đ Quick links thread
-
Maybe some small publishers will go out of business because of this. I won't care. Will large publishers do this? Almost certainly not; they know where the money is (and it isn't in taking idiotic stances on this sort of thing). Which isn't to say that a female-author-only publisher can't work. There are clear counterexamples. But insisting on stabbing yourself in the face just becauseâŠ
Pffff. Anyone doing this won't be missed.
OTOH, I really don't like the tone on that blog you linked to. It seems mean-spirited. I'd probably despise the author if I met him.
-
Considering that internalized oppression had been a tenant of feminism since forever, it seems kind of silly to rejoice on hearing them âadmit itâ.
That'd be like me laughing at a Christian for admitting that they believe in Godâin practice, most Christians probably disagree with me that saying you believe in something is just a backhanded way of saying that it doesn't exist.
-
That'd be like me laughing at a Christian for admitting that they believe in God
I'm not getting the analogy here. Do you actually believe that they've basically been brainwashed in favor of male authors? I'm not sure how else to interpret "internalized oppression."
-
brainwashed
I suppose you could call it that. I believe the more commonly used term is âcattyâ. I'm not really an expert on this kind of stuff, but I understand the idea is that members of a given group can still be prejudiced against other members of the same group (or even themselves, confer: âself-hating Jewâ). I suppose one potential point of difference can be whether such behavior is an inherent characteristic of the groups in question or a reasonable (if somewhat irrational) response to the position they find themselves in.
Anyway, it seems to me like that blogger is loling at the admission of non-controversial point A (that even people who are trying not to be biased can still be biased) because in his mind, A clearly proves B (this is pretty trollish probably, but I'm going to say that point B is âmen are inherently superior to womenâ, because I'm not really sure what else he's trying to say there), but its pretty clear that, whatever B actually is, the people who originally admitted A don't agree that A implies B.
-
Anyway, it seems to me like that blogger is loling at the admission of non-controversial point A (that even people who are trying not to be biased can still be biased)
No. Occam's razor says that they get more publishable material from men. Instead of looking at what they got and why they made their decisions, they decided that they must be somehow irrationally biased and can't trust themselves to do their job.
-
Did they, or did I make the wrong assumption about what their point even was (I'm only getting this second-hand, via the same person that I'm arguing against). If they're getting more material from men, how is it irrational to want to go out and find extra material from women?
-
If they're getting more material from men, how is it irrational to want to go out and find extra material from women?
Are they getting more material from men? Are the submissions from men actually better? Why should women prefer women's writing?
I think it's a publicity stunt, personally, but either way it makes them appear unserious.
-
Remember they're dealing with a super saturated market, in terms of number of people looking to get published, everything I've seen suggests a publisher could get away with any number of gimmicks before running out of things to publish.
I don't doubt that it's a publicity stunt, but I don't feel that it's been shown that the stated justification for it is particularly absurd.
-
It's not about "running out of things" to publish. Presumably they're picking the stuff that they think will sell the best. Honestly, focusing on the declared gender of the author seems dumb all around, but I just like reading books, not publishing them.
But I don't think we're going to agree on the degree of silliness involved.
-
If they're getting more material from men, how is it irrational to want to go out and find extra material from women?
A salient question here is: do they know how to pick out material that will sell well or not? If they don't, maybe that's the problem to fix. Either way, I think your approach is basically like looking for lost car keys under a streetlamp because the light's better there.
-
Presumably they're picking the stuff that they think will sell the best.
One thing I definitely have been consistent with across threads is that that is not an assumption I ever make about any part of the entertainment industry, especially not a not-for-profit that's funded by grants from the national lottery.
Honestly, focusing on the declared gender of the author seems dumb all around, but I just like reading books, not publishing them.
Feature request: partial likes.
-
Excellent summary of the situation so far, for those who didn't really follow.
-
Honestly, focusing on the declared gender of the author seems dumb all around,
Or the perceived gender of the pseudonym being used.
I present Newt Gingrich as an example.
Oh, sorry - that was based off an Onion article I picked up on. I meant, of course, Robert Galbraith.
-
###What is the performance of Objects/Arrays in JavaScript? (specifically for Google V8)
Link directly to a great answer. This guy did a fantastic multi-test of a whole bunch of js operations. Unfortunately, both jsperf and his site are down ATM, but his summary remains.
TLDR: Use arrays wherever speed is crucial.
The only area where arrays falter is search by key, which is where I switch over to hashes. I personally did a perf test a while back and seem to remember that "helper hashes" start to pay off once you go over about 10 elements. But I could be wrong.
