fmitchell0

For those who may not be aware, this was precisely the spirit of why affirmative action existed and why I personally supported it. These are the type of things that happen when our society misunderstands an executive action (because it was never a law) and debates in bad faith the intent of the premise for political purposes.

I agree that focusing on 'equality of outcomes' is not a good fit for our American culture and it should be about 'equality of opportunity'.

From wikipedia (which quoted Harvard): "Affirmative action is intended to alleviate under-representation and to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population."

If focus is illiberally applied to the outcomes, then those at the edge of the bell curve are denied opportunities that likely work for them, i.e. the slashing of gifted programs as a gifted student.

Here is the actual paper: https://www.jci.org/articles/view/169671

What is wrong with people 'simultaneously' being able to read an eBook?

I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

How does it work with borrowing physical books from the library and me not paying a late fee?

School's curriculum and grading system being connected to email alerts + doing standardized testing 3-4 times a year.

It takes a lot of energy to raise children and be a good partner. The anxiety introduced by constantly getting notified of what is being taught, what the grades are, what is missing EVERYDAY is not only overkill, but I think harmful.

My philosophy is that school (elementary, middle, high school) is a time to explore, be a kid, make mistakes, and do your best to navigate puberty.

The constant reminder of grades, grades, grades puts too much emphasis on my more school-inclined child to be obsessed with their identity as an "A" student, and my art-inclined child to rebel at every turn with us constantly stressing if she's "missed" anything.

That's not the same thing. The big piece you are missing is context. Making an argument devoid of context means that you are ignoring how people understand something given a generalized heuristic.

"Pro-black" is not equivalent to "Pro-white" mainly because of the context within the US. "Pro-black" however is equivalent to "Pro-Italian" or "Pro-Irish" because of the historical context of how those phrases relate to generalized heuristic (cultural celebration usually involving commerce).

If I (white) saw 'black friendly cafe' or something, I don't have a problem with that to be clear, but I would absolutely assume that I'm not exactly welcome, that it's intended to serve that community

If your lived experience is that you haven't been welcome to a 'black friendly cafe', then that is unfortunate. That is not my experience and I can't find any data or historical context that reinforces that narrative. I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that if it did, it would not be wrong, but that statement reinforces my point.

You are using the context of how you would feel as an equivalency to the intent of the person who puts out the message. If you don't allow for nuance, then you will have missed the point.

"Pro-white" or "White friendly" messaging historically has been extremely overt as being anti-Black, so much so that we have entire amendments in our US Constitution that exist in an attempt to combat them.

How is a site helping LGBTQ people discriminate against straight people?

It clearly states it is targeting people who want to live or post a LGTBQ+ friendly place.

Saw this request for donations in a Slack community I'm in. Did some research and figured to share with the Hacker News community.

Buster Neece: https://github.com/SlvrEagle23

Azuracast: https://github.com/azuracast/azuracast

Personal website: https://www.dashdev.net/

GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/30-days-to-find-a-new-life-help-n...

The most compelling reason I communicate with young people who I work with in this age bracket is the idea of a safe sandbox.

Programming is a way to learn a new language that allows you to build something...ANYTHING...that you can easily tear down, upgrade, keep, or share.

There is nothing like the feeling of trying to build something, getting stuck, having the AHA moment, then seeing it work!

I don't focus on a particular language, stack, or goal. I push them to think about what they want to build, break, and poke around with, find an example online, then open it up and try to modify it.

I've found that most teens want the ability the explore, on their own terms. Programming is too often told from the perspective of working adults who focus on productivity, profit, or protection against obsolescence (you better learn it b/c it will be needed in your future). At that age, most kids aren't motivated by that because it's not their context.

I completely disagree with the notion that one has to "just like it" or "find your own motivation or its not for you". This is not a pipeline problem. This is an incentive problem and the industry is mostly incentivized by efficiency, speed, and profit. I try to focus on the value.

For those who find this and ask the question "What does math have to do with white supremacy?", I will attempt to try and lay out the argument. I'm going to assume you're asking this question in good faith.

I understand that the phrase "white supremacy" is equated with the idea that "people who identify as white are superior" (bad). I also understand the immediate reaction is to possibly think "I am not a bad person and I identify as white, so there must be something wrong here". When you then tie it to a concept like math, the next thought then tends to go to "how can a concept, not a person, like math, inherit a bad human trait like superiority"? It can't, so therefore there must be something wrong with these ideas.

