Geminidog's comments

How does two flags make me not a feminist? My reputation or two flags has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a feminist or not. It doesn't even make sense how I was flagged.

I literally worked in a place where a coworker had sex with the interns he "mentored" and he "mentored" them directly for the opportunity of sex. This happened, and it's not in my power to control what happens in the real world.

My coworker also "hired" these interns and I can guarantee you they wouldn't have been hired if they were dudes. Not saying this happens everywhere, but this stuff definitely happens.

Literally what did I say or do that was against equal opportunities for both genders? Nothing. If I'm wrong, find evidence and make your case.

>Your complaints are entirely anecdotal, meanwhile it's very easy to point at empirical data showing how women are treated poorly.

Show me the data for this specific case of horizontal movement in engineering organizations for women and you have an argument that can change my view.

>If you actually want to call yourself a legitimate feminist you should spend more time listening and learning. It might make you actually feel silly to complain about how men are treated in tech.

I am listening and learning. Show me your data. <-- that is literally a call for you to prove your points so that I can "listen and learn"

>I'm saying what's the point of even keeping score when the odds are so stacked against women.

Who's keeping score? I'm just bringing up one specific case of unfair treatment. I never tried to turn this into a battle of "which sex is treated more unfairly"

Because I support equal opportunity for all genders. I assume this is what feminism supports as well.

Is there somewhere in my post where I implied otherwise? Please cite what I said that made you think I am not a feminist.

So your saying women have zero advantages over men? That absolutely none exist or has ever existed?

Out of all possible advantages (let's say 1000 in total) your saying men hold 100% of all these advantages and women can't even hold one advantage?

What in your mind is more realistic?

I did. I responded because imo under normal circumstances nobody would be offered this kind of deal. It doesn't make economical sense for the company.

She was given leeway and my guess is because she's a woman among other things. Women do have advantages that men don't.

Women also have disadvantages but that is not my point. I am simply pointing out one area where women have an advantage in a male dominated field. It's a real advantage.

Nothing wrong with being a feminist. Both genders deserve equal treatment. I consider myself to be a feminist.

How is my statement biased? Men can suffer from unfair treatment as well. I never said anything to discount feminism, I simply stated one case where men are treated less well then women and I caveated that statement saying that this was based off of my own anecdotal experiences implying that your experience could be different.

Do you think it's possible to live in a world where women are the only gender that is mistreated? Or do you think it's more realistic to live in a world where infractions are committed against both genders?

This is off topic, but if my statement about this one case pissed you off because you're an ardent supporter of womens' rights I think you need to watch the video below and keep in mind... I literally never said anything AGAINST women's rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY

I didn't say anything hateful towards women. I think women get this better treatment then men but I didn't say they should turn it down nor did I say they didn't deserve it. I simply pointed out a difference.

And what wrong with switching from Janitor to SWE? Same basic job switch from one another field with completely different skillets but completely different treatment due to perceived ranking.

>I find these anecdotes to be completely untrue.

You can't find my anecdotal experiences to be untrue because you haven't experienced my anecdotal experience. This is physically impossible.

What you can claim is that my anecdotal experiences do not apply to women in engineering corporations in general. However, this is not a claim that I made as I caveated my point with the fact that what I'm saying is based off of my own anecdotal evidence.

> I don't have an equivalent story for women because I work with significantly less women.

Evidence is the only way to make sense of the reality we live in and there are two basic types: Anecdotal and Statistical. You claim here that you have no anecdotal evidence. That means statistical evidence is your only option (a stronger option btw) so where is it?

>Let's try focusing on the apparent and obvious biases against women before we start keeping score on how men are so disenfranchised.

Why should I focus on your claim that has no evidence? If men are indeed disenfranchised shouldn't that deserve focus? Are womens' rights superior to mens rights? Are you implying men can't be treated unfairly?

Why can't we focus on the rights of both genders?

When I said you're the guy that can see the bright side of dog shit I was startlingly accurate. You're that one guy people call "excessively positive."

Every time your brain sees something related to "science" it automatically dumps a gallon of dopamine into the happy center of your brain giving you euphoria equivalent to a line of heroin.

I wonder what's your positive spin on the holocaust? There's actual science that came out of that event.

> Isn't that like saying, "I used to marvel at nature, that it has elements such as fire, water, ice, and amazing living things. Then I discovered it is all made of atoms interacting... I am now less motivated." ?