-
###Brainless Google Photos app labels black people 'gorillas'
Machine learning. What could possibly go wrong?
-
He grumbled that "machine learning is hard" and said that "until recently, [the Photos app] was confusing white faces with dogs and seals." Zunger said that Google was "working on longer-term fixes", including better image recognition of "dark-skinned faces".
Sounds like Google's development team is learning the hard way just how inadequately they are expressing the defining features of human beings. It would be far better for the app to give up and tell the user that it can't classify their images more often instead of messing up like this.
-
TRWTF of the article:
However, the question has to be asked: why did Google release such a half-baked app for showtime in the first place?
That's a question that needs to be asked in 2015?
-
Did they even consider what the cost of an incorrect classification is for their app? A negative impact on reputation can, in some situations, be just as damaging as lost time, materials, and the failure to identify faulty manufacturing equipment, or equivalent costs in other ML applications.
-
Sounds like Google's development team is learning the hard way just how inadequately they are expressing the defining features of human beings.
Whaaa!
The company that brought us Google Wave and Google Buzz doesn't know how humans work?!?! SAY IT AIN'T SO!
-
For all the information we voluntarily give them, it's astonishing how profoundly wrong they use it in cases like this.
-
Their line forever has been letting employees do science projects. This definitely smells like one. It just got out and was able to cause hilarity.
-
##A quick puzzle to test your problem solving
And then an article that pivots based on the expected result. No spoilers on what's it about.
-
Very interesting. I confess, it got me.
-
And then an article that pivots based on the expected result.
Or not. It doesn't bloody work, I clicked around in both IE and FF, and I can't get the website to submit.
Unless that's the joke? In which case, man what a waste of time.
Okay, maybe it's the corporate firewall or something. Also I'm an idiot, since I got the noes for (0, 0, 0), (1, 1, 1) and (-1, -2, -4), and still went on with the answer.
To be honest, I expected a more complicated rule, so I went on to find an edge case where things break.
-
I actually got it right, but only because I vaguely remember reading about similar experiment earlier and had a suspicion of what's going on.
-
I'd imagine any good programmer would be more likely to test for failing cases rather than just expected results. I tried a few hypotheses and worked out the right answer, but didn't think to try with negative or non-integer values
-
Been there, seen it, done it, left this message:
This is bullshit, your premise and argument would have more weight if you had chosen a less, intentionally, misleading example such as 83 99 150. Because then, as you argue, people would "struggle" to find the "answer, and get upset when it is "wrong. As for the success rate of children, you have a totally specious reasoning. People who are never exposed to "problem solving" environments do not develop problem solving skills and, therefore, never build up a "library" of possible answers, outcomes or consequences. Yes, this describes children. It also describes ignorant adults. As a by product of learning to solve problems, you all learn that most problems are simple to solve. I am quite sure that most (educated) people will 2, 4, 8, as 2x1, 2x2, 2x4 some may see it as 2x1, 2x2, 2x2x2 depending on their relative experience, as you argue. And yes, more intelligent or experienced people are more likely to think zebras rather than horses when they hear hoof beats. I would not consider this a failure, at either a Government or individual level. A parent knows, through experience, that throwing a ball in a house may result in breakages, a child won't know not matter how many times they are told until it witnesses a breakage. Your arguments suggest to me that you are still, very much a child. Oh, yeah! Next time do some Cross Browser checks your (website) tests, or if you don't know how, try not to be so clever with it. It's not needed and totally wasted if your are going to embed your answer / reasoning in the page. I tried it on IE, when the "check" button continued to "not work", I thought that was the test i.e. How many times people put in answers and made ineffective clicks before they gave up. (or is that over thinking things? And what would you class my "thinking" in trying a different Browser?). Have a good day. Ps. I think I am right about the futile click thing, 'cos your "I think I know the answer" submit button isn't.
-
i got it in 0 guesses.
but then having watched this video yesterday probably helped. ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo
also the "pivot" was extremely disappointing. there's just an extra "you got it right" paragraph if you get it right.