If you look at the curriculum text from equitablemath.org and peek at page 9: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11..., there is a nuance here that I'm hoping to clarify to those who may feel the above.

First, the argument is not referring to a person, but a culture. Another way to think about it is a system. In this context, the system simply refers to the current methods of teaching.

If we all agree that the goal is to encourage as many people as possible to participate in STEM, enjoy it, thrive in it, and feel supported in it and we all agree that the data and studies show that our current system could be improved to accomplish this goal, the next conclusion is to criticize the system of which we teach fundamental concepts, like math.

Within our current system (or culture), we teach math a certain way. Some of those ways emphasize independent practice, mistakes are failure, teaching concepts linearly, and/or grading students based on what they don't know.

Because a lot of us learned this way and we are in the STEM field, we may ask ourselves "what is wrong with that?"

The argument is not that you don't have a legitimate question. The argument is that stopping at the question does not achieve the goal. After years and years of social science study of what prevents people of color from getting into STEM fields (if you don't believe these studies exist, that is ok, but only encourage your own investigation), the argument of "white supremacy culture in math" is providing points of how to center the experiences of people in color within the curriculum of teaching math to increase the thing we all seem to claim we want: the pipeline.

As a Black man, its really hard to be a part of this community and see people argue that is a pipeline problem, see scholars provide solutions to address the pipeline, then see those same people say "but why do we have to change anything, why is this relevant?"

At this point, it just feels like some people actually don't want a solution. Even if this doesn't work, why are we afraid to try? Isn't that the point of being part of the scientific community?

Instead, we're stuck demonizing the motives of people we don't know who are trying to help others who may be outside of our own bubble.

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking when Stakes are High by Kerry Patterson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucial_Conversations%3A_Tools...

From someone who started this journey a few years ago before the pandemic:

1. (for now) Ignore all the "read this, study that". If your goal is to be "independent", then I take that to mean you want to make money. "Reading this, study that" does not immediately make you money. It's important, but not THE most important thing right now.

2. Network with other independents and get on jobs they are on. Focus on getting paid and making money as quickly as possible so you can start to get a feel for how much you can charge and how steady an income you get.

3. Let go of your fear of putting yourself out there or getting a "no". Don't worry about telling "everyone" you are independent. Focus on telling people / circles / influencers who are most related to your client base.

Again, I'm not saying the "read this, study that" advice is not important. My advice is that there is a lot out there and your single most important focus should be on your goal: getting paid for your work.

Keep running experiments, different rates, different jobs, different emails, different job boards and get hired. See what works, get paid, rinse and repeat.

If you're just looking for a quick and dirty solution, find the full-time posting of the job you want to do, and apply to the job with your cover letter being honest about how you want to help and work with them, but ask if they are open to a freelancer. You'd be surprised how many people will kick those tires and get you off and running.

Definitely what I'm trying to do. I'm realizing I'm not that great at hiring, but good at mentoring. Any suggestions?

This is what I struggle with. We did well this year and I think I can possibly hit my life goal of hitting my first 7 figures sales next year, but I'm not sure if I just want to stand pat and lifestyle the business or try to go for it.

My reasons for going for it are 1) parents are aging and I want to help them with retirement 2) ride the wave b/c you never know when it will stop and 3) yolo.

My reasons for not doing it are 1) it's a bunch of extra stress and work I don't want to do. Lol.

One suggestion is to do a half-step instead of full leap.

Find a small business or smaller shop to work for (even accept less pay and use a little savings so you know how that feels), raise your hand to do stuff you normally wouldn't do (if you're an engineer, volunteer to help with sales, marketing, customer service, etc.), make nice with the owners, and constantly learn what they do.

Once you get their playbook, jump out on your own or side hustle practicing it until you're ready.

That is what I did. It took a few years, but I'm happy I did.

https://fs.blog/mental-models/

I appreciate everyone's advice regarding your job, but as others have alluded, I suggest the bigger point is to go deeper into your values.

It sounds like your job is tightly-coupled with how you see yourself, so perhaps consider things outside of your job (volunteering, extra-curriculars, investing, etc.) that are closer to what you value.

One way to handle getting through these low periods is to shift your mindset of your job being a reflection of what you like and more your job enabling you do, participate what you like.

