brighteyes

10 ms·

61.
by brighteyes 9y ago
If Twitter would ban you or me for saying what Trump says, why shouldn't Trump be banned? It's a matter of fairness and uniformly applying the rules. As the president, he'll easily find other means to get his message out, jus
62.
by brighteyes 9y ago
There is something to this argument, but it's ruined. The author and many others don't like Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's the main reason for advocating a boycott of their investment money, because while the author mentions
63.
by brighteyes 9y ago
The article is basically a response to Apple's recent drama, and claims it is part of a trend, with no evidence. It would actually be interesting if it were true, but I've seen literally nothing to support that aside from this one
64.
by brighteyes 9y ago
I'd also add 3. It seems dubious that colonization would lead to oral histories of civil war, somehow "transferring" brutality from a foreign invader to themselves. The author doesn't seem to give a lot of credit to the
65.
by brighteyes 9y ago
I do think we need to think through the moral implications of torture, because it's not as simple as "torture doesn't work." Yes, torture might not work on average. And not even in the great majority of police and anti-t
66.
by brighteyes 9y ago
The term "implicit bias" is a poor choice here. First, it only appears in the title, but not the abstract, for good reason: they are not talking about implicit bias, which as a concept only makes sense when contrasted with explici
67.
by brighteyes 9y ago
> American women have sky high expectations This is as sexist as the article itself.
68.
by brighteyes 9y ago
> You're missing the point. She mentions that the clean house isn't the goal, the clean house would "simply be a bonus" But all she actually asked for is the clean house, that's the communication problem here.
69.
by brighteyes 9y ago
We have hard data on gun violence, proving it's mostly a male problem. But "emotional labor" is both poorly defined and supported anecdotally, so the discussion around it is often driven by sexist stereotypes, as in this arti
70.
by brighteyes 9y ago
This article is flamebait. The title is "Women Aren't Nags", below a big middle finger to the reader, so it's not like it tries to hide it. And much of the article is saying that men are emotionally immature or worse. Fo
71.
by brighteyes 9y ago
> Hegel, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Nietzsche Darwin seems very out of place there. First, he was primarily a scientist, not a philosopher. Second, his theories are for the most part still very much dominant and accepted as true in his field -
72.
by brighteyes 9y ago
Yeah, a lot of advances in psychology start with refuting one of Freud's ideas, but it's no different than modern (Enlightenment) physics starting with refuting Aristotle. It doesn't mean Aristotle wasn't a massively inf
73.
by brighteyes 9y ago
He said that everyone, men and women (and even children), were governed by subconscious sexual desires. In that respect he was pretty modern - or perhaps that thanks to his influence, we are how we are today. But on the other hand, he did h
74.
by brighteyes 9y ago
> XUL is still there, and there are no immediate plans to get rid of it It's true it's still there, but I think the plan is using it less and less. No new UIs are written in it and many things have been rewritten from XUL to HT
75.
by brighteyes 9y ago
The article title is > Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War? which is much less provocative than the HN title which is > Experts think there is a 35% chance of an another American Civil War The former specifically mentions &q
76.
by brighteyes 9y ago
You can still keep trying to convince them, gently and reasonably. There is no other option.
77.
by brighteyes 9y ago
Yes, I agree his suggestions to stop those initiatives is a bad idea. And that it doesn't follow we should stop those because of that study. But regarding > and there's also no rationale to entirely discount cultural factors He
78.
by brighteyes 9y ago
The memo does care about the gender gap in tech as a whole, while you are focusing more on Google's specific policies regarding applicants. Clearly both are important topics, and they have some obvious connections - for example, the ge
79.
by brighteyes 9y ago
> Why is he talking about preference? Does that have to do with his thesis? If preferences partially explain why psychology is dominated by women and why computer science is dominated by men, then preferences can partially explain part o
80.
by brighteyes 9y ago
> Occupational preferences are not the subject of the document, though. The subject is occupational qualification. No, he talks about both: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women dif
81.
by brighteyes 9y ago
Sure, here is a concrete example of a linked document that supports his position http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf and the references therein. In particular, > sex differences in personality traits can be d
82.
by brighteyes 9y ago
Some of his claims are supported by the linked documents, some are not. Again, there are so many, any conclusion of "100% are supported" or "100% are not" is going to be false.
83.
by brighteyes 9y ago
Fair point, yeah. I took the article here to be talking about society more broadly, but I could be wrong.
84.
by brighteyes 9y ago
It always makes me sad to see people that think employees of any corporation are "the smartest people on the planet." It shows how effective PR can be. Of course google employees are just the same as everyone else in the Valley. W
85.
by brighteyes 9y ago
It's not possible to "refute" or "prove" his claims. There were many specific claims, and scientists still debate many of them. The bigger point is anyone that thinks his claims are 100% true or 100% false is defini
86.
by brighteyes 9y ago
"Choose your battles" does make sense, and I think the Kolmogorov option is an honorable one. But I'm not sure it should apply here: First, Kolmogorov lived in a dictatorship. Most people talking here live in a democracy. We
87.
by brighteyes 9y ago
We are talking here about reasonable scientific claims believed by large parts of the population and by scientists. You can disagree with them, but you also need to live in a society with them. We need to find a way to work together, even a
88.
by brighteyes 9y ago
We do see people-focused fields like psychology dominated by women. Perhaps law is somewhere in the middle. The memo didn't say biology was "larger than any/all combined societal/'nurture' effects". In the
89.
by brighteyes 9y ago
> perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists? Practically no one is saying that. We should cast out the tiny minority of Nazis. What people are saying is that the views in the memo are
90.
by brighteyes 9y ago
There are reasonable arguments on both sides, which rational people can debate. That's the bigger point here. Not that there is a slam dunk argument on the side of biology or society, but that we don't know where the exact truth l

More ›