camelite

14 ms·

121.
by camelite 9y ago
Wrong. It was a reaction against the utterly predictable failure of a contentless approach to instruction which started and ended with the rhetoric necessary to convince pseudo-intellectuals that supporting it demonstrated political discern
122.
by camelite 10y ago
Amusingly, the forensic accounting consultancy and the content marketing are just elements of another, longer con. https://www.deepcapture.com/tag/sam-antar/ https://www.deepcapture.com/2011/0
123.
by camelite 10y ago
> It would not challenge my intuitions to find that women in STEM are doing more significant CS work than the overwhelming majority of professional computer programmers. I would tend to agree. I think that women are not interested in sta
124.
by camelite 10y ago
> It's also problematic that so few men working in nursing. I don't agree that it is, necessarily. But you're working from the premise that it is inherently discriminatory.
125.
by camelite 10y ago
No. Focusing on competence AKA merit makes your company more competent. Focusing on something else necessarily hinders your ability to focus on competence.
126.
by camelite 10y ago
Yeah engineering is different from science. There's a reason people came up with a whole different word for it. > a math-intensive field with much better gender parity than computer technology Stop saying this. It's not better,
127.
by camelite 10y ago
> Again, this is what it means for an argument to be a special pleading: we're required to accept an obstacle course of criterion that ignores the simplest, most plausible comparisons. On the contrary, if you look at lists of the re
128.
by camelite 10y ago
Why is it very unlikely that computer technology is uniquely suited to men? Speaking from personal experience, my twin sister had perfectly equal opportunity to learn to program as me, and slightly higer mathematical aptitude, but she utter
129.
by camelite 10y ago
Innate qualifications is an oxymoron. Your thinking on the matter is confused.
130.
by camelite 10y ago
Some thing like this: http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ ?
131.
by camelite 10y ago
I assume you'll be voting third party then
132.
by camelite 10y ago
> And yet it seems very clear they did not know this. And therein rests your case. But you appear to be simply taking them at their word on this, to me. Unsophisticated observers will say, "Why would they do something so colossally
133.
by camelite 11y ago
> I think that you're failing to see the context of these things. You're looking at them as isolated incidents when they are not. No, what you're doing is inventing a context (bad man hurt woman, bad white man hurting good
134.
by camelite 11y ago
> I think I just did it in one sentence. Yeah it's almost like importing the lingua franca of a bunch of extremists into your organizational policy isn't necessary and that the actual sensible part of it can be easily summarise
135.
by camelite 11y ago
The vast majority of people who style themselves as experts in education are worse than useless. You've chosen a poor discipline to outsource your critical thinking to.
136.
by camelite 11y ago
Link to code/binary for your visual programming language? It looks cool.
137.
by camelite 11y ago
It's a remarkably broad definition.
138.
by camelite 11y ago
Still, a sizable number of women, correct? Do you agree they might already know they're people too, and like Trump for reasons other than "white rage" or being expected to treat women and minorities decently?
139.
by camelite 11y ago
Google 'trump polls women'. Then reassess.
140.
by camelite 11y ago
Basically, there are better sources to place your trust in than journalists. Journalists, in general, really suck.
141.
by camelite 11y ago
> Sometime you just don’t know. Sometimes you just have to live with that. I live with it and I like it. Honestly, this comes across as "He loved Big Brother"-level creepy.
142.
by camelite 11y ago
> Counterpoint: Censorship is awesome. Well it's crucial that the censors are people who like you. If they didn't like you, you probably wouldn't be such a fan of censorship. That is to say, the only reason you're in
143.
by camelite 11y ago
For a fascinating account of who wrote that wikipedia account, see https://www.deepcapture.com/tag/wikipedia/ .
144.
by camelite 12y ago
One thing rote learning is good for is how to spell in languages whose pronunciation and spelling are inconsistent, like English. (sorry)
145.
by camelite 12y ago
State-of-the-art salesmanship.
146.
by camelite 12y ago
It might be true they don't work but do we really want the likes of Big Heroin, Big Cocaine and Big Marijuana like we have Big Tobacco? That would be a disaster. I think it would have to be totally government run to avoid that extreme
147.
by camelite 12y ago
From the article: "On the right, Majumdar and Dean were surprised to find that the distribution dropped off at a rate related to the number of eigenvalues, N; on the left, it tapered off more quickly, as a function of N2."
148.
by camelite 12y ago
Nothing at all alarming about "You didn't hear that?", really? Actually, the non-alarming part you do address is invalidated by the actually-alarming part you don't: if it was so unremarkable, why did her colleague instr
149.
by camelite 12y ago
As a beginner, I second that praise.. . Putting those details, often stumbling blocks, in context and with explanatory links, means that even if I don't get everything the first time, I have a big picture to refer to and feel secure th
150.
by camelite 12y ago
Your second possibility covers not only executives who partake in high-risk gambles but also executives who deliberately bankrupt their company for personal profit. A canny executive doesn't rob the firm by dipping his fingers in the t

More ›