tomlock

91 ms·

361.
by tomlock 10y ago
You want me to suggest a measurement method for a claim you've made. Unfortunately for you, for claims you make, you are responsible for questions of methodology surrounding the evidence you use to support it. You've demonstrated
362.
by tomlock 10y ago
I interviewed for them a few months back and they have some things surrounding data tagging and linking that fall under "dynamic ontology" they'd probably consider unique. And they have some access control stuff that seems n
363.
by tomlock 10y ago
>I am sure they still hire white men, but that particular account (and some of their other publications) give the impression they are not interested in that anymore. Really? What evidence do you have to back up your impression? Why do
364.
by tomlock 10y ago
Your claims, that the lifeatgoogle twitter showed a bias towards women and PoCs that indicated google wasn't interested in hiring men, aren't the topic that's being communicated in this thread.
365.
by tomlock 10y ago
The question you were responding to was about people bought up in an environment where they had no access to other sources of knowledge. I think a response that suggests that everybody ought to know how to determine fact from fiction is in
366.
by tomlock 10y ago
Based on your quantification, there's now more evidence for the claim that you perceive an unbiased sample of people to be biased towards minorities and women, than there is evidence against that claim. It seems like you're strug
367.
by tomlock 10y ago
If everybody could see the signs wouldn't that make your post vacuous?
368.
by tomlock 10y ago
>You assume now that metric is conclusive because it fits your conviction. No, you're now walking back your claims because the one metric you have quantified doesn't fit your conviction. At the time you claimed that by simply
369.
by tomlock 10y ago
This sounds incredibly embarassing, and even as a US citizen makes me fear travelling to America.
370.
by tomlock 10y ago
Actually I had no idea what the demographic percentages of the US were before I looked them up. Your original point was that you thought Google wasn't interested in hiring male engineers anymore. The current demographics of Google are
371.
by tomlock 10y ago
You're again, falling victim to confirmation bias by rejecting the best quantification you've provided yet. Lets examine the data you've provided - 29% white women, 19% women of color, 21% men of color, 30% white men. This da
372.
by tomlock 10y ago
>I don't know what is true, but with the media, with some experience, you can see signs. What experience do you have that differs from typical people which allows you to make these judgements? How are you determining that this isn&#
373.
by tomlock 10y ago
So what's your conclusion?
374.
by tomlock 10y ago
Absolute confirmation bias. I can't wait for your quantification of the life at google twitter.
375.
by tomlock 10y ago
I suggest you talk to your peers and see if they feel context is a subset of content.
376.
by tomlock 10y ago
>But they will also drive away some people. What evidence do you have for this?
377.
by tomlock 10y ago
I did look and we disagree. Perhaps you can quantify what you saw?
378.
by tomlock 10y ago
The article addresses at least some of these points.
379.
by tomlock 10y ago
I remember a thread a few months ago where said the twitter feed google had up for promoting working at google was evidence google wasn't interested in hiring male coders anymore. If only you applied such rigorous quantitative standard
380.
by tomlock 10y ago
So you don't think the name or time is content, but you do think where the comment is, is content? Do you feel like if you make a comment in one situation, and then make the exact same comment in another situation, that the content of
381.
by tomlock 10y ago
You're responding to a post where I suggested a throwaway comment should be discussed with real people, irl. What position do you think I'm defending?
382.
by tomlock 10y ago
>I upvoted her story. It's a terrible case and it needs to be investigated ASAP. Maybe, just maybe, you should put this above the fold next time.
383.
by tomlock 10y ago
The blog post it was posted on? How posting it here would make people feel?
384.
by tomlock 10y ago
No? Why would I argue that? It is a criticism. Just not of the content.
385.
by tomlock 10y ago
You thought I was criticizing the content of his post? Incorrect.
386.
by tomlock 10y ago
Do you think women feel more or less safe around people who, given an egregious example of harassment, instead leap to the defense of the six silicon valley companies they've worked for or to criticise the NYT?
387.
by tomlock 10y ago
I hope you don't "use" one. Sex workers deserve better.
388.
by tomlock 10y ago
Earlier you thought I was insisting women would be offended by something, and you’ve since stated that if I wasn’t insisting that, my “argument” was meaningless. What did you think we were discussing? Did you think that if women were offen
389.
by tomlock 10y ago
Their experiences, anecdotes, complaints and feelings of personal safety are meaningless?
390.
by tomlock 10y ago
I think its quite telling that you find a comment where I suggest actually talking to women to be meaningless unless there's the implication of offense.

More ›