prev <-> next
[2017-08-24 12:17:29] - Paul: Also (and I haven't followed this up at all so going on her word) she said that Damore had gone on some alt right podcasts and didn't really see any issues with the alt right so for her that makes the memo more insidious that she thinks he is just lying about actually being pro diversity and just wants to get rid of actual programs that help diversity. -Daniel
[2017-08-24 12:15:59] - Paul: Erin (the lady I talked to last night) had a pretty strong / passionate response when I talked to her about the memo. I think as a women in STEM and having to deal with things like this they have way less patience for it and the attitudes behind it. Thats my take on her response though. -Daniel
[2017-08-24 12:13:30] - Paul: I think a lot of people are reading it as Damore justifying his beliefs using a couple of flimsy studies (hence sexist) rather than trying to present a fact with a preponderance of evidence (not sexist). -Daniel
[2017-08-24 12:12:30] - Paul: I think people come up with the sexist label because if you read four studies and then conclude that women are more neurotic because they are women you might be sexist. Maybe instead you should question that because it seems like a big conclusion to draw from four studies. -Daniel
[2017-08-24 12:09:03] - Paul: I think the racist thing they are pointing out is that tying IQ to biology/race has a history of being used in eugenics and has a strong racist history. I think you might not see it as such if you don't have the context but apparently its not very subtle for those that do? -Daniel
[2017-08-24 11:50:23] - a: It's the royal we. I was referring to Damore and his detractors (or even Google management). I am not qualified to discuss the science. It was directed at those who wanted him fired. -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:42:52] - "why can't we just calmly and rationally discuss the science behind it" i thought you didn't want to defend the science. make up your mind
~a[2017-08-24 11:40:20] - Daniel: From what I read, he was considered a good employee before this, and I haven't read anything about HR approaching him to ask him to stop doing this or anything like that. They basically found out he had been sharing these suggestions and then fired him. Was there a dialog? -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:38:59] - Daniel: Instead of the reaction being: "This is a topic that cannot be discussed at all and it is so toxic for you to even suggest these things that you must be fired." -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:38:12] - Daniel: Even in that worst case scenario, though, I don't see why the reaction to the memo couldn't be: "Hey, you're giving these suggestions and asking for feedback, but we noticed your conclusions are invalid for X, Y and Z reasons. Let me show you where you are jumping to the wrong conclusions and why based on the science." -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:37:01] - Daniel: So while he is trying to apply scientific reasoning to his assertions, he is either (1) Drawing way too definitive conclusions from the data or (2) Misreading the data. I'm 100% willing to believe that to be the case here. -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:36:47] - what about actual evidence going the other way? Basically the only thing presented to me from the "it's teh sexisms/discrimination" side is just the demographic statistics and mostly personal anecdotes (some of which are dependent on specific interpretation of events). It seems like there's call for strict standards of supporting evidence for Damore but not for the other side. - mig
[2017-08-24 11:36:05] - Daniel: It sounds to me like the worst case scenario for Damore (not for me, because despite what Adrian says, I don't really have a vested interest here) is that he is wrong about pretty much all of his conclusions because he is inferring too much from the studies he has read. -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:34:31] - Daniel: The second article is way too long for me to read in the entirety right now. I tried skimming it, though. I really appreciate the in-depth work done to refute Damore on scientific grounds, but from what I read, it kinda confirms what I'm thinking. Let me lay out the "worse" case scenario: -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:28:47] - Like, if I was trying to make the case that vaccines are safe and was trying to refute an anti-vaccine article, I would think I would just stick to the facts and not start accusing the opposing author of, I dunno, wanting kids in third world countries to die, even if that might ultimately be the result. -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:25:43] - In a way, it almost makes my point about why can't we just calmly and rationally discuss the science behind it without slinging around accusations of sexism and racism and other stuff. Even if he's 100% wrong about his conclusions, why can't people just point that out and stop? -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:23:07] - Daniel: Matt Herndon linked to that first (quora) article in a Facebook post. I appreciate that they are attacking the science and not just being outraged, but I feel like their points are undermined by the constant seemingly tangential references to racism and dog whistles and the alt-right. -Paul
[2017-08-24 11:12:53] - well fuck, i just emboldened a word in a git message that was misspelled. i was highlighting my inability to spell. ~a
[2017-08-24 01:41:12] - https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boots-on-what-the-evidence-says-about-mr-damores-google-memo-bc93c8b2fdb9
[2017-08-24 01:41:06] - https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answ
[2017-08-24 01:41:04] - I asked a female guildie of mine that is smart and I like about the google memo stuff. She pointed me at these two articles. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 16:36:38] - Its easier to say MAGA! WOOO than 'I know Trump has many faults and I don't approve of many of them but I desperately think the country needs to be more fiscally conservative in order to survive and I don't trust the D's at all and even though I barely trust the R's I was hoping there was chance for major fiscal reforms'. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 16:35:00] - I think having a conversation like we had today is more effort than most people want to go through for a conversation and especially for reading comments on an article or facebook thread. So it quickly becomes low energy stuff which is generally just inflammatory. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 16:23:25] - a: I know, I'm back to arguing how things should be, not how they are.
