said

I’d like to understand your point of view.

To say that there is more variation within a race than between races when examining a single gene at a time does not support the notion that there are black Africans “much more related” to white Europeans than to each other.

The fact that there is more genetic diversity among black Africans than among white Europeans doesn’t support that claim, either.

Please see my post here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17055327

In your paragraph “similarity” refers to looking at just one genetic locus (essentially one gene) at a time.

Your link directly contradicts the paragraph that precedes it.

If we define a set of criteria by which that tweet can be deemed “antisemitic”, then applying that same criteria to comments about white people made by countless progressive-minded journalists would deem those journalists fanatically anti-white.

If this is one of the most devastating aspects of colonialism, then colonialism must not have been very bad.

Before we have a conversation about this, I urge everyone to research the degree of soil depletion in formerly-colonized Africa, and then compare that to the degree of soil depletion elsewhere in the world (including never-colonized parts of Africa).

(For bonus points, research how much of that soil depletion occurred since the end colonialism).

The numbers are widely available.

Colonial crop management was a boon for native Africans, not a bust.

I appreciate your response. I’m under the impression that the white men who exercised more had more calcification:

Instead, Laddu and her colleagues found that participants in trajectory group three, or those who exercised the most, were 27 percent more likely than those in trajectory group one to develop CAC by middle age. CAC was measured during the participants’ 25th year in the study using computed tomography, a CT scan, of the chest. At year 25, participants were ages 43 to 55.

I have a concern.

A few months ago, a widely publicized study[1] indicated that moderate-to-large amounts of exercise caused a buildup of plaque in the hearts of middle-aged white men. This correlation was not seen in any women, nor was it seen in black men.

Unfortunately, this study included no Indian nor Southeast Asian people. I've seen unrelated studies indicating similar health outcomes for white men and Indian men, so as an Indian man, should I be worried about this?

[1] https://today.uic.edu/physically-active-white-men-at-high-ri...

"Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion."

This doesn't preclude thoughts on race-relations—if that was the goal, it would've simply said so.

We know what this means.

"Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion."

It doesn't take much creativity to recognize the inherent contradiction in this systemic line of thinking.

You strike me as reasonable. I would appreciate if you could answer a couple of questions.

1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?

2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition?

I won't challenge anyone who answers. Thank you.

I urge you read the memo yourself.

He said Google lowers the false negative rate for women.

I wonder whether this variant is similar to APOE E4 allele—which significantly increases one's risk of Alzheimer's—in that its affect can be minimized by lifestyle changes.

In men, APOE E4's disadvantages can be almost completely eliminated (compared to APOE E3) by regularly exercising and completely abstaining from alcohol.

It's also possible for us to talk to women who work in the field and listen as they describe their experiences

When men and boys try to describe experiences—such as watching every girl in their high school computer science class receive amazing internships before any of the boys, regardless of their skill level—they're shamed and ridiculed. They certainly aren't given platforms by influential journalists and CEOs.

We can't give much weight to "experiences" while there are such uneven power dynamics in place regarding sharing them.

Do you believe the vast physical differences between men and women end at the brainstem? Do you believe the flood of sex hormones during puberty don't result in different mental tendencies, including tolerances to rejection? Do you believe the different ratios of neurotransmitters between men and women across all cultures and haplogroups are a result of culture?

Before we explicitly institutionalize discrimination against men and boys to correct nebulous discrimination against women and girls, we must really make sure:

1. We aren't ignoring potential opportunity costs

2. We are okay with the fact that our policies will hurt disadvantaged men and boys the most

You voted for Trump because there is too much Kanye and Lebron in the media.

Correct. Other "minority groups" (as you put it) are allowed to be resentful about white overrepresentation; Indians are allowed to be resentful about black overrepresentation. Under Clinton, groups like Black Lives Matter would be given more influence and control, and that would make my life more miserable and make me feel more marginalized.

You would think that after so many minority groups would feel attacked by Trump that they might band together.

