nisuni's comments

I have my evidence that Lena is not harmful to women, at least to this woman. It’s one data point, but better than zero.

You are making a much stronger claim without evidence. How is Lena harmful? How many women did Lena drive out of CS?

Do you have some proof, some data, besides neo-Marxist crap such a intersectionalized mysoginistic oppression?

It reminds me of that video that showed that college students are outraged by stereotypical Mexican Halloween costumes, but actual Mexicans are fine with it.

Are you fighting for women, or for your ego?

My point is: people (often, males) like to speak in the name of all women when it comes to Lena.

It’s offensive, it keeps women out of CS, it’s a symbol of the patriarchy, etc...

As woman, I am saying this is not the case, at least not for THIS woman: I’ve never felt excluded because of Lena, my CS studies were not impeded by Lena in any way, I have actually used Lena’s image for a small project.

Of course I would accept someone saying that the image offends someone (better if this point is substantiated by evidence) but I absolutely reject people speaking in the name of all women, an saying that Lena offends all women. This is not true!

Woman here, you are absolutely right, I couldn’t care less about Lena!

As a woman in CS I couldn’t care less about Lena.

Let’s focus on real things, not on this phony issues!

> why

Cancel culture.

People lose jobs for things said 30 years ago, and that were completely acceptable 30 years ago.

> Niel Golightly stepped down after an employee complained about an article he wrote in 1987 that said women should not serve in combat. He said those views do not reflect his opinion today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/business/boeing-resignati...

You want to be insured against that.

Never heard of a stereotype according to which only women are mean.

The First Amendment, as you correctly point out, protects freedom of speech in certain cases that are not really relevant here.

However, people might support a higher standard for freedom of speech, and might wish businesses also concur in protecting it.

This is not in the law, but very often people have moral standards that are stricter than the law.

Therefore, I don’t see any contradiction here.

Myself, I full acknowledge that Facebook is not bound to grant freedom of speech to its users by the First Amendment, but I still wish it did so.

Inverting the Laplace transform is a central problem in computational physics, since it connects imaginary-time results (easier to obtain numerically) to real-time response.

Over the years a number of approaches have been developed for the inverse Laplace transform, such as MaxEnt, GIFT and many others.

I would love to see how this new approach fares against those.

That’s not about Michael, we both agree on his outstanding qualifications and on the fact that he fully deserved the job.

That’s about hirings based (also) on skin color rather than merit alone.

I am sorry for him. I know as a fact that he’s brilliant and fully deserves the position, but given the circumstances (Ohanian resigning and calling for someone black to replace him) he will always have to live with people having the reasonable doubt that he didn’t arrive there for merit alone.

If they only had a native Mac application.

I love Notion, but the Mac client feels so sluggish, I didn’t investigative but looks like a web view or Electron or something similar.

As I have already told you the yelling fire thing is essentially a rhetorical device, that has been used to promote suppression of free speech to a much larger extent.

I don’t think I even care, but please be honest about it and tell people why and what you would ban.

I am sure that, like every one using the arguments you are using, you would suppress free speech much more than that!

Be open and direct, we still have free speech my friend!

No need to hide between rhetorical devices.

The yelling fire example is an extreme edge case, and it’s usually used by people who would like to limit freedom of speech much more than that.

I’ve never heard it being used genuinely not even once.

I find it irritating: you don’t want freedom of speech? State than openly and tell me why.

> From what I read, these are only useful if you're sick and trying to reduce transmission.

Governments have been telling this, as well, but it cannot be 100% true. I supposed it was a white lie to prevent people from stockpiling.

Otherwise, there would be no use in medical personnel using masks.

I can understand that face masks might not be the best measure for healthy people, I can understand that they might not be super-effective, I can also understand that only certain types of masks are effective, but I cannot rationally believe all masks are completely useless.

That’s quite a stretch. And it shows how limited your comprehension of the topic is.

Clearly, the money that goes to starving children comes from a different Department, and they are on different budgets. You just cannot move money like that.

And I still think that rather than giving a silly paternal leave, a longer maternal leave would be much more desirable.

Money is limited and the government decides how to distribute it. The difference between spending it on B and taking it away from A is, to me, absolutely unsubstantial.

Why not increasing the maternal leave then? I would highly prefer that!

Some money is spent into this, I would rather see the money being spent to increase mother’s leave.

The government is putting some money in it. I would prefer that money was used to extend the mother’s leave.

Thanks but no thanks.

When I’ll have a baby I‘ll have to breastfeed, after having carried him for nine months, and having him exit through my private parts.

Give me my extended, non trasferrable maternal leave!

Edit: since some people are misunderstanding my point: extending the paternal leave costs money. I would rather prefer those money being spent on more maternal leave.

That’s unnecessarily patronizing.