-Paul[2017-08-23 16:08:41] - they mayn't. ~a
[2017-08-23 16:07:05] - a: People can - just very often they don't. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 16:06:13] - paul: "But the fact that we spend all day having a pretty respectful conversation about it" youre falsely equating conversations that we have with conversations that random people have. look at the crap that happens on facebook or twitter or look at comments on any random news site. people cant have normal conversations about touchy subjects like race or gender. ~a
[2017-08-23 15:56:49] - http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/08/948022-man-spent-decades-befriending-kkk-members-hundreds-left-group/ Here's another answer to my question from a few days ago. Probably not open to everybody, though. -Paul
[2017-08-23 15:48:55] - Daniel: Sure, and I can be completely on board with that. I don't know either. But the fact that we spend all day having a pretty respectful conversation about it seems to indicate to me that merely raising this point shouldn't be some horrifying transgression that warrants firing (in the case of my RD article, to be clear). -Paul
[2017-08-23 15:02:58] - Saying science can predict this set of things based on gender therefore we can say this other set of things are also based on gender doesn't seem like good logic to me. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 15:02:13] - Paul: I think that bio gender probably does play a role in the person we become and science does seem to show it influences things. I can agree with both of those. However once we start getting to specific higher order things like ambition and neuroticism I'm not convinced that those traits have been proven to have causal links based in bio gender. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 14:47:33] - I'm sure much of it could have to do with how they're raised, but I find it hard to believe that Gurkie and I are such different parents from others to explain the entire difference. -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:45:56] - Like, completely anecdotally, but it seems like all the evidence in the world tends to point to biology mattering when it comes to gender. I've heard doctors tell me that girls are more likely to do certain things before boys like walk or talk or be potty trained. My girls act pretty different from the boys their age. -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:42:20] - Also, completely off-topic, but if it is true that biological differences in the brain don't have an effect on personality traits or other things, then how do transsexuals know they are the opposite gender? -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:40:43] - Daniel: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ You could absolutely be right. But I've seen quotes (from people who should know more about this than me) that basically says there is evidence. From the article: "Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour." -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:40:03] - I guess I am asserting that science doesn't state that bio gender has causal effects on personality traits. I don't actually know that. I don't remember thinking that was being proven when I read through those studies last week or whenever this came up the first time around. If there is other science out there that says I'm wrong then I'm unaware of it. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 14:36:54] - Paul: I think if you want to assert that science says that women have personality traits because they are women you are going to need a preponderance of evidence / science. I have not seen such a preponderance. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 14:36:08] - Paul: I think that last part right there is where I think you Paul are making the wrong conclusion (and I think Damore as well). Science says our brains our different. Yes. It does not say that those differences are the cause of us tending to prefer different things. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 14:35:19] - Daniel: "I think the ambiguity allows for someone to make a erroneous conclusion about you and label you as sexist" Right, so we're back at the place where I basically can't discuss this without the danger of what I am saying being misconstrued. Right? I don't disagree, necessarily, I'm just disappointed. -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:33:49] - Are they right? I have no idea. I generally trust science, though, and it SEEMS like science is telling me that on average, females brains tend to prefer different things than male brains and that it isn't all just societal impacts. -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:32:43] - Because I've read articles by scientist who claim that studies overwhelmingly show that there are biological differences in brains between genders. Some scientists have even said that "cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences". -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:31:20] - Even still, I did write a paragraph specifically stating that I did not endorse what he wrote. Do I agree with Damore? I honestly don't know. I think some of what he said about biological preferences by gender could very well be true. It could also be completely poppycock. -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:30:08] - Paul: Because you originally asked if it was going to get you in trouble at work. If you co-workers conclude that you do agree with Damore that seems like it could be a problem. I think the ambiguity allows for someone to make a erroneous conclusion about you and label you as sexist (I don't think you are sexist). -Daniel
[2017-08-23 14:29:22] - I don't think what Damore wrote is on the same level as Nazis. I think it should be okay to talk about what he said, NOT spend a paragraph completely denouncing him and all his views, and not get buried by people saying that I am secretly supporting him. -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:28:20] - In that he didn't forcefully enough disavow the Nazis. I think Trump would've been (relatively) fine had he said everything else but also spent a paragraph talking about how horrible Nazis were because whenever Nazis come up, we're culturally required to preface everything with how horrible Nazis are. -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:27:01] - Daniel: "I'm not sure of the answer. I think that is your problem." And I guess I think that is inherently a problem: That you think that not knowing if I agree with him means that I have a problem. I think Adrian's Trump/Nazi analogy was a good one in that Trump didn't really get in trouble for what he said, but for what he didn't say. -Paul
[2017-08-23 14:25:26] - As an aside its been fun for me each time I've used the word intimate today.
-Daniel[2017-08-23 14:21:00] - Paul: Even after reading your article and having this whole discussion - if Andrea asked me "Does Paul agree with Damore?" I'm not sure of the answer. I think that is your problem. Even with your disclaimers if I don't come away with a clear answer to that then if I think you are defending him its easy to attribute his worst points to you. I don't think that is right or fair but that wasn't what you asked about in the beginning. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 14:18:46] - Paul: You are correct that you don't bring it up. Damore did. If you come across as endorsing Damore then it comes across as endorsing that particular point (which is the one that I think got him in the most trouble) hence me referencing it. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 13:51:07] - Daniel: And while I know that certainly COULD get me in trouble, it seems incredibly stupid if it does. All I'm saying is that somebody else is saying his assertion has a basis in science. -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:50:17] - Daniel: Looking over my post, the only time I mention neuroticism (not counting quoting other articles) is here: "They argue that while many of Damore’s assertions have a basis in science (including the now infamous comment about “neuroticismâ€), he’s often cherry-picking his evidence and exaggerating the impact:" -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:46:39] - I think that point you just said is interesting. I think trying to state or suggest that science says women are neurotic because they are women is going to get you in trouble unless its completely bulletproof (and even then would probably still get you in trouble). -Daniel