Let's ignore the fact that Trump has never attacked Indian people, and his white supporters have never once attacked me.

At the heart of your post are two assumptions:

1. Indian guys have something to gain by supporting black activism.

2. I haven't tried talking to black activists.

Both assumptions are false.

Progressive black activists are greedy. They want to take, take, take, take, and take from white people, yet the moment you ask them to consider how it must feel as an Indian guy seeing so many black guys in popular culture, you're a devil.

Them: "We fought hard for our representation! Don't appropriate our struggle! You didn't earn any of this—we did! If you want more representation, fight for it yourself!"

Me: "Well, I guess that's what I'm doing right by trying to talk to you about this."

Them: "Go bother white folk about this—they're the ones holding you down, not us. I don't have the time."

As it turns out, white people are underrepresented in many important areas of popular culture, and the white people who are in popular culture are almost exclusively progressives who are happy to keep other white people out.

Racial politics are badly broken, but I trust white people over black people to give me a fair shake.

And what is with the comments about Indians? Are we talking Indians from India or Native Americans.

Indians from India. Like my parents.

Who is demanding we replace black people with indian people.

No one.

Where are they [blacks] over represented? What the hell are you talking about?

1. Sports, including practically all of our nation's most watched television events

2. Music (and despite this, smaller genres of music that don't overrepresent blacks are shamed [1])

3. Celebrity/gossip news

4. Advertisements, particularly those aimed at boys

Blacks are dramatically overrepresented in media consumed by young men, yet these naval-gazing "costal elites" never say, "Hey, we should reduce black overrepresentation and give Indian guys a chance."

It doesn't make any sense, the same way Trump made no sense during the debates.

A large group of people see right through you and your priorities for us, and you're calling that a "blind spot". I genuinely hope you'll come around.

[1] http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/710-the-unbearable-whiteness-o...

We have read this piece 1000 times before.

And for the 1000th time, it is necessary to say, "rural America understands that they are not your priority".

The modern left finds it more virtuous to hire a wealthy black man or a wealthy white woman than to hire a poor white man. Rural America knows.

In fact, and more people are coming to terms with the modern left's perverse priorities. Indian people? Indian people don't even exist to these costal elites. Indians are dramatically underrepresented in popular culture, but the left only cares about replacing white people in popular culture with black people.

People like Mr. Thornton would never dare demand that we replace black people with Indian people where black people are overrepresented.

You can keep lecturing poor white people about how backward and toothless and spoiled they are, while never daring to say a negative word about black people. You can keep telling poor white people to stop being tribal, while fomenting tribalism in every other group (except Indians). You can keep claiming to care about representation, while ignoring everyone but the groups that earn them the most virtue points.

My Thornton, everyone is wising up to your priorities and the priorities of those in your wealthy costal social circles.

Yeah, I'm bitter.

It's plausible that this would negatively impact transgender women, considering dementia is associated with lower testosterone levels in men.

Please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12708367

Dementia is associated with low levels of testosterone in men. [1]

Unfortunately, (over-the-counter) DHEA seems to have no effect on Alzheimer's, [2] though I'm not sure about other forms of dementia.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24035146

[2] https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/39 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16977674

Thank you for the link that course!

Is there any way for those of us with average intelligence to contribute to tools like this?

I know I'm a decent developer, but I feel entirely entirely inadequate to participate in this enormous, scary world of AI.

What social bonus is awarded to victims enough to justify speaking out?

Particularly in tech, from most to least common:

1. An outpouring of sympathy

2. An outpouring of attention

3. Mobs of angry people ready to fight on your behalf

4. Job offers

5. Conference speaking offers

they'd be thrashed mercilessly in the media

Yes, they would.

Somewhere in between.

For example:

We recognize that false reports are very unlikely, but we also recognize there is currently an enormous social bonus awarded to victims of harassment, particularly female victims. Let's examine all the facts, and even if we can't gather enough evidence to take any action, we'll keep a record of this report for any future incidents.

