gets arguments started, but ends them abruptly. That's frustrating.

I keep going on, because there are a handful of famous people whose streams of consciousness I'm interested in. If they moved their content to another platform, I'd follow them there. But they don't, presumably because they also use Twitter to follow other famous people's streams of consciousness.

I think the intended meaning was that his feelings of regret and remorse are profound.

Personally, I didn't find this disproportionately disrespectful. The driver makes a couple unsubstantiated claims (perfectly ok--it's a car discussion). Travis does the same. The driver starts making accusations ("you keep changing every day"). Travis asks for clarification. The driver keeps up his attack ("You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.")

If someone accused me in such a fashion, and persisted despite me asking for clarification and trying to actually explain my view to them, I'd probably be a lot more vitriolic than Travis was. (It's a character flaw of mine.) And saying that some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit is, well, true?

I don't like that billionaires are held to a different standard. People say, "they don't need protection; they're rich." Ok, but if you discount something a billionaire says for no reason other than that they're rich and have easy lives, you're not a dispassionate truthseeker.

Here's the conversation that took place:

  Travis: So we are reducing the number of black cars in the next few months.
  Fawzi: It’s good.
  Travis: You probably saw some email.
  Fawzi: I saw the email [that says] it starts in May. But you’re raising the standards and dropping the prices.
  Travis: We’re not dropping the prices on Black.
  Fawzi: But in general.
  Travis: In general, but we have competitors. Otherwise we’d be out of business.
  Fawzi: Competitors? You had the business model in your hands, you could have the prices you want but you choose to buy everybody a ride.
  Travis: No, no no. You misunderstand me. We started high-end. We didn’t go low-end because we wanted to. We went low-end because we had to because we’d be out of business.
  Fawzi: But people are not trusting you anymore. Do you think people will buy cars anymore? ... I lost $97,000 because of you. I'm bankrupt because of you.  You keep changing every day. You keep changing every day.
  Travis: Hold on a second. What have I changed about Black?
  Fawzi: You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.
  Travis: On Black? Bullshit.
  Fawzi: We started with $20.
  Travis: You know what, some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else. Good luck!
  Fawzi: Good luck to you too, I know that you aren’t going to go far.