[2017-08-23 13:45:44] - And so telling me to, in the middle of my post bemoaning this phenomenon, remove a section that most just quotes a bunch of scientists presenting both sides of the issue and where I specifically call out how I am not qualified to judge which side is right, smacks of some kind of.... hypocrisy? -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:44:30] - 'So instead of having a well-informed and nuanced discussion of diversity efforts and the biological effect of gender' - thats a good way. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 13:44:21] - Contrary to what Adrian might think, I actually don't care too much specifically about the science behind this (although I do think it's important). It's more the principle of the thing that permeates my whole post. The larger point of my post is about how sad it is that there are certain things that we apparently simply cannot discuss. -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:40:48] - aDaniel: Okay, so if I wanted to make the point that, while the science isn't settled, it seems like there are studies out there which show that there are biological differences between men and women which might cause they to prefer different fields of study.... you two are saying there is no good way to make that point? -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:27:48] - paul: the endorsement is subtle, like daniel said, but it overrides the thing you said about how you don't mean to argue the science. ~a
[2017-08-23 13:27:07] - paul: "It seems like a subtle endorsement" yeah what daniel said. for example, if you say that white supremacists are bad, but mistakes were made on both sides *on both sides*: like if you say it twice to drive that point home: does it matter that you said that white supremacists are bad? just . . . an example. an example of making a good point badly. ~a
[2017-08-23 13:26:09] - Daniel: "If you say that he was fired solely because his opinion was not popular and not because his position was wrong or bad then it seems to imply that you don't think his position is wrong or bad." Hmmm, I think I see your point here. That wasn't my intention, but I can see where people would think that. -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:24:58] - Daniel: And also a list of traits which might cause women to report higher levels of anxiety at their position (the infamous neuroticism point). I didn't read the whole thing, though, so you could absolutely 100% be right. -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:24:10] - Daniel: "He lists off traits that he attributes to gender and then says how those make the current job harder." I'll take your word for that, because I don't recall seeing that in the memo. What I do recall seeing is a list of traits that he gave which he said would make women less likely to WANT those kinds of jobs. -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:22:00] - Paul: It seems like a subtle endorsement of Damore's position that women are more neurotic because they are women. If you say that he was fired solely because his opinion was not popular and not because his position was wrong or bad then it seems to imply that you don't think his position is wrong or bad. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 13:21:34] - a: I stated multiple times that I'm not qualified to judge what the science says. In my investigation, I found multiple (3 or 4?) articles articulating why the science is relatively sound and only 1 article saying it wasn't. That's why the lengths are different. -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:20:02] - a: "you're sympathetic to his points" I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. Care to share? "you're sympathetic to the science" That's an odd statement to me. Are you sympathetic to science showing that GMOs are safe (or, I guess, that they aren't?). -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:15:25] - Daniel: "This is a dicey sentence." Why do you think that's a dicey sentence? Because it's inaccurate? Or because it seems like I am supporting Damore's viewpoint? -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:12:52] - But I'm more reasonable, I just think he made a bad decision. -Paul
[2017-08-23 13:12:38] - Daniel: "This is a great sentence" Thanks, I liked that one. I probably should've made my opinions on Brooks' quote more clear. The quote wasn't supposed to necessarily be endorsement. In fact, I initially intended it as a contrast of sorts. David Brooks (who writes for the NYT!) thinks Pichai should be fired... -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:58:29] - paul: maybe if i also also included paragraphs about how the science of eugenics is wrong, it'd be cool. but you've done the opposite. ~a
[2017-08-23 12:57:23] - "Do I need to state more times that I am not intending to defend his points or the science?" no amount of times will suffice: you're sympathetic to his points and you're sympathetic to the science. if i said i don't mean to defend the science of eugenics, then spent paragraphs upon paragraphs talking about how people who preach eugenics are badly covered in the press, would it matter that i said that i didn't intentend defend the science? ~a
[2017-08-23 12:51:53] - So in conclusion I think removing the science part is way better but your third part still has things that could in theory get you in trouble, imo. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:50:56] - He lists off traits that he attributes to gender and then says how those make the current job harder. Thats pretty much exactly what Pichai said. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:50:11] - '"To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.†That is a blatantly dishonest characterization of the memo.' You quote Brooks here and endorse this thought. I would disagree. I think Damore on some level says thats not his goal but still totally does exactly what Pichai said there. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:48:11] - Paul: Which is somewhat your point, but nonetheless its still dicey. If someone reads his (or your) writing and concludes that they (or you) think science says that women are more neurotic because they are women they might conclude that is fireable and not because its an opinion not popular with management. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:46:59] - "Essentially, he was fired for expressing ideas that were not popular with Google management." This is a dicey sentence. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:46:37] - "So instead of having a well-informed and nuanced discussion of diversity efforts and the biological effect of gender, we’re instead all burning the same straw-man in effigy." This is a great sentence. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:45:57] - Paul: I think your first section on media coverage is spot on and good stuff. I think there are things in your last section that are dicey but not terrible. I think the science part is not good / not necessary. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:40:19] - Also, does removing the science section make a consider dent in my "likeliness to get in trouble" factor? What do my chances of getting in trouble go from and to? -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:35:30] - Daniel: Like, I honestly feel like that entire section is me quoting a bunch of other people and saying: "I don't know what the science says about this, but here is what people smarter than me say." I don't really see how that could be something that should get me in trouble, but I also am a little surprised Damore got fired, so.... -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:32:29] - Daniel: I honestly didn't feel like I spent much time on it. Most of that section is me quoting other articles. I actually don't say much at all in it, but those quotes ARE long and that makes that section probably the longest. Maybe I just need to add another disclaimer, although that didn't help Damore...