Personally, being of service of others, using my vacation days to help others, and investing in projects and people I believe in has helped offset some of the feelings you may be feeling.

The dark forest theory lives!

The single question that has helped me to remember the pitfalls highlighted in this article that I constantly ask myself in every situation: "Am I focused on being right or being successful?"

It inevitably walks me through the critical thinking process of what defines success, what questions should I be asking, and am I standing in the way of that.

I appreciate your response and respect your idea of trying to combine a lot of aspects to get the goal. I would challenge you on one point though:

gender/skin color combination, but if they all grew up in the New England suburbs and all of them went to either MIT or Harvard, you are generally NOT going to have a diversity of experience, even though everyone _looks_ different

Unfortunately, there are many stories, points of evidence, and history that say people who look different, but come from the same place and education level DO have different experiences. Race and gender are exponentially powerful factors that can change a person's experience and outlook no matter how wealthy they are or what school they graduated from.

I see what you did there. Well done.

Serious response: Framing it as an 'Or' implies the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. Diversity is fact. The world is diverse in a variety of ways (skin, eyes, experiences, gender, language, nationality, etc.). Inclusion is the action. Equity is the goal.

In the OKR framework, being able to measure your progress towards the goal is important. The real question is, which aspects of people who work for your company do you measure to ensure proper decisions around inclusion to achieve the equity goal?

It's easiest to measure by 'skin deep' factors b/c that is what human beings most easily make poor decisions on (fear, bias, stereotype, self-segregation, NIMBY-ism, etc). It is also required for companies to report to the US government on these factors because of our history of poor decisions (to put it lightly). It is therefore easiest to use that as a metric.

Serious question: If implied in your question that the goal should be equity in 'thought', how do you propose that is measured?

Why does this seem like the VC version of "...but I have Black friends"?

On a less cynical note, I guess it has to start somewhere and these folks have demonstrated how to build a business and a brand. Well, maybe not Durant, but we'll see.

While it may be taboo, I think it's important to add context to her impact. Her 'contributions' were more than a 'sad story'. She was a Black woman who was experimented on without consent and without compensation who created one of the most important cell lines in medical research. 'Contribution' implies she did it willingly. 'Sad' implies it was unavoidable. These were deliberate acts grounded in racism and sexism to rob an American and human being of any reasonable sense of dignity. The fact that she happened to have remarkable genetics is a key leverage point that can remind people of the importance of ethics, not just science. It's extremely important for that to be a part of the headline, not just a detail if you click through to the story.

What I took from the article were a few points:

* Taking a neutral position when building something (its just a tool, it's making decisions based on an aggregate) IS in fact making a decision. State can be -1, 0, or 1 and neutrality yields a certain result.

* The local optima of these algorithms are likely a product of local optima to the people and teams who built them. The neutral position seemed like the correct answer.

* These articles serve to reinforce the idea that the next frontier is context within algorithmic results. This global optimum can only be achieved through diversity of perspective. Perspectives are a product of one's experience, so the value of diversity can be directly connected to the goal of desiring a optimum solution towards a hard problem.

FWIW, I am a black heterosexual engineer and my experiences inform my perspective on these type of problems and blindspots affecting people not like me, especially women.

For those wanting to go deeper on the technical, scientific, and mathematical basis for what I'm referring, google 'diversity local optima'.

i know i shouldn't be, but i'm very excited.

As an engineer, I always get frustrated when it seems like a lot of our customers are more concerned with the perception of the existence of something, rather than its actual existence. I'm continuing to learn (UX not withstanding) that just because you solve a problem, it doesn't mean the user believes the problem is solved.

As a black engineer, I've often thought that if there were data, science, math, and straight forward research on the more than $300B+ the slavery system provided for the U.S. in free labor (think of the biggest costs to business) and it's effects, that maybe we could have a conversation about data-driven solutions. Think of how we've added data to sports and created a new economy on improving outcomes because the definitions of success are clear with many pathways.

Looking at this thread, which I assume to be mostly engineers, slightly disabuses me of this notion. The longest threads are about the use of the word slavery (perception) and rural, (mostly white) america (not even sure why this is relevant).

this is great

  brew update && brew upgrade

Can someone help me understand how we've equivocated factually wrong things with dissenting opinion?

If I said all human beings were born with 8 fingers and 6 toes and am dismissed from my biology class for it, was it because I had a dissenting opinion?