ominous

19 ms·

31.
by ominous 4y ago
> Is there any argument here in Amazon’s defense? Can you phrase the attack you imagine they need defense from in a way that doesn't assume your worldview is the universal position (or that tries to achieve a universal position) eve
32.
by ominous 5y ago
404'd by now. Waybackmachine: https://web.archive.org/web/20220409175326/https://github.co...
33.
by ominous 5y ago
> But in pregnant women using the algorithm tool, there was no difference in death rates between white and non-white ethnic groups, because three out of four deaths linked to placenta problems had been avoided. Would be interesting to kn
34.
by ominous 6y ago
You assume the sex lens is how VC funds should be measured. > What do you think the value would be that wouldn't warrant putting just? If there were sex quotas for amount of funding and female founders got less than the law dictates
35.
by ominous 6y ago
> That's exactly what I'm saying too. No. You focus on sex, instead of focusing on the process of assigning funding. The process cannot be wrong just because the outcome is not 50/50 man/woman. Look into the process f
36.
by ominous 6y ago
> Given that 50% of population is women, for every country (more or less), then they should get 50% of the funding. Your "they" betrays you. The women in the population are not the women founders the article focuses on. The 1.3
37.
by ominous 6y ago
Do you know how much should female founders get, as a percent of VC funding for a given country? If you do, then something is wrong already. Why should sex be the measure of how much some founder gets? If you don't know, then you also
38.
by ominous 6y ago
The article manages to use "just receive 1.3% of VC funding" without stating what amount would warrant no usage of "just". It would help if these kind of equity driven articles made the effort of not counting on the naiv
39.
by ominous 6y ago
Yes. As a first example, I give you the default name for a git repository up to October 2020, on github. It wasn't used to mean "a slave owner". And a second random example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki&
40.
by ominous 6y ago
Not quite what you asked, but you may find this interesting: https://github.com/alex/what-happens-when
41.
by ominous 6y ago
The branch is now called "main" because the previous name "master" was found to be problematic due to historical racism / colonialism. And so it remains historical racism / colonialism the cause for the name of
42.
by ominous 7y ago
Seems to me the same as was done by Christian: mistaking the Santa hat of 2019 with whatever happened before.
43.
by ominous 7y ago
In what way does the characterization of an European period dismiss historical periods elsewhere?
44.
Taking transparency to the next level: Codacy’s open salary calculator(codacy.com)
2 points by ominous 7y ago|1 comments
45.
by ominous 8y ago
Her name is Katie Bouman. She can also be addressed as Dr. Katie Bouman.
46.
by ominous 8y ago
The title, even if faithful to the original, is misleading. As the post states, he doesn't know and it is not clear why. He does take the liberty of guessing: > I can also see how my tweet might have triggered a very, very naive rul
47.
by ominous 8y ago
Let's see: > "several months ago" when Friedland used the N-word during a meeting with Netflix public relations staff during a discussion about "sensitive words." Maybe to at least be able to discuss it?
48.
by ominous 9y ago
A cli of this would be useful.
49.
by ominous 9y ago
> One of the major modes by which hindsight bias makes us feel that the past was more predictable than anyone was actually able to predict at the time, is that in hindsight we know what we ought to notice, and we fixate on only one thoug
50.
by ominous 9y ago
The word "alphabeth" is also of greek origin. But no one tries to pass the message of greek influence to the point of there being articles for that in hackernews.
51.
by ominous 9y ago
4chan was discussing the issue. People were clicking said results (I can be wrong). Should google not index 4chan?
52.
by ominous 9y ago
> Could they algorithmically "guess" a credibility score and attach that to the newslink, sure, I suppose. Then why bother with other sources? Just generate a random summary based on the search terms, rank it, and present it to
53.
by ominous 9y ago
> The vast majority of people do not have the skills to use the internet as a source for good knowledge. We (and others, this is not about us) are wary enough that its consequences are dampened. Shielded because we know, or know enough,
54.
by ominous 9y ago
Precisely my point. A general purpose machine should be able to run general purpose tasks, and that understanding should relieve its manufacturer from any blame, ending the PR problem for google. Just as firefox still GETs hate speech if yo
55.
by ominous 9y ago
If that is the problem, why are browsers on the Play store? Wouldn't a gab client behave the same way, fetching and sending content from the internet?
56.
by ominous 9y ago
No. And as for my question "do you want more of it"? While we are at it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive:_The_Story_of_the_Andes_... should we advocate for restaurants that cater to people who had to reso
57.
by ominous 9y ago
Just to be clear: do you want to read more or less texts where it is ok to call people bitches and hoes?
58.
by ominous 9y ago
> Algorithms were supposed to free us from our unconscious mistakes. Were they? Algorithms just do what we do, faster. For now. (see: AI) > “Part of the problem is that people trained as data scientists who build models and work with
59.
by ominous 9y ago
Removing results from google makes so little sense. Can I buy google ads pointing to those blocked websites?
60.
by ominous 9y ago
Agreed, the legal system is in place to decide who wins, not what makes sense.

More ›