-Paul[2017-08-23 12:32:20] - Paul: Maybe I would just be a cowardly journalist too? I don't know. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:31:27] - Daniel: Hmmm, okay. Thanks for the feedback. I'll take it under consideration. -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:31:17] - Paul: Or spend way less time on it. Say something about how there have been studies that show differences in gender that he is citing so perhaps we need more studies to increase our understanding there but that assigning causal links b/w gender and stereotypes is a dangerous thing and maybe someone should have pointed that out to him instead of crucify him. Maybe, I don't know exactly the way to handle it... -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:27:16] - Paul: It seems like avoiding the dangerous elephant who might step on you and you don't need to go near to make your point. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:26:15] - Daniel: So you suggest removing the science section completely? Doesn't that seem like ignoring the elephant in the room a bit? -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:25:16] - Paul: In both his and your articles I feel like the science part undermines the point you want to make. The science part and its statement on gender seems irrelevant to your point of people having opinions on things they don't read and the ability to challenge an idea bubble in an attempted rational way. You don't have to muddy that water. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:23:18] - Daniel: Fair, and I think that's a completely legitimate point of criticism for him, but if you read about it, he's asking for feedback and debating these points with people. This isn't him saying, "This is how it is. QED". He was like, "I think this might be true, let's talk about it." And Google's response was to fire him. -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:22:08] - Also, I only included one article that argued against his science points because I could only find one. -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:22:08] - Paul: assigning causal links where only correlating links exist can make you a quack pretty quick. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:21:22] - I would drop the whole science section, but I do think it's important to note that (regardless of his attempts to draw a casual link), there appears to be a scientific basis behind most of the actual science stuff he states. I think that's important to note. He's not some complete quack. -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:20:01] - Paul: Right so just leave out the science part - just stick to he wasn't trying to be anti diversity and yet people took that and ran w/o really reading / understanding. That is a good strong point. Don't muddy the water with muddy science. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:19:22] - Do I need to state more times that I am not intending to defend his points or the science? -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:19:04] - At the same time, I realize that's a pretty fine distinction that I wouldn't expect most people to pick up on. In short, I know this is (unfortunately) a dangerous thing to write. Any suggestions on how to soften it or pre-emptively defend myself more without fundamentally altering my points? -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:18:51] - Paul: I think a big part of his problem though is that Damore intimates a causal link and cites science that, in my reading, only showed a correlated link. If you are going to state gender stereotypes as science fact you're going to need more and better proof imo. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:18:00] - Daniel: That certain other things might be true (gender discrepancies, etc). I'm saying those "facts" seem like they have enough basis to not be a fire-able offense for stating, and earlier I stated that I wasn't intending to defend his conclusions at all. -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:16:57] - Daniel: "I'm not sure his science shows a causal link" Right, and I totally get that. Again, I'm not saying that his conclusions are right at all, but the way I read the memo, it was him presenting a series of scientific "facts" (and those facts seem like they have some basis behind them) and then suggesting that because of those "facts"... -Paul
[2017-08-23 12:14:28] - I also wouldn't discount the possibility of some passerby to the site actually trying to find out who you work for and agitate for your firing/discipline. - mig
[2017-08-23 12:12:46] - unless of course, it is the "correct" opinion. - mig
[2017-08-23 12:12:04] - The other complicating factor is that you are white and male, so you're not entitled to have an opinion in this debate. - mig
[2017-08-23 12:07:43] - mig: Not knowing the person in question at all that would certainly seem to fall into Paul's point about people over reacting! -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:07:03] - Paul: and statements like "seems to be relatively legit" I think are tricky for subjects like this. I think its easy to read that as agreeing with and endorsing those positions. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 12:06:01] - paul: if one of those co-workers is who I think it is, I'd say no, he's probably going to consider you either a white supremicist or at least sympathetic to it. - mig
[2017-08-23 12:05:44] - Paul: I think he is going the right direction to try and have science but I'm not sure his science shows a causal link. This is a VERY important point to me. I didn't read them today but when I looked through last week or whenever it mostly seemed a correlated link b/w gender and traits. I think you tried to be careful on the science front but you quoted like 3 or 4 support articles and only 1 against. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 11:54:52] - a: The point that the science he quotes and pulls from seems to be relatively legit, even if maybe he takes it too far. From what I can read, it seems his scientific points are at least more legit than anti-vaxxers or anti-GMO or climate change denier people. -Paul
[2017-08-23 11:53:25] - a: "the only thing that paul cares about is the science section" Why do you say that? I actually think I care more about the outrage around the memo and how misleading the media (and social media) has been about it. I'm mostly ambivalent about the science except for.. -Paul
[2017-08-23 11:52:03] - Daniel: You think my post comes across as defending the science behind it? That wasn't my intent at all. In fact, I thought I mentioned a few times that I am not at all qualified to judge the science and can only go by what I read from actual biologists and neurologists. I posted articles both in favor and against. -Paul
[2017-08-23 11:50:39] - aDaniel: Yeah, I tried to do my best throughout to make it clear that I wasn't endorsing the points or even necessarily trying to defend them, more defend his right (not the correct word, there, but can't think of a better one) to express them (and not be fired). I tend to agree it's dangerous to share on twitter, though. -Paul
[2017-08-23 11:12:39] - daniel: ironically the only thing that paul cares about is the science section. ~a
[2017-08-23 10:31:56] - Paul: I think the science section is what got Damore in trouble too. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 10:31:42] - Paul: I think your original point that people didn't read it and that people had reactions that were out of proportion to what you would think if you actually read the whole thing was good. Then you went through a more thorough defense. Maybe just leave out the whole science section? -Daniel
[2017-08-23 10:29:41] - Paul: I don't know, its hard to define. I think there are subjects that going near just seems like a bad idea to me. He intimates a causal link between gender and traits and says here is some science but the science didn't seem to show a causal link to me just a correlation. Until such time that science is fully on board and reviewed (and maybe even after) thats going to be a hard thing for people to accept. -Daniel
[2017-08-23 10:28:53] - daniel: yeah, this is obviously going to end with paul fired. even the google memo wasn't posted publicly to the internet with his face next to it. ~a
[2017-08-23 10:26:28] - Paul: I'd be careful. I think your section on science has the chance to be misconstrued. I mean probably not? You are pretty clear several times you aren't trying to endorse or defend him, but you kind of do and that might upset people? Once you open the can of worms it can get out of hand (see original google memo). -Daniel
[2017-08-23 10:22:53] - paul: are any of your coworkers women? j/k. seriously though, if any of those coworkers that follow you on twitter are your subordinates *or* superiors, i say no. (it's ok if they're all peers?) if i thought for a second that any of my subordinates thought i wasn't anything but totally-even-handed towards women, i'd be sad about how i was doing my job. ~a
[2017-08-23 10:06:29] - http://rampantdiscourse.com/read-google-memo/ Thoughts on whether or not I should share this through twitter, where I know some coworkers follow me? -Paul
[2017-08-23 10:06:00] - a: I don't think it's the quintessential Pierce word (quintessential might be one, though), but I won't argue that it is one. Needlessly fancy.
