happyguy43

Nowhere is it implied that people going through rough patches will be judged for poor performance and “booted out the door.” The point is that people should be setting expectations ahead of time and will be held accountable for the expectations they set.

There is ample room in a high-performing workplace for the rare rough patch, just needs to be done in a way that optimally allows the team to minimize the disruption.

The main condition is that rare rough patches should be rare. Obviously people who constantly go through rough patches can not be expected to perform highly and are not appropriate employees in a high performing work environment.

It did give me pause, then it gave me concern, then it fizzled into lack of surprise.

Damore lost the PR battle long ago. PR justice, while disheartening, isn’t anything new. Challengers to popular ideology are never right at first, but he’ll be right eventually. One day it’ll be more faux pas to assume there are zero average personality differences between the sexes.

I do disagree. This is on multiple thorough readings of his memo and a sound mind. He never advocates for Google to discriminate against anyone in his memo, nor does he advocate for Google to not prioritize diversity. There is no quote in his original memo to prove otherwise, legal opinion notwithstanding.

This is well argued but some of the assumptions are false.

1) Damore never argued men were better suited to software engineering than women.

2) Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite.

It’s very sad to me that there is such widespread misinterpretation of Damore’s nuance in his memo. In every possible factual way it’s a pro-diversity memo, but because it cites research on the average personality differences amongst men and women (which are 100% true), he gets crucified as a bigot and an anti-diversity zealot.

Furthermore, when it comes to matters such as these, “belief” should not play a substantial role. We’ve already proven that men and women don’t differ much on intelligence. No need to believe one way or another.

You can downvote me all you want but it doesn’t justify your actions nor does it make your actions any more transparent. Why did you shadow ban my submission? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16366248

Maybe the growth of meta posts is a weed you are fertilizing yourself.

It goes both ways. Have you had the experience of being shadow banned unfairly? If not maybe consider what you’re missing. Maybe listen to your users.

I whole-heartedly agree with you. I’ve been restricted on HN for much less. My posts are always respectful and encourage productive dialogue, yet I believe I’m perceived as a troll because I’m direct or maybe aggressive. Again, I’m never disrespectful but I’m willing to directly challenge incorrect thinking, you can check my history for yourself.

The regulation on style instead of substance on this site really make me question their commitment to intellectual / productive conversation.

Sometimes I wonder how long someone like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, or Theo de Raadt would last on this site. I don’t think very long. A site that would ban the most influential hackers of our day simply for bad etiquette doesn’t really seem like a site for hackers.

Why is this post shadow banned? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16366248

I’ve always used it for sincere intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation. My posts across all my accounts are more representative of that more than bad faith trolling. You can trace through it yourself.

Saying Bryan Cantrell has a massive ego isn’t such a massive or unfounded personal attack if I back it up with well-known evidence. He has a known and decorated reputation in the hacker community for having a massive ego. I mean, really?

Having a contradictory or aggressive opinion doesn’t make you a troll if you’re willing to continuously engage in the discussion in good faith. Trolls minimally engage and don’t add. I put effort in my engagement and I try to add to the discussion.

My treatment on hacker news has been unfair and I think your handling has been heavy-handed to the point of censorship. That being said, thank you for de-shadowbanning me. It shows you care.

Why did you shadow ban me?

How does this interact with WASM?

There’s nothing surprising about this...?

Facebook isn’t the problem. Phones are. I don’t use Facebook or any social media, yet I’m addicted to hacker news and checking my email.

But even phones are not the problem. People are responsible for their own “addiction.” It’s like blaming food companies for fat people.

Widespread informed Democracy is not something we’ve ever had, and likely will never have. Democracy has always been led by the intelligentsia and the rich.

Kind of at a loss here:

Is the final analogy showing that relative performance on any given trial is mostly random?

Or is the analogy to reinforce his point that relative performance on subsequent trials is inversely related to the type of feedback given?

This is not a good use of EINTR, you can even see it’s fundamentally flawed given this usage introduces a race condition.

pselect() isn’t the right answer given it’s not portable and it’s totally broken on various versions of macOS. signalfd() is also not the answer, it suffers from a broken design: https://ldpreload.com/blog/signalfd-is-useless

To deal with cleanup on a signal while blocking in a robust and portable way, use the self pipe trick and select() (or equivalent).

Using automatic differentiation is very cool. Kudos

Just curious, in what way is FUSE not composable where TRAMP is?

Pattern matching logic fails for both educated people and potheads alike. Bitcoin is unlike anything seen before and no one knows what’s going to happen with it.

Never said it was going to fail. I just don’t expect it to be more appropriate as a hacker’s OS than OpenBSD or Linux.

It wasn’t that. It was rate limiting me... for some reason.

Dude lighten up it was a joke :)

Nah, writing a kernel in modern C++ or Rust is pretty rad. Higher level abstractions can be designed to avoid bugs (As evidenced by the explosion of macros in the Linux code base). Check out L4Ka::Pistachio https://github.com/l4ka/pistachio

Random subjective opinion presented as objective truth!

Don’t hold your breath. The zircon API isn’t innovative in any modern sense. Additionally it’s bloated and not clean like L4. It’s just in house IP for Google.

(HN won’t let me directly reply to the comment below so here it is:

Nothing in zircon doesn’t already exist on Linux or any other modern kernel. Additionally it has bloat, like 3 distinct IPC mechanisms.

Even further, if it ends up being any technical person’s main driving OS it will surely sport a POSIX API and at that point it’s just another implementation of POSIX with similar a security model.)

How exactly is Google getting power here? The code is totally open. They just seem to be giving themselves more flexibility and potential to build better products.

If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate.

(My response to s2g’s reply below because HN is terrible for commenting:

I see your point that they now unilaterally control how the kernel is engineered, but my counter argument is that I don’t think this meaningfully changes their control over the platform. They were already free to modify the Linux kernel at their whim. Having upstream control doesn’t make you emperor of derived applications.

As a separate point, don’t you think it just results in less efficiency and worst products if google isn’t free to steer the project in the direction that makes the most sense for the application? It seems they can more easily make zircon for their use case, and I think that will result in cheaper and better phones.)