I think you're shadow-banned. Your two most recent posts are dead.

Your work is stunning. Could you describe your process for choosing a color palette? Does that tend to come after you've completed the shape?

I don't have any concrete examples, so this answer likely won't satisfy you.

Also, I must mention that dang has been significantly more fair the past year or so. It's been a long while since I've really noticed any of the issues I'm about to list.

From least to most concerning:

1. A couple of years ago, dang would regularly wade into gender arguments. And he'd apologize publicly and profusely to women who had unspecific complaints about Hacker News making them feel "unsafe", assuring those women that he felt their pain and would fix the problem.

2. Rules about tone were enforced unevenly. (Again, to be clear, they're now enforced far more fairly.)

Cruel, over-the-top, mean-spirited, Shanley-style [1] derogatory posts from feminist activists would routinely be allowed to stand. People would respond asking why this tone was being allowed on HN, and others would respond with "it's oppressive to tone-police women in tech". Despite all the attention drawn to these posts, they would not be moderated.

At the same time, the slightest acerbic replies against feminist activism were either "deaded" or publicly admonished by dang.

3. This last point is the most difficult to prove, but regular lurkers will know exactly what I'm talking about. Flags were enforced unevenly—they were used as an excuse to minimize community exposure to posts that disagreed with dang's politics.

When a controversial submission that ran counter to the feminist narrative quickly disappeared off the front page despite hundreds of comments, people would complain in the thread (because where else would they complain?). He'd respond, "Hey, this submission received a lot of flags. This wasn't my decision. I'm not closing this thread, so you can continue discussion. But I'm listening to the community by taking it off the front page."

However, controversial submissions that promoted the feminist narrative would often stay up for hours. Those posts undoubtably received tons of flags, too. When people would complain, dang would explain that he would disregard flags for controversial posts if they generated important conversations.

[1] http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/10/the-madness-of-qu...

That article does not refute what I'm saying.

By the 1990s, affirmative action was already in full swing. Universities and large companies were already on board, as was the federal government and many state and local governments.

Additionally, by the 1990s, the national media had been very sympathetic to affirmative action policies for at least 20 years—you would have been hard-pressed to find a single American who didn't know those policies existed. So it was already perfectly reasonable (and expected) for a profit-seeking non-racist [1] to view black resumes with more suspicion.

[1]: And indeed, the studies mentioned in the article showed that blacks and whites exhibited the same bias toward black resumes.

Furthermore, regarding the studies mentioned in the article, there are some important question that need answering (by someone who has access):

1. To which employers did the subjects apply?

2. How were those employers selected?

3. Did any of those employers have pro-black affirmative action policies?

4. If the studies did include employers with pro-black affirmative action policies, how heavily were those employers represented in terms of applications? This is important: even if only 2% of employers have pro-black affirmative action policies (a number far too low), those employers might employ (directly or indirectly) 60% of Americans.

Given the widespread use of pro-black affirmative-action (practiced by GitHub, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft; nearly every major university; many government contractors; and probably the majority of F500 companies), isn't it only logical to view black resumes with more suspicion? Objectively, blacks need to display lower competency in relevant skills to achieve identical resumes as whites.

On a side note, affirmative action policies ultimately help middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites. The upper-class whites who push for affirmative action are not affected by it, and neither are their children.

Helping middle-class blacks at the expense of lower-class whites is a prime example of virtue signaling gone awry.

It'll barely affect those of us already in the industry, because we can easily differentiate ourselves from the herd based on our experience. But it'll really put the squeeze on the glut of grads who are competing with each other.

Ultimately, the winners will be big companies, grads with connections, and some grads belonging to biological demographics large companies are actively seeking.

That U.N. hearing made several of my friends suddenly extremely interested in politics. And not in the way the U.N. bureaucrats would have liked.

They're currently sharing pro-Trump memes on Reddit.