__pThrow

This "rings true" to me. That getting rid of formal managers and formal management just lets "petty office politics" rule more than usual.

After 9/11 we learned of "chatter".

I have wondered what the NSA etc. can say about chatter in recent weeks. What the NSA might know.

And if the NSA doesn't know, what that says about NSA efficacy.

The tweet is verifiable. That a porn party took place at that residence seems likely.

There is no verification this occurred over airbnb. There is no verification that the tweets were by anyone other than the resident or owner and no verification that the tumblr post was written by the resident.

All of this, including the tweet, could be a pretty simple hoax.

And worse, it's from tumblr.

The premise you restated was the basic post itself: Hey! This shit happened to me.

I asked, why should we believe this.

You said, "Because shit happened to that guy!"

Until airbnb responds we have no reason to give this anecdote any credence.

And you were totally snide. Your apology is disingenuous. "Sorry you felt I was being snide" is not an apology. It is a faux apology.

That's not actually a response. You are just restating the premise. And exercising your right to be snide.

What is the ample verifiable evidence in the post?

Can someone explain why we should think this tumblr post has any credibility?

I have found I often agree with Michele, but I think she makes some basic errors in this piece.

1) That most power is in the hands of a few people, who at this moment are primarily men, does not generalize to mean that most men have any power over most women. Most men, most women, at work are powerless. Bosses, leads, vps from other departments -- they have power and they are frequently women.

2) She frames the problem as one of active male behavior and passive female behavior. Women are acted upon. Men at work want sex or romance -- I guess women at work do not want sex or romance. It may very well be that at work she does not want sex or romance. And my guess is that at work most men do not want sex or romance. But there are some men, and there are some women that do.

That's not to say that her path out may not have some virtues.

I do think it would be good for everyone to turn the knob back down to 10, or 9, or perhaps even 3, and talk about the issues of sex and romance and sexism at work, while recognizing this isn't a problem of "Men" and isn't a problem of "Women" but is perhaps a problem of "homo sapiens in the 21st century".

In the future, you can reduce your diatribe to what you actually believe "patriarchal misogynist assholes" and that will help everyone out. Your supporters as well as those who would disagree with you.

I've never understood what problem XML solves.

Does XML make a file understandable by a developer in superior ways to other formats? Not especially.

Does the use of XML make error recovery from a partially borked file possible? Not really.

What problem is actually solved by XML (that other formats don't also "solve" ... and better?)

In my limited experience it seems that torrent clients were all trying to migrate towards this and be a media browser first, torrent client second. The end result was user flight to the next upcoming torrent client.

So was this a torrent client to start with?

For the end user how does this compare to websites like stream-tv.me which aggregate links to tv shows? Those links lead to generally poor resolution shows, but not unwatchable. TV resolution with some HD resolution. Have there been cases where content providers go after the users of those sites? (I have a friend who uses them...)

It seems as though China is undergoing a Keynesian expansion. So I'm probably wrong about that. I'm going to watch to see if I can figure out the difference between what they seem to trying to say is a problem due to massive government spending and Keynesism.

Or are they saying "too much" Keynesism is a bad thing?

Okay, these seem to be the main differences and concerns I am getting from this vid.

  1. Many loans eventually come via a shadow banking system
     and so are not transparent, ie, no one know how much is
     loaned and regulation is poor, this could lead to a
     huge credit crunch, and China's own too big to fail  
  2. Some large amount of housing is speculative in nature
     and kept empty as an investment and hence could be
     causing an enormous bubble
  3. This real estate bubble brings benefits to rich but
     doesn't improve the economy for the poor
  4. The boom has made the local authorities very rich and
     powerful (political corruption, crony capitalism, ...)
  5. The sheer size of it is unprecedented in modern
     financial history
  6. Citizens save too much (1/3rd of earnings). So economy
     is dangerously unbalanced, fueled by debt spending and
     not enough by consumer spending or shopping (41:10)
  7. Investment is 50% of economy, consumption 30%, so when
     investment slows down, it can't be replaced with 
     consumption. Credit is at a level of twice the size
     of the economy.
  8. State owned companies are filled with inefficiencies.
     "Shaking" them up would leave huge numbers of people
     unemployed.
  9. There is beginning to be a fear of collapse (that
     could lead to collapse.)
 10. Punk Rock pointing out corruption in the system
     and how the rich are getting richer.
 11. Hard to see further economic reform without political
     reform, yet it seems that Chinese are intent on
     not reforming their political system further.

  1. China needs to become more like us and consume more 
     themselves.

Not being an asshole about it works wonders.

That is just incredibly presumptive.

You and me both, brother. The coffee infused taste of cream and sweetener and vanilla is what makes my morning.

Thank you for having the honesty to say what I've been ashamed to admit all these years.

This should be seen as an argument for choosing your venue, not an argument for refusing to debate.

Scientists (anyone) that demands some policy be made or changed have no leg to stand on if they refuse to debate opponents.

Science can take place in peer reviewed articles and in the halls of academia, but policy and laws are discussed in public streets and enacted by popular vote and publicly elected officials.