-
I tried to key in a (0, 30, +Inf) sequence and hit Enter, and got the "you answered the sequence question wrong" page instead :P Makes me wonder if their code's a bit buggy...I was able to figure out that it was just an ascending-numbers thing though after lots of examples. (I'll have to try the 0, 30, +Inf sequence when I get home, to see if it was the sequence itself that sent things haywire, or if it's a simple UI fail)
-
my first go in IE was 3, 9, 27. But the "submit" button didn't work. Tried clicking the "show me the answer" link with no visible change. So I started poking around the DOM looking for "anything interesting", when I stumbled across a hidden div with their "explanation". Got about halfway through it before trying another browser. Put 1, 2, 3 in and got the "correct answer" shit, an invitation to "do it again" and a request for an explanation of my "reasoning". At which point I had a minor sense of humour failure; considered that it was somebody was doing a "psychology experiment". So I thought I would give them some "bad data".
-
So I thought I would give them some "bad data".
That allows you to pick all sorts of reasons. Good ones might include something quasi-religious: âI chose those numbers because that's what the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me to say. Did I do the right thing?â
-
It did cross my mind (after I had consigned the page to my "one time only" list) that I was, in some way, doing exactly what they wanted. But then that's the problem with experience, it teaches you to be cautious about things. It's a sort of evolutionary success story.
As to your possible suggestion, I doubt they would accept it as they are the ones supervising the test and thaey are an advanced society. The last time any of them said the equivalent of "...we / I expected better from one of our own / staff..." was millennia ago.
Not that I am in anyway suggesting that you are one of them, or even would even consider doing anything like that. But that they are so confident in their deception that they would assume it was one of their own having a giraffe.
-
As you seem to have guessed, the answer was extremely basic. The rule was simply: Each number must be larger than the one before it. 5, 10, 20 satisfies the rule, as does 1, 2, 3 and -17, 14.6, 845. Children in kindergarten can understand this rule.
Fuck you NYT, I said Ascending numbers, which is what that is.
-
Didn't have the pleasure of getting "that" reply. Had I done so, I would have had a serious sense of humour failure. My statement that they were children themselves is supported by their inability to understand ascending to the extent that they felt it necessary to explain it like kindergarten children would. Assuming kindergarten children could rationalise the Rule, even if they understood it completely, without prompting.
-
-
Fuck you NYT, I said Ascending numbers, which is what that is.
I said each number has to be larger than the number in the box to its left.
The problem as presented doesn't imply the numbers should be considered left-to-right. You can't say "ascending numbers" without first establishing in what order they are read.
I HAVE OUT-PEDANTICED YOU!
I also don't think I did more trials than are reasonably necessary to come to that conclusion, about 4-5. Which kind of fucks-up their point in the long boring paragraph below.
-
to its left.
This is a universal reference? And I am not confusing my question with the "your left "or "my left" / mirrored variants. Although this could apply to a range of numbers (variable according to the style / rendering of the numeral) if viewed from a different angle.
-
Oh dear I was out-pedanticed by blakeyrat how unexpected whatever will I do?
-
Seppuku is the usual recommendation.
-
##Five Invaluable Techniques to Improve Regex Performance
I rarely think about regex perf. I should probably think about it more often.
-
Anchoring and character classes are strongly recommended, though some RE engines force anchoring by default. A number of the other techniques are tools that can backfire a bit, and it's important to remember that REs aren't always the right tool to parse some text: sometimes you need a real parser. Or a few REs in a loop, which is the guts of what most parsers really are.
-
And then an article that pivots based on the expected result. No spoilers on what's it about.
Helps if you've seen it before; guessed (correctly) what it was before I made a single attempt.
-
##What is going on in Greece?
Excellent summary of the situation so far, for those who didn't really follow.
I'm going to quote a follow-up comment:
Click to expand
So, in other words... "Hey, Banks." "Hey, Greece, what's up?" "What is ever up, my main man? I need some dough." "Sounds good, my lean Hellene, how much?" "Eh, just enough to get a nice meal for my public sector. I'd say... slightly more than my GDP?" "Aw, man, your public sector's just the cutest. Your GDP will get bigger when your economy grows, right?" "Yeah, of course. I mean, what, is there going to be an unprecedented economic crisis the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1930s?" "Haha, that's why I like you Greece, you're hilarious. Here's your dough. Don't blow it all on one sinecure!"
