HN user
While we're throwing out book recommendations, I'll mention one by William Poundstone, who's quoted in the article.
Fortune's Formula: The Untold Story of the Scientific Betting System That Beat the Casinos and Wall Street (2006)
If you want more background on Thorpe, or Shannon, or a layman's view of gambling and information theory, it's a fun read.
favoring foreigners over locals on the basis of being able to pay foreigners less only
Hypothetically, if you were a Machiavellian hiring manager:
You would also prefer a foreigner on a visa because they would have less freedom to leave the company than an equally paid employee who wasn't worried that quitting a job would risk being forced out of the country.
Also this would make the foreigner more worried about the consequences of being terminated for unsatisfactory performance.
perfectly legal
Well, not necessarily.
If your reflexes are good enough, and your brakes are good enough, and your tires are good enough, that you can safely stop a bike going 20mph on a wet downhill section, then yes; you are still in control of your vehicle and operating at a safe speed. No legal problems there.
But maybe your reflexes aren't that good because you haven't had coffee yet. Or maybe your brakes are worn down. Or maybe you're on crazy thin road tires that have effectively no traction going downhill in the rain. Or some combination of all three.
The point being, if it's not physically possible for you to stop that bike in whatever time interval is required, are you really operating that vehicle safely? Probably not.
And to the extent that you're legally required to operate at a safe speed and maintain control of your vehicle, your behavior would no longer be "perfectly legal."
So 20 mph + downhill + wet roads may very well be illegal for some combinations of cyclist and bicycle but not others. It seems premature to declare that perfectly legal in all cases.
I don't think it works that way. If you add logic that says:
"here's group A, who we really want to target, and here's group B, the protected class we want to exclude. throw 10% of all impressions at group B so we're not violating federal law."
Then I think you may still be breaking the law. Because you're explicitly favoring one group over another. Whether the ratio is 100%/0% or 90%/10% probably doesn't affect the underlying legal problem.
Why ruin it
At some point many years ago society latched on to the idea that "equal opportunity employment" was a civil right worth protecting with federal law. One of the major draws of facebook, if you happen to be an employer not wholly committed to this idea, seems to be that you kind of have a way to effectively bypass it. There are people who would equate "ruining facebook" in this scenario with "protecting fundamental civil rights," which is more important than creating a favorable environment for recruiters.
That's more or less the argument I think.
No, because the fact that I'm neither Chinese nor likely to read Chinese Daily News doesn't actually prevent me from seeing your ad.
If you posted "Help Wanted" flyers in the middle of a college campus for a part-time cashier job, some 52 year old could--in theory--be walking by the quad on his way to a Frisbee golf game.
It's when you explicitly add in logic to filter out a protected class that you may be in trouble.
My favorite resources are now all slightly dated; I haven't really kept up with the cutting edge as I've moved away from design and towards development.
---
Web:
A List Apart, especially the articles section - https://alistapart.com/articles
CSS Zen Garden - http://www.csszengarden.com/
Magic Ink - Information Software and the Graphical Interface, by Bret Victor - http://worrydream.com/#!2/MagicInk
---
Print:
Flexible Web Design: Creating Liquid and Elastic Layouts with CSS, by Zoe Mickley Gillenwater
The Zen of CSS Design: Visual Enlightenment for the Web, by Dave Shea and Molly E. Holzschlag
Transcending CSS: The Fine Art of Web Design, by Andy Clarke
I'll throw in Brian Lonsdorf's "Professor Frisby's Mostly Adequate Guide to Functional Programming"
https://drboolean.gitbooks.io/mostly-adequate-guide/content/
And the related video series on Egghead (which I think requires a subscription)
https://egghead.io/courses/professor-frisby-introduces-compo...
Which reminds me, if you can get an employer to pay for an Egghead subscription and/or a Frontend Masters subscription as part of a training budget, both are great. Also probably worth buying on your own if work won't cover it.
Same situation for me. I disable notifications for everything but direct messages.
Sometimes I'll exit it entirely for an hour or two, but I don't want to look like I'm unavailable to help teammates.
I'm going to guess that you don't spend many hours 9-5 Monday through Friday at a beach or on a golf course.
If you're in the right places, you'll definitely see people who value free time over money and prestige.
The fact that his response rate when from < 5% for "applying the right way" to 22% for "maybe you upset a hiring manager" suggests his new approach, in spite of your reservations, is better for cases where you don't know anyone who can give you a warm introduction to a given company.
If anything, assuming most companies have an 'employee referral' program, emailing a random non-recruiter may have the additional advantage that, for no cost to you, someone at that company becomes incentivized for several thousand dollars to lobby for you.