-Paul[2017-08-23 09:51:34] - is "intimate" a "pierce word"? i've never heard of this word, and i don't know why someone wouldn't use a more-common synonym like "imply" or "hint". ~a
[2017-08-22 22:25:39] - Wow, Kyrie to the Celtics (for Isaiah). I'm glad my Celtic fandom has faded a bit because this sounds like a bitter pill to swallow. -Paul
[2017-08-22 21:08:00] - I don't hate my job at all, but lately I have come to resent a little bit how much time it takes away from other stuff that I kinda would rather be doing. -Paul
[2017-08-22 12:30:10] - a: I don't hate my job but I also have no great abiding love for it either. I don't know what I would do if I won the lottery long term. Work part time for some NGO or volunteer to teach kids math for like 10 hours a week? I don't know. -Daniel
[2017-08-22 12:14:36] - mig/xpovos: i'd probably go on vacations though. i'd go mountain biking or snowboarding every other day. if money was no object, i think i'd have plenty to fill my days with. even writing personal projects code for fun could be something i do like every day. ~a
[2017-08-22 12:03:46] - a: boredom can come quite easily for some people. A few years back, I basically couldn't work for almost a month due to some contract issues with the project I was working on. After about a week and a half I started growing pretty restless about not being able to work. - mig
[2017-08-22 12:01:10] - a: Part of it is an ingrained human work ethic. Part of it is "what else am I going to do." If I were independently wealthy, I'd probably still be working, but the work I chose would possibly be different. It feels very high-school guidance counsellor-y, really. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-22 11:59:26] - xpovos: what surprises me is the people who don't have to work, and still do. i.e. people who i know who have made millions on their business deals and still keep plugging away. ~a
[2017-08-22 11:53:37] - a: I have always hated my job. I think I hate it more this year than previous years, sure, but that has a lot more to do with leadership changes than anything in the job itself. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-22 09:39:37] - people start hating their jobs at age 35. i, weirdly, blame finding /r/financialindependence on my (more than usual) dissatisfaction with work. ~a
[2017-08-21 11:19:28] - i think (slash hope) it'll be more fun to take pictures of the people hanging around the streets than anything else. ~a
[2017-08-21 09:42:50] - a: I'm hoping to. Sad that apparently my phone can't handle it, although I have been wanting a new phone... -Paul
[2017-08-21 09:24:39] - who's staring at the sky today? ~a
[2017-08-18 19:53:34] - paul: ok. ~a
[2017-08-18 16:50:26] - a: Maybe. I don't think being bothered by it affects how sad I feel about it. I think it would affect how understanding I am that people would find it creepy. I understand why people would find it creepy, but I still think it's sad.
-Paul[2017-08-18 16:13:17] - "creepy". meh, i only think it's sad because you haven't been bothered by this problem (of constantly receiving questionable complements). i.e. it doesn't affect you directly. ~a
[2017-08-18 15:58:14] - aaron: I've definitely heard that before (although I had forgotten about it until you mentioned it). Sounds like generally a good rule, although part of me is sad that even compliments can be considered.... offensive? Or at least inappropriate. -Paul
[2017-08-18 15:49:47] - aaron:
interesting rule, i've never thought of it that way. ~a[2017-08-18 15:44:18] - paul: voice is kind of a weird middle ground. if a woman was deliberately doing a silly popeye voice, it would be OK to compliment her on it. if she just naturally sounds like popeye, i'd avoid mentioning it - aaron
[2017-08-18 15:43:01] - paul: my rule is if you're going to compliment a woman, make it about something they did and not something they are. e.g complimenting makeup, good. complimenting skin, bad. complimenting haircut, good. complimenting hair, bad - aaron
[2017-08-18 13:10:05] - a: They address that in the article. Basically, yeah, a lot of people will just dismiss the data, but not all. Besides, what percentage of white supremacists are likely to have their minds changed by being shamed by non-white supremacists? -Paul
[2017-08-18 12:37:09] - yeah i heard a similar position (that white supremacists are, many of them, not anywhere close to 100% "white"). would . . . data really matter to those people? they'd argue the conspiracy of 23andme/ancestry. it's fake news, paul. ~a
[2017-08-18 11:35:39] - http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/18/free-idea-lets-give-23andme-genetic-test I suspect this was intended partially as a joke, but I love this idea so much. THIS is the answer to my question a few days ago about how to deal with white supremacists.
-Paul[2017-08-18 11:00:07] - yeah, if everybody knows each-other really well it could be a complement. or . . . a joke that also works as a complement. ~a
[2017-08-18 10:38:24] - a: That's qualifies as something "wrong" to me. Thanks.
-Paul[2017-08-18 09:33:01] - probably "creepy" depending on the specific circumstance. ~a
[2017-08-18 09:24:43] - Inappropriate is the word I was looking for. And for the record, this isn't a coworker (or even anybody I know) and is a reference in contrast to somebody else's less than pleasant voice.
-Paul[2017-08-18 09:09:19] - Random question, but is it sexist or... wrong in any way for a white heterosexual male (if it matters) to say that a woman has a "pleasant voice"? -Paul
[2017-08-17 18:04:38] - aaron: the conservative sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor? ~a
[2017-08-17 17:50:53] - a: but, my retirement savings is currently split between a 401k, a brokerage, and my single lottery ticket. i think it is good to diversify your holdings in that way. if the markets collapse tomorrow, your stocks and bonds will be useless but i will still have my single lottery ticket - aaron
[2017-08-17 17:49:24] - a: yes, my immediate ROI on my one lottery ticket was 0% but i am still waiting to see if it rebounds. that said, i am uncertain about the viability of a single lottery ticket as an investment vehicle - aaron
[2017-08-17 17:32:37] - daniel: hmmm, so $7k / 30 years (with 10%/year geometric gains)? yeah, i guess $7k won't break the bank. ~a
[2017-08-17 15:48:16] - a: Uh Lets say four times a year average? Thats a guess though. -Daniel
[2017-08-17 12:47:34] - 10 bucks how often? ~a
[2017-08-17 12:36:22] - a: I play occasionally. I know its a bad bet math wise but its fun to think about it and I don't think that saving those 10 bucks and investing it is going to make a big difference in my overall financial situation. -Daniel
[2017-08-17 12:06:52] - aaron: so, you've lost 100% of the times you've played the lottery? ~a
[2017-08-17 12:03:45] - a: i have played the lottery once in my life. i believe it was the weekend that daniel told me to play the lottery - aaron
[2017-08-17 11:48:30] - daniel/aaron: do you play the lottery? ~a
[2017-08-17 11:18:40] - http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-when-math-says-you-should-start-to-care-about-powerball-2013-9