I am somewhat pleased to learn this isn't a post about the importance of enthusiastic consent when it comes to sexual advances (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/27/robyn-urback-...).

It's not foolproof.

What's more foolproof is a big platform, huge megaphone, and lots of social amplification.

Lots of blogger complaints, twitter campaigns have gone nowhere.

Yeah, we had that for a few years during the 90s. I forget when we lost that, but it wasn't good.

The last mile. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_mile)

Most places are wired with one phone line, and one cable line. That phone line is generally owned by one specific phone company, and that cable line is generally owned by one specific cable provider.

So those are the choices of ISP: you can choose cable service or dsl.

For a few years the last mile over phone had to be shared with other IP providers, so you could choose between a) one cable company, or b) a few IP over DSL ISPs, but that ended sometime back.

There is also satellite providers, but they usually, I believe make a deal with your phone company, wireless, which is expensive, and fiber, which to my understanding is still just an upgrade from the over cable company.

How is the last mile provided in Ireland? And what are your choices of ISPs?

As an interesting data point, watch the settings and backgrounds crowds in Dirty Harry movies to see what San Francisco looked like in the 70s.

Sounds like a terrific way to show leadership.

Of course he was. He was saying that Dave Winer was "whining" about Google et. al., shifting away from RSS.

Bullshit comment that I hate seeing on HN.

Ha Whiner, I see what you did there.

No actual argument, just making fun of some guy's name.

Very nice.

That seems completely unreasonable, but in fact, one reason I like my Galaxy Note II is that it supports a 64Gb card.

(It sure ain't TouchWiz!)

It is mainly the large screen though for me, but the 64Gb card holds my music collection and some videos and a lot of reference books when I am in no position to stream anything.

I was about to change my password, when I saw "delete my account" was on the same page.

On the one hand, that's a gutsy and convenient UI.

However, I immediately chose to delete my account.

So to tie this back to my original question - why are we asking women to put information on a form that has no use other than to let us know if she might be a potential mate?

If you make a new form, limit salutations to Dr., Mr., Ms.

Why do you ask people what their titles are at all? Dr., Mr., Ms. Why do you need them?

If your customer wants Mrs. & Miss, push back. Up to you to decide how far and how hard, but make an effort.

Given that you do ask such silly questions, who are you to push back against the title someone wants? If a woman, say my mother, older than the both of us, wants to be known as Mrs., who are you to push back on that? Is your push back a step for gender equality, or you just being even more self-absorbed and clueless in your questions than before?

Would you push back against a person that wants to identify with a different pronoun? Or a different gender? Then why are you pushing back against that person's choice of a title?

Do you verify the titles? If not, what's the skin off your nose?

Looks good, though I wish it had emacs bindings to search back and forth and move through paragraphs and lines.

I also wish it had support for various markdown extensions like table of contents and in page anchors.

But certainly looks terrific.

What I am interested in is data regarding users (renters).

What is their breakdown by age, sex, ethnicity, and success at booking?

I am not an ugly guy, but I am 50.

I tried to use airbnb twice to book in San Francisco, and each time, for various reasons beyond the control of the owner, my rental had to be canceled.

It's discouraging, and I suspect ageism was at play.

So who is being successfully booked, and who is getting canceled on?

One reason I stopped editing wikipedia was because I had some good faith edits immediately reverted by bots.

Thank you for the explanation, because the reply link wasn't there, and I said my say, AND THEN IT WAS THERE, and I felt kind of dumb. Or dumber than usual.

So truly, thank you!

If I see a company engaging in any discriminatory activity, I have a reason to suspect that sort of discriminatory attitude runs rampant throughout the company right through the executive offices.

So an outreach program for women speakers can't address systematic discrimination -- you have to fix the conferences themselves for that.

You can reach out to more women, and invite them to apply, but it is sexist discrimination to offer women only training in public speaking on the basis that a certain group of conferences is under-represented.

You would reach the same outcome, more qualified women speakers, if you offer that training to anyone who wants it.

Same outcome, but one approach is sexist, and one approach is inclusive of everyone.

What you are trying to do is guarantee an outcome. Some ratio of women speakers at conferences that satisfies your requirement. Approaches like that usually lead to sexism and discrimination.

A better approach is to a) ensure there is an ample supply of well qualified people for your conferences and then b) encourage conferences to perform better outreach to the kinds of speakers they are seeking. Approaches like that are non-sexist and inclusive.

As I said, github, an employer, should not be seen directly giving women, even non-employees, preferential treatment. If they want to donate to a women's group putting on such a workshop, that would be a different matter.

Edit to add: chc, we have run out of thread reply. What is HN etiquette on that?

I will say I disagree with your reply that somehow women are disadvantaged in public speaking. Having fewer women at conferences is not evidence of any disadvantage that merits a discrimination based remedy. And even if so, such a disadvantage! We're not talking job discrimination, income equality, firing policies, etc., we're talking about public speaking something that applies to very very few people across the IT world. A remedy to that does not require sexist discriminatory approaches.