Sarah Federman - http://sarah.codes/
Sarah Drasner - http://sarahdrasnerdesign.com/
Assume whoever looks at your portfolio is going to scroll from top to bottom first, get a first impression, then _maybe_ click through things later.
So build for the question "What do I want people to see if they scroll through my site without clicking on anything?"
Because then you can curry/partially apply functions independent of your data.
It's _not_ because it's convention everywhere else.
(I realize that only really makes sense if you know why it makes sense, so this video gives a pretty good explanation in ~30 minutes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3svKOdZijA)
But if you clicked through to that point and were served ads, they kind of already won. At least short term.
The most recent version of the course - http://www.cs.trinity.edu/About/The_Courses/cs2322/
They'll probably rewrite the CS department site eventually, but until then, it's a repository of all the information about J you can handle.
Just about. Same time in a year and a half?
The hardest part of J is revisiting old code and trying to figure out what you were thinking when you wrote it.
The cognitive cost of writing the same program in J versus your current favorite functional language (let's assume Scheme) is basically the same. The J version will be much more concise, and probably quicker to write.
But I found it much harder to review and extend my own J code. Where the Scheme program I wrote last month will be mostly self-documenting and easy to modify, the equivalent J program may as well be machine code.
I feel like I _should_ appreciate J more, because it is powerful, but it may be too concise for me to be comfortable with.
-survived the same class (Hi Ryan!)
I think you overestimate the difficulty.
The Python programmers can probably step through R source code and figure out what's going on without too much trouble.
The other statisticians probably already know and use R.
The non-programmer, non-statistician, business types probably aren't interested in your source code--be it Python or R--and will want you to make pretty graphs and give presentations anyways.
I like it; it makes it easier to read in a web browser.
But if you want a full copy:
1. DownThemAll to pull down all of the .pdf links,
2. pdftk to merge them all into one file
If you have a digital scale and some time to read supplement labels, even the measuring/mixing doesn't seem that bad.
The whey protein and olive oil you can get anywhere. The maltodextrin means picking up a giant bag from a brewery supply store once every few months.
I'm coming up with two scoops of protein, eight scoops of carbs, and a third cup of oil, and a bit under half a gallon of water. After that it's just a teaspoon of salt and a few supplements/multi-vitamins and you're set for the day.
He mentioned earlier that it takes about five minutes to prepare the next day's batch, and he doesn't need refrigeration or much in the way of kitchen utensils. That's a fairly tight upper bound on complexity.
"Hey, This college sounds familiar."
Dr. Lewis' book is listed on Amazon as having a publication date of October 30, 2012.
[edit: The author himself will tell you; If you're already familiar with programming basics, and just want to learn Scala, you'll be better of with Odersky's text.]
Two things:
Which of these points do you take issue with, specifically?:
[1]. Intelligent people are more likely to be homosexual.,
[2]. Humans are evolutionarily designed to reproduce heterosexually., or
[3]. The causal relationship, [2] --> [1]
Are you really expecting a "mountain of evidence" in a blog post?
His main point, that intelligent people are more likely to seek novelty and deviate from evolutionary norms, seems plausible. And it's almost certainly addressed in greater detail by one of the many pointers to suggested reading.
Not to mention how relatively easy Macs and iThings are to use. This is subjective, but I think Apple's better than anyone at making computers that "non computer people" can figure out.
That would be cool.
Video games are the only reason I even have a Windows partition.
Well, there goes my ability to trust Yelp reviews as impartial.
But if I don't trust the reviews, Yelp effectively degrades into a complicated remix of Google Maps.
Yes it is. The SLA is 99.9% uptime until you do something against their terms of service, but even then you'll still have somebody call and complain to.
Also, I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure it's standard to set it up on your own domain and forward data from any gmail.com addresses you care about.
That's not what I meant by legitimate criticism.
Go write a compelling, well-cited account of all the things he's done to upset you or--even better--all the ways he's discriminated against women.
Publish it somewhere. On a blog, in a municipal paper, on TechCrunch, whatever. If you can actually write that story, do it. Make it good enough that people care.
If you have any legitimate criticisms of Peter Thiel, or the essay mentioned in that gawker article ( http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/the-educa... ), please consider elaborating on them in a new post. I'm sure many here would be interested.
But linking to gawker in the comments of an unrelated story probably isn't the best way to express your concerns.
"for the same reasons listed in the sleepmemo article"
Do you have a link to this article? I couldn't find it on either of those blogs.
EDIT: parent must mean this:
"Nobody advocates running barefoot on asphalt."
Here's a Harvard professor who advocates running barefoot on asphalt:
"Not even tablets will run on top of browsers."
Have you seen Mozilla's 'Boot to Gecko' project?