[2017-08-17 11:18:36] - This article has interesting math around the number of players of a lottery based on the jackpot size. -Daniel
[2017-08-17 11:14:29] - aaron: I know we talked about this once in regards to lotteries with high payouts. They did the math more rigorously. http://time.com/money/4172196/powerball-math-odds-advantage/ -Daniel
[2017-08-17 10:22:11] - What a week to have taken a vacation. -- Xpovos
[2017-08-17 10:08:52] - "salmon" might be an assassin on my side of the card. but when my opponent says "fish 2", I should guess salmon because it's probably an agent on his side of the card. you always follow the cluegiver's side to determine whether you're correct or not - aaron
[2017-08-17 10:07:35] - http://www.theindiegamereport.com/talking-codenames-duet-with-scot-eaton/ new cooperative codenames game, "codenames duet". there's a two-sided card; each player has 9 words, 3 assassins, some of which overlap with your teammate's words and assassins. to win, you must guess all 15 words in 9 turns - aaron
[2017-08-16 11:40:48] - a: Just and Fair and Lasting bonds of shared hate! Adrian 2020. -Paul
[2017-08-16 11:27:27] - paul: well, that's nice. i'm happy when we can come together as one, to create a lasting bond of shared hate. ~a
[2017-08-16 11:18:56] - a: I really can't stand listening to Trump speak. It's like the perfect storm of bullying, arrogance, ignorance and outright incoherence. Most of the time I can't even figure out what he's trying to say, but I know he thinks it's extremely smart and everybody else is an idiot. I really hate that. -Paul
[2017-08-16 09:51:37] - paul: "I've never been a fan of the type of protest which significantly inconveniences people who aren't involved (like blocking roads)". yeah i'm with you *sort-of*: if there are so many people that being in the sidewalk is full, then i think being in the road is their right. otoh, if the sidewalk is empty, and if they're being in the road just to be in the road, then they're probably breaking some laws. ~a
[2017-08-16 09:32:42] - a: Obama had hope and change, you have Just and Fair. Adrian 2020? -Paul
[2017-08-16 09:32:18] - "any thoughts on this?" Nothing profound from me. All I'll say is that I've never been a fan of the type of protest which significantly inconveniences people who aren't involved (like blocking roads). I'm guessing most of those comments were made at least 40% jokingly.
-Paul[2017-08-16 08:36:11] - here's a much shorter version (4 minutes): wow it's very jarring to see his words clipped up like this. ~a
[2017-08-16 08:31:42] - did you guys see trump's press conference yesterday? link (14 minutes of unscripted words). wow. there's so much in there that it's hard to soak it all in. ~a
[2017-08-15 16:47:36] - paul: "suggest that they keep their jobs", oh man i don't want them to keep their jobs
i just don't think we should be alerting their employers of their shittiness. i hope that their employers figure it out for themselves and make a just and fair determination (omg, is this my new meme?). ~a[2017-08-15 16:44:34] - 2017 ~a
[2017-08-15 16:44:23] - there's a small history of republicans promoting the idea of using cars to hit protesters. any thoughts on this? 2016, 2017. ~a
[2017-08-15 16:42:37] - Paul: Can option 4 be shame with mercy? Like if I found out someone rolled around with the confederate flag I could probably still talk to them in some capacity but I'd probably tell them it wasn't cool and that I was probably going to hang out less / stop hanging out with them. Doesn't mean I try to get them fired / expelled / whatever. -Daniel
[2017-08-15 16:41:57] - a: Is Fields the car driver? I don't know much about the situation (premeditated or whatever), but hard to argue against just and fair. -Paul
[2017-08-15 16:41:05] - a: Right, it feels really dirty to defend the feelings of these people and to suggest that they keep their jobs and be allowed to remain in school, but it honestly seems like the best chance for them to change their mindset is to have them engaged with the rest of society and not marginalized. -Paul
[2017-08-15 16:35:58] - regardless, fields is fucked. i hope his sentence is just and fair. ~a
[2017-08-15 16:34:42] - paul: yeah, i couldn't agree more. it's hard, because the "victims" of this abuse are shitheads, but honestly that shouldn't change anything. hopefully people wake up and realize that white supremacy is bad, mkay? ~a
[2017-08-15 16:31:05] - a: I mean, I can't envision how that improves the situation at all (getting them fired and marginalized) whereas I can see how that could potentially turn a non-violent person to violence or harden their beliefs. -Paul
[2017-08-15 16:30:11] - a: Yeah, I meant more as a hypothetical. I'm just torn on how I feel about the twitter feed that is trying to identify the marchers to presumably get them kicked out of their colleges or fired from their jobs. Even assuming a 100% accuracy rate, I'm a little uncomfortable with that course of action. -Paul
[2017-08-15 16:10:19] - i.e. timing is everything: facebook, for instance is a shitty place to discuss certain things. ~a
[2017-08-15 16:09:14] - paul: racists and white supremacists? engaging them directly? well i've never done that directly (i'm hoping none of us have ever met a white supremacist, right?), so i'd say it's a form of #1 (though i wouldn't call it ignoring them). on the other hand, i definitely do all three of those when it comes to people who discuss racism / white supremacy. ~a
[2017-08-15 16:01:50] - I want to believe that #3 is the best option, but I honestly don't even know how I would theoretically go about that. -Paul
[2017-08-15 15:53:12] - (2) Mercilessly shame and mock them and marginalize them, which is pretty easy and emotionally satisfying, but which I worry doesn't help and may make things worse. (3) Try to calmly and rationally engage them to show them the error of their ways. Sounds the best, but also probably unlikely to work. -Paul
[2017-08-15 15:51:37] - Seems like there are 3 options, all with pros and cons. (1) You can ignore them since they are (hopefully?) a small minority that gets a lot of attention because of their extreme views and the best thing to do is not give them a platform to share their views. -Paul
[2017-08-15 15:50:34] - Honest question to the message board and I promise it's not a leading question or anything. It's just something I've been grappling with the past few days that I don't have a good answer to. What is the best way to deal with racists and white supremacists and the like? -Paul
[2017-08-15 12:04:39] - a: Which leads me to believe that at the very least, the science would seem to be somewhat on his side, even if it's not a proven thing. -Paul
[2017-08-15 12:03:55] - a: While I have read nothing from the "other" side that has attacked the science at all. It's been mostly strawmen attacks mixed with the "you just can't say that" point. -Paul
[2017-08-15 12:03:15] - a: Sure, and we're rapidly getting into an area that I know nothing about. I don't know the science behind the biology of genders and the differences (or lack thereof). What I can say is that I have read articles from people whose credentials seem impressive saying the science as he presented it was more or less correct. -Paul