"What the fuck Greece, where's my money?" "No, what the fuck Banks, where's MY money? Actually, where's EVERYBODY'S money?" "Hey, fuck you Greece. Shit happens. I owe a lot of money to a lot of people. I don't pay them back, we might as well not HAVE money." "What the fuck do you want from me Banks? My economy isn't producing. Its GDP hasn't been this small since it was a pup. I can't pay what I don't got." "Well, then I guess I'll have toâ" "You'll have to WHAT, tough guy, you gonnaâ" "Good morning Greece, good morning Banks." "Oh, um hi, Mrs. Troika." "Good morning Mrs. Troika." "Now what's this I hear about you having a spat about money?" "It's his fault!" "No, it's his fault!" "QUIET! I will hear you one at a time. Greece, do you owe Banks money?" "Yes Mrs. Troika." "Banks, did you lend that same money to your friends? And more importantly, all my friends?" "Yes Mrs. Troika. Sorry Mrs. Troika." sigh "Now this is very serious, Banks. Very irresponsible. I'm very disappointed, and I want you to promise it won't happen again." "I promise Mrs. Troika." "Now Greece, I'm going to give you the money to pay back Banks. But you're going to have to be very careful with it. Very austere. You must only use that money to pay back Banks." "But Mrs. Troika, I also need money to fix my economy! It's not well" "And why, Greece, is your economy unwell in the first place?" "It's Banks' fault!" "And..." "Because I overfed the public sector." "Yes. Now I don't see why I should give you more money when you've already shown you can't use it responsibly. Pay back Banks, and I'm sure your economy will be right as rain in the morning! Right as rain!" "But it's not fair! Why doesn't Banks get in trouble?" "Oh, look at the time, I'm late for yoga. You kids play nice now!"
"Mrs. Troika?" "Yes, Greece?" "My economy isn't getting better. I think it's sick." "Greece, have you been overfeeding its public sector again?" "I haven't! I promise I haven't!" "Hmm, well let me take a look at OH MY WORD! Its tax system has completely collapsed! It's got corruption ALL THROUGH its public sector! Greece, when you enrolled in the Eurozone you said your economy was HEALTHY!" "I had to! If I didn't say that, you wouldn't have let me enroll!" "Greece, did you lie to me?" "Um, maybe, a little? But what about my economy? Can't youâ" "Greece, get out of my office, go to your room, and think about what you've done! And do so AUSTERELY!" "Yes, Mrs. Troika."
"Good morning, Italy." "Good morning, Mrrrs. Trrroika." "Good morning, Spain." "Good morning Mithuth Troika." sigh "Good morning Greece." "Mrs. Troika, austerity isn't working for me! I need you toâ" "Quiet! Now Italy, have you been austere, and is your economy any better?" "Yes, Mrrs. Trroika. A little imprrrovement." "Spain?" "Yeth, Mithuth Troika. No improvement, but it'th not any worsthe." "Greece?" "I've been austere just like you said, but it's MUCH WORSE! Now it's got civil unrest, and sagging foreign investment, and youth unemployment! I think I need to stop austerity! I'm not like the other kids!" "Mithuth Troika, can I stop austerity too? My economy has youth unemployment real bad." "Mrrs. Trroika, me too? Mine has... um southerrnerrs, I think? And corruption at the highest levels?" "QUIET! ALL of you. Austerity is perfectly good for all of you, and I will hear NO COMPLAINTS! Spain, go to your room and reform your banking system. Italy, you should know better than to talk about corruption in front of Greece. Go to your room and write me two pages on Entrenched Cronyism. Greece, see me in my office. Everyone else, DISMISSED!"
"Greece, I'm very disappointed in you. Why don't you listen whenâ" "No, why don't YOU listen Mrs. Troika! You KNOW my economy isn't like the other kids'! You KNOW it's special! You KNOW austerity isn't working! Why won't you loan me more money so I can make it better?" "Greece, if you had shown you could handle the money responsibâ" "Don't bother, I KNOW why! It's because of GERMANY! It's because Germany's economy is so energetic, and Germany is always talking about austerity, and you don't have any opinions of your own it's all GERMANY GERMANY GERMANY. Well if you love Germany so much, maybe you should marryâ" "GREECE HELLENIC REPUBLIC. I will NOT tolerate that kind ofâ" "You know what, maybe I shouldn't be in the Eurozone at all! Things were better when I was on my own, and if my economy got sick, I could inject Drachma whenever I needed!" "Now Greece, you don't mean that. And besides, those days are over! You can't go back to giving your economy Drachma now. Why, you don't even have any Drachma anymore. You'd have to give it something shoddy that you threw together. Ha! Why, it would be worse than giving it Lira!" gasp "Mrs. Troika did you just say the L word?" "Uh, now, Greece, in a historical context it's perfectly acceptable toâ" "TROIKA SAID LIRA, TROIKA SAID LIRA!" "WhĂ„t, did yöu say Ă€ teacher sĂ„id the L wörd?" "I, uh, ohmy Sweden, I thought you weren't visiting until next week?" "WhĂ„t is this Ă€bout the L wörd? And why does thĂ„t student's econömy have youth unemployment? What kind öf place is this? I cĂ€n't enroll here." "TROIKA SAID LIRA, TROIKA SAID LIRA!" "Greece, go to your room!" "NO! I don't have to do anything you say! I'm dropping out of the Eurozone, and I'll make new Drachma, and inject them until my economy feels better again! Then its tourist sector will get healthy, and it'll grow bigger and stronger than all your economies! Even yours! Especially yours, Germany!" whimper sputter cough "I know it's hard, now, economy, but you'll see, we'll do better on our own! We'll do way better." "Greece, this is your last chance..." "Fuck you Mrs. Troika, fuck all the rest of you! ESPECIALLY YOU, GERMANY!" slam "You know, Mrs. Troika, this never happens where I'm from." "Shut up, China."