Yes it is exactly what I'm saying. I'm less interested because of this. I could turn it around and also say that with your extremely positive attitude you can look at a piece of dog shit and make it look "amazing." Think about it. That dog shit is made out of a scaffold of living bacteria like a mini-civilization or ecosystem! Each unit of bacteria in this ecosystem is in itself a complex machine constructed out of molecules! Isn't the universe such an interesting place!!!!!

This history of that piece of shit stretches back though millions of years of evolutionary history. That history is etched into our DNA, your DNA and every living thing on earth!!! All of humanity shares common ancestors with the bacteria in that piece of shit and everything is interconnected through the tree of life!!! We can go deeper because every atom in that DNA molecule in itself has a history where the scale is off the charts. Each atom was once part of a star and was once part of the big bang! We, You and I are made out of Star Material! When I think about all of this I'm just in awe!!!! wowowow. Not.

I'm honestly just not interested in a piece of shit. It's boring and I can't explain why, but hopefully the example above will help you understand where I'm coming from.

Let me clarify. I mean “intelligence from the perspective of modern ML” is just an optimization problem.

It’s even boring to technical people. It reduces intelligence to a multidimensional optimization problem. Now intelligence just involves all kinds of mechanical ways to fill out the weights for a neural network. I use to be more interested. Upon learning more about it, I am less motivated.

There’s lots of data that is google-able. Children of single parents end up significantly worse off.

There’s really bad statistics for the children of divorced parents. It may be healthy in your some cases but it’s damaging to the child.

This doesn’t effect the result. They are comparing people with children. If you didn’t have children or aborted a child it’s the same as not getting married. You simply aren’t part of the study because you are irrelevant for the same reason that a kangaroo is irrelevant to the study.

A disproportionate amount of parents with first born daughters over sons is inconsequential because they are measuring the percentage of divorces for each population, not the total number of divorces for each population.

The logic she uses here is really far fetched and unlikely to be true so you really need statistical causal links in order to say anything substantial. I mean her disclosure also discloses a possible bias. She may not have the ability to admit that she her self was the causal factor in her own parents divorce.

> The fundamental problem with the example under discussion seems to be that while the behaviour might not be intended by the programmer, it is working as specified as far as the language is concerned and changing that specification to make the unwanted behaviour fail a type check could have additional and unwanted side effects.

You don't need to change the behavior of the program. You can change the type checker to catch the unwanted error.

>Perhaps I’m not correctly understanding your idea around arity as part of the function types, but so far it’s not obvious to me how what I think you’re describing helps to resolve that contradiction. Are you suggesting a way the type system could be changed without causing those additional, unwanted side effects?

It's not formalized anywhere to my knowledge and I'm not willing to go through the rigor to do this in the comments. But it can easily be explained.

Simply put, what is the type signature of a function that can accept either two variables or one variable? I've never seen this specified in any formal language.

To fix this specific issue you want the type signature here to specify only certain functions with a fixed arity.

When some external library is updated with a function that previously had arity 1 to <arity 1 or 2> that could be thought of as type change that should trigger a type error.

Right now type checker recognizes F(a) and F(a, b=c) (where c is a default parameter that can be optionally overridden) as functions with matching types.

  F(a) == F(a, b=c)
  F(a,b) == F(a, b=c) <-----(F(a,b) in this case is a function where b is NOT optional) 
  F(a) != F(a, b) 

From the example above you can see the type checker lacks transitivity (a == c and b == c does not imply a == b), because the type of a function with an optional parameter is not really well defined or thought out.

This is exactly the problem the author is describing. The type checker assumes that when the library changed F(a) to F(a, b=c) that the types are still equivalent, but this breaks transitivity so it's a bad choice and will lead to strange errors because programmers assume transitivity is a given.

You don't see this problem in other type checkers because JavaScript is weird in the sense that you can call a function of arity 1 with 5 parameters.

Read carefully. The distinction here is that the type checker must allow for intended behavior within JavaScript while checking for an error.

The type checking I am talking about is not a sum type. It is not that the function can take a two different possible types. It's the fact that the parameter function can mutate into two different types depending on the usage. It has (<arity 1 or 2>) not (<arity 1> or <arity 2>) if you catch my meaning.... Or in other words the concrete type is not evaluated when you pass the function as a parameter but only when it is called with a certain amount of parameters... which is not something type checkers I know about look for.

It's also clear meaning light passes through this baryonic matter.

My question is, how do we know that the "dark matter" we assume to be littered all over the universe isn't just clear baryonic matter?

I know that we infer the existence of dark matter through gravity so how do we know that this dark matter isn't just "clear" baryonic matter?

Any astronomers care to share their expertise?

Would it be possible for all the missing matter to be just unseen baryonic matter? How are we sure that most of this is exotic dark matter?