[2017-08-15 11:48:50] - paul: some diversity would be nice considering the subject matter? it's not a serious problem but regardless one paper usually isn't much in the way of solid science until the findings have been recreated and supported by other papers. ~a
[2017-08-15 11:10:33] - "the scientific paper written by a bunch of dudes" I honestly don't know what you're trying to imply here that doesn't sound like a straw man. Dudes can't do science? They can't do science when it relates to women? -Paul
[2017-08-15 11:09:57] - a: "the "google memo" isn't a scientific paper" Sure, but if you're going to be touching on the sensitive topic of biological differences between the genders, doesn't it make sense to use as precise scientific language as possible? -Paul
[2017-08-15 11:04:43] - paul: sorry the "google memo" isn't a scientific paper. and the scientific paper written by a bunch of dudes is the one that says "women are neurotic". ~a
[2017-08-15 11:03:58] - paul: to measure mortality you can span the research over a long period of time. or you can study a fuck-ton of people. they did both. ~a
[2017-08-15 11:03:50] - a: What isn't a scientific paper? And what paper was written by a bunch of dudes? -Paul
[2017-08-15 11:02:37] - paul: (B) yes, i would say things would have been different if he had used a different word (period). it also does matter that this isn't a scientific paper. also (A) that paper was written by a bunch of dudes? i mean come on, you're doing research on gender equality/differences and you're going to author the scientific paper with only dudes? get some fucking perspective? ~a
[2017-08-15 10:33:08] - a: Honestly, controlling for health seems like a hard thing. How does one define how healthy somebody is? Also, how long did this study run to be able to measure mortality like that? Decades? -Paul
[2017-08-15 10:32:24] - "but even if it wasn't random, as long as they accounted for the health of the participants against the population as a whole, i think they're fine." I'm... not sure. I don't think so. I'm saying that people who bike and volunteer for this study might be more likely to eat kale instead of bacon, even if they are the same "healthiness". -Paul
[2017-08-15 10:28:18] - "he said that women were on-average more neurotic." Yes, and that definitely sounds bad, but it apparently is also (A) a scientifically supported point that is (B) relevant to some of the issues he was trying to address. Would things have been different if he used a different (non-scientific) word? -Paul
[2017-08-15 10:26:42] - a: Many of the articles that I've read about the memo have mentioned that Google has an uncommon commitment to allowing freedom of expression at the company. I can't find any mention of that now, of course, because every search result is about Google suppressing freedom of expression.
-Paul[2017-08-14 16:39:11] - rereading my reply though, maybe it was a shitty reply. after reading the abstract, i don't think they're confusing correlation with causation, but i can't say with 100% certainty. ~a
[2017-08-14 16:38:00] - mig: paul mentioned that and i replied. ~a
[2017-08-14 16:31:21] - a: re - bikes, are you sure this article isn't falling into the correlation = causation trap? - mig
[2017-08-14 16:12:47] - paul: http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456 . . . the original paper says these people were "recruited". from the abstract alone i can't confirm that their recruiting method was "fair", and would allow for recruiting everybody randomly. but even if it wasn't random, as long as they accounted for the health of the participants against the population as a whole, i think they're fine. yah? ~a
[2017-08-14 16:10:54] - paul: "the commitment Google has to free speech" have they made this commitment? i've never worked at a company where i felt i could literally say anything i wanted without consequences. he said that women were on-average more neurotic. companies are allowed to have consequences for things their employees say. ~a
[2017-08-14 15:37:27] - a: I'm curious to learn more about how that study was undertaken. I could easily see people who bike just being healthier for other reasons than just because they bike. -Paul
[2017-08-14 15:35:13] - a: "There were some threats of violence and many public displays of retaliation within the workplace—i.e. internally public posts stating that they will never work with me and will sabotage my projects." That seems pretty sad too. -Paul
[2017-08-14 15:33:58] - a: The worst I can say about him is that it seems like he made a bad miscalculation on the receptiveness of his audience and the commitment Google has to free speech. -Paul
[2017-08-14 15:33:23] - a: Right. I was challenged to read the memo, and all that it has done has made me feel more sympathetic to him. Much of the reporting from the media seems misleading at best or even so wrong as to make me wonder if they even read the memo. -Paul
[2017-08-14 15:22:53] - like this quote too "If we want society to realize that 41 per cent improvement in our health that comes with bicycle commuting, we need to make it fast and easy to get places on a bike. That means continuing to accommodate bikes on our streets and building cities around the idea of active transportation. We’ve already started in most cities. We just need to hurry up." i should just quote the whole article now that the limit is longer? ~a
[2017-08-14 15:21:05] - if a pharmaceutical company created a pill that could reduce your chance of dying by almost half, with particular success against those stubborn scourges of humanity of cancer and heart disease, it would be heralded as a wonder drug ~a
[2017-08-14 15:21:01] - paul: an interesting read. part of me feels a little bad for him. the content of his memo is no less misguided and i still think google was right to fire him. but, my position has softened some. ~a
[2017-08-14 13:27:09] - mig: not meant to be taken seriously. written by a comedian. ~a
[2017-08-14 12:18:14] - re - title: not sure I follow. - mig
[2017-08-14 10:10:09] - http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/14/an-interview-with-james-damore/ Apparently Reason was able to get an interview with Damore. -Paul
[2017-08-11 16:47:45] - paul: ok, since we're talking about aaron stuff, i'll respond: it's like the new tetris rng hack (i read an article about it). you don't need to be fast enough to "beat" the computer, you just have to know how often the rng gets used. when it comes to new tetris, the rng only gets used *once* each time you drop a new block. otoh, i'm very surprised that slot machines use shitty rng. ~a
[2017-08-11 15:56:27] - sorry, still getting used to vimfx
- aaron[2017-08-11 15:52:09] - /aaron
[2017-08-11 15:36:04] - paul: ha "When it sounds like the bombs are about to fall, buy, don't sell. That's because everyone else is selling--and if it was a bad trade, we won't be around to care anyway." especially true being so close to dc (or wall street for that matter). ~a
[2017-08-11 15:07:55] - paul: by my count you have significantly more than 100 USD on your phone.