-
##The Decline of Stack Overflow
https://medium.com/@johnslegers/the-decline-of-stack-overflow-7cb69faa575d
A good summary of one of our favorite topics :) Bonus points for using Atwood's definition of troll to declare the site run by trolls.
-
but didn't think to try with negative or non-integer values
I tried negative (and zero) but not non-integer values. My tests had 3 noes before I guessed.
The problem as presented doesn't imply the numbers should be considered left-to-right. You can't say "ascending numbers" without first establishing in what order they are read.
It talks about a sequence of numbers. This implies ordering. You're reading in a left to right language. This implies the particular order of the sequence. The reader was you. This implies you didn't understand what you read.
I don't see the problem.
-
The hive does not like that, and there will be no comments explaining why unless you ask. Just close, thank you, and come again.
Heh...and we see that JDGI has spread.
-
As opposed to having yet another âquestionâ which has either been beaten to death before, or which impossible to answer correctly (âWhich is best: peanut tambourine, peppermint shark or cereal gorilla?â) or that has been asked so poorly that nobody has any idea WTF is going on? Because that's the sort of shit that gets the super-fast close. Has been for years.
-
Some good points. But also some selfish whiners.
Check out this guy:
I read through a number of questions today and had several comments for the original poster. Unfortunately, I couldnât make my comments, since new users cannot post comments on articles they themselves didnât write (you have to gain âreputationâ in order to gain that privilege). Posting my comment as an âanswerâ to the original question seemed like bad form, so I didnât do that.
You're not supposed to comment, you're supposed to answer. SO is not a forum.
Looking elsewhere around the site, I found a few questions I felt I could answer. As soon as I went to answer said questions, someone else (in some cases, a number of other people) had jumped in and beaten me to the punch. I never had a chance to provide a helpful answer.
You could have written an answer, you just wouldn't have gotten points for it, which is what you're really sore about. Whining how SO sucks because the asker got their answer too fast is the pinnacle of selfishness.
Not only do you have to be very knowledgeable about a subject, youâve also got to be very fast in providing said answer. I eventually did provide an answer for a question, then realized that my approach wouldnât work. Before I could take action and modify the answer, my submission had already been modded down by several people, several of whom left snarky remarks. What a warm welcome for a new user! I subsequently deleted my answer.
So you posted an incorrect answer and were downvoted.... Err, WTF did you expect? That's what the downvoting is for.
Basically the guy posts a late, incorrect answer to a low hanging fruit question. Then whines he's not given a red carpet for his effort. Good riddance.
-
You could have written an answer, you just wouldn't have gotten points for it, which is what you're really sore about. Whining how SO sucks because the asker got their answer too fast is the pinnacle of selfishness.
Oftentimes, having two or three answers beats the pants off of having one! Think of what you can offer that the other answers aren't -- a different viewpoint can often be useful.
However:
So you posted an incorrect answer and were downvoted.... Err, WTF did you expect? That's what the downvoting is for.
Yeah -- downvoting is a normal part of SO life -- I've had a few answers (and questions too) that flopped, myself. You just reanalyze things and move on
-
Oftentimes, having two or three answers beats the pants off of having one! Think of what you can offer that the other answers aren't -- a different viewpoint can often be useful.
I've even had it happen that I've provided a late answer to a question that already had an accepted answer, and then either become the accepted answer or wound up with far more upvotes than the accepted answer.
But shitty answers never (well, hardly ever) attract reputation, and that's how it is supposed to be: would you want a bad answer (whether failing to actually answer the Q or just plain getting it wrong) to your questions?Stack Overflow isn't a forum or debating society. It's a Q&A site.