(i often break my own rule, but i still try to keep things at bay in the long run) anyways, if i'm ever over at your house, i can walk you through creating cold storage since there are lots of pitfalls. ~a[2017-08-11 14:34:06] - paul: yes i recommend keeping less than 100 USD worth on your phone. especially you since you spend so infrequently. cold storage is what you want. i've used https://bitaddress.org/ on an offline computer (live CD! list of live CDs! Tin Hat Linux!) ~a
[2017-08-11 14:29:22] - a: I'm thinking more and more that I need to get my bitcoin off my phone.
-Paul[2017-08-11 14:29:03] - a: Isn't that just a firing? -Paul
[2017-08-11 14:28:47] - a: Hmmm, not often you see the democratically elected president doing a coup on the military.
-Paul[2017-08-11 14:28:10] - http://www.businessinsider.com/many-google-employees-dont-think-james-damore-should-have-been-fired-2017-8 Not necessarily representative, but interesting nonetheless (to me at least). -Paul
[2017-08-11 14:27:31] - paul: some sort of "the imperial senate will no longer be of any concern to us" situation. ~a
[2017-08-11 14:26:48] - paul: yeah i was going to mention . . . it would be a weird reverse-coup. where the guy in charge decides to remove someone below him for some weird reason. ~a
[2017-08-11 14:26:22] - paul, yeah. i've been trying to re-balance my portfolio when i realized what percentage of my retirement is in bitcoin. it's been hard! ~a
[2017-08-11 14:26:04] - a: Yeah, that one.
Wouldn't a general be involved in the military coup? -Paul[2017-08-11 14:25:25] - Geez, bitcoin (and GBTC) have been on quite a run again. -Paul
[2017-08-11 14:24:41] - paul: if i were a general, and i saw "after consultation with my generals and military experts" i'd give him (or the COS or whatever) a call. sitting on my hands for 9 minutes is something i wouldn't have considered. ~a
[2017-08-11 14:23:03] - paul: oh you mean "after consultation with my generals and military experts" his generals and military experts who hadn't been consulted got super worried? as a general i wouldn't have been worried about a military strike, i would have been worried about a military coup. ~a
[2017-08-11 14:13:38] - a: Wasn't there a story about how when Trump tweeted out the transgender ban, the heads of the branches of the military had no idea what he was announcing and there was brief panic that he was announcing something like a military strike? -Paul
[2017-08-11 14:12:01] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2011/03/14/debunking-myths-of-gender-equality-are-personal-choices-and-preferences-whats-really-holding-women-back-from-a I've read other counter-intuitive stuff on gender equality as well. -Paul
[2017-08-11 14:11:20] - a: No idea. I agree it's counter-intuitive, but IF (and I realize this is a huge IF) you believe that men and women on average are biologically more predisposed to enjoy different jobs, it would make sense that when men and women feel more free to do whatever they want, they would do what they want. -Paul
[2017-08-11 14:08:22] - 'Any patriot' should be allowed to serve. oof. djt nominated this guy like weeks ago and he was confirmed days ago. ~a
[2017-08-11 13:58:59] - daniel: message limit increased by 20% ~a
[2017-08-11 13:55:24] - "where's this article?" i meant to say, where's this study. she didn't link to the one you quote that i can see. ~a
[2017-08-11 13:54:22] - paul: "research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences" WOW that's very non-intuitive! also inconsistent with my worldview? for instance wouldnt it follow that cultures with lower gender equity have smaller sex differences when it comes to job preferences? where's this article? i don't see it. ~a
[2017-08-11 13:38:21] - a: "because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy." Maybe what happened is we started getting "better" in terms of gender equity? -Paul
[2017-08-11 13:37:41] - a: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ I'll refer to this article again: "research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences"... -Paul
[2017-08-11 13:36:12] - a: At the risk of putting words in his mouth, isn't it kinda up to him to decide what point he wants to make? This is the point you want to make, but there are no solutions that follow. A decent chunk of his memo was dedicated to proposed solutions to try to increase female representation. -Paul
[2017-08-11 13:30:51] - Maybe it's worth exploring why. But I think the automatic assumption that there's something "nefarious" about it is generally a harmful impulse. - mig
[2017-08-11 13:29:47] - a: Is it just entirely possible that women may just have (in general) different career preferences, and that maybe, just maybe this isn't necessarily a bad thing? - mig
[2017-08-11 13:21:47] - mig/paul: seriously though, i want to blame our culture (girls hate math), but i dunno, things were actually looking pretty promising in 1983ish! wtf changed? ~a
[2017-08-11 13:20:45] - oh 1985. yeah, totally reagan's fault
haha. ~a[2017-08-11 13:20:18] - mig: i don't get that reference. why reagan? ~a
[2017-08-11 13:19:58] - paul: it is but he was making the wrong point. his point should have been: hey, we're already at success. look at the population of cs grads. gj, guys. ~a
[2017-08-11 13:19:17] - a: so, then is this basically Reagan's fault then? - mig
[2017-08-11 13:07:15] - a: I think that graph is being used to show a pretty different point from what the memo was trying to make (I refuse to call it a rant). -Paul
[2017-08-11 12:59:05] - i'm actually surprised it's that high. do you guys remember 30% women in vtcs graduating in 2003? ~a
[2017-08-11 12:57:07] - mig: this graph. like, fuck! seriously, that's all the fucking manifesto should have been. a link to that graph. it could have been the shortest rant ever. ~a
[2017-08-11 12:56:38] - aaron: I'm surprised that human beings have quick enough reaction times for that slot machine cheat to work. I guess all it takes it shifting the odds in your favor a bit to make the difference. -Paul
prev <-> next