HN user
discrimination does not fix discrimination.
Quote me where I said it does.
yea nope you are right I agree you are sexist for insisting on doing the tie breaker on the basis of gender.
I never said to make the tie breaker based on gender. You're wrong again. You get a lot wrong.
Noted that you avoided most of my questions.
yea see I run my own business
Ok, you still have zero experience in our industry, per your own words. And it shows.
I don't consider the gender or race of people applying (aka not racist/sexist)
So you're ok with reinforcing any existing sexism and racism in the pipeline.
I'll give you a concrete example. We have to choose a speaker for our tech conference. All else being equal the tie-breaker will be to choose the person with the most speaking experience. Can you see how you've possibly and probably just reinforced existing sexism? I would guess you cannot see it.
a subtle admission of active positive discrimination on your part
Nah. I usually don't have a say about who gets into the hiring pipeline. And when I have had a say I've always talked to recruiters about qualifications not gender or race. So you got that wrong.
frankly if i was a woman maybe i would find it a little off putting that a bunch of old guys were real keen to get me under their supervision
You should speak to some actual women so you can correct your bad guesses.
A bunch of old guys? What makes you think they are guys or old?
Keen to get someone under their supervision? You sound creepy.
Im curious what people like you want
A website to discuss interesting things in thoughtful way that is largely free from sexism, ageism, and racism.
the west seems like it is decades ahead with this sort of stuff
Some countries treated slaves better than other countries. Hopefully you can agree there was still a big problem to fix.
social change on national scales don't happen overnight
Sure. And I'll be impatient and insistent until I live in the kind of world I want, which is one that is free as practically as possible from sexism, ageism, racism and other bias that keeps us from achieving what we are truly capable of as a species.
If you look at the youth today, they are already much more accommodating towards diverse views
Which is why many of them avoid this site and call it "The Orange Site".
Just give the world time and you'll see on average things will get better
I already said things are getting better. I also don't have time. I'm old. And the oppressed themselves have no patience. Nor should they.
forcing your views onto people who grew up differently than you is just annoying
Who here is forcing their views on people who grew up differently?
If the price to pay for a better world is that I have to annoy some people who want to maintain the status quo, I am more than willing to pay that price. I wish it were actually that easy.
people who grew up differently than you
I've been working in this industry for almost four decades. Who grew up differently from me?
You need to go back and fix all your wrong assumptions. There are lots of them.
I've been working in our industry for almost four decades. Yeah, ageism is an ugly part of our industry too.
Yes it is. I've been here for over a decade. But despite your tip, I'm still going to speak freely this one time.
I'll probably get downvotes for telling the truth, but whatever, it deserves to be said even if folks only see it for a few hours.
Our industry is still full of sexism and racism. Yes, things have gotten better. But most women in our industry can still tell you disturbing stories. We still have a long way to go.
HN is a generally going to reflect our industry. Some days are better than others here and it really depends on the topic. But it's pretty disappointing when you do come across some blatant sexism or racism and folks agree with it. PG himself is occasionally an angry privileged man moaning about the woke mob so it's no surprise not much has changed here over the decades. The owners like it this way. PG and Dang also get a lot right about how to run a site like this. Both can be true.
Who is overrating Wayland?
You're invoking Nazis and Isil in a discussion about farming. You've lost the plot.
Calm down
Yeah, I've used that a lot. Yet another example of how AI engines can help you learn quicker.
Chess engines aren't useless for beginners. That's an empty claim and is as easily dismissed as it was made.
I gave a list of reasons why a chess engine is good for learning. Refute those as a start.
Here's another reason: an AI engine will point out illegal moves, and patiently over hundreds of games in your home. A free coach isn't going to come to your house and do that.
Neither will most friends or relatives. People get bored and move on.
That same argument has been wrong over and over again. So there's no reason to believe it's now suddenly a good argument unless given solid evidence.
Distortion was just another tool, and first rejected as highly undesirable. It's literally "just" putting an electric guitar through a tube amp and turning up the knob. And it revolutionized music. It sounds amazing in the right hands.
The more important point that I already made is the not all musicians are the same. Give a piano or a player piano to the vast majority of musicians and the output will be common and familiar. Give either to a musical genius like Hendrix and they'll manage to get something beautiful and new out of it. I'm looking forward to what the handful of geniuses out there will get out of AI. It's going to be fun.
That doesn't validate the claim.
Will those players analyze and rate your moves like a chess engine will? Will they name common opening strategies for you so you can research them in books? Will they let you take back several moves to explore different lines?
Some of what you are claiming is false. Most chess AIs for example can identify almost every opening move in existence. Something no human can do. That's a type of position evaluation, and a good starting point for further research. No free coach is going to sit for 4 hours straight, 5 days a week, playing thousands of games exploring variations of a particular opening. That kind of self-study will definitely help you become a better player. Humans just aren't willing to be that opponent, especially to a beginner and not for free.
Also I'm not claiming you can learn quicker by exclusively using AI. I'm claiming you can learn quicker by adding it to your set of tools. Human coaches and books are other tools you can or should use.
Even the some of the best chess players in the world are now using AI opponents to explore new ideas.
You're claiming that gossip and hero worship and celebrity didn't exist before the 20th century which is a wild claim that you'd need to back up with evidence. Humans haven't changed that much over the centuries.
The same arguments were made to dismiss rock music when compared to classical music. And a world without the Velvet Underground would be more soulless to me.
I've heard soulless music performed by highly trained musicians playing on great instruments. And soulful music played on crappy instruments by untrained musicians. On average, the great music comes from the more trained musicians on the better tools.
AI is just another tool. The vast majority of music is terrible. It will continue to be terrible. And a few geniuses will use AI the way Hendrix used the electric guitar. I'm excited to hear what that will sound like.
Can you give an example of a unique insight or emotion? A lot of the classic books I read, the greatest films of all time, and the most celebrated visual artists are unique mostly in style or execution, but all express the same basic universal human truths.
Now you need to define what a unique, profound emotion is.
And you need to define great execution.
And you need to explain why intentionally having poor execution couldn't express a unique, profound emotion. On Radiohead's biggest hit Creep "That's the sound of Jonny trying to fuck the song up. He really didn't like it the first time we played it, so he tried spoiling it. And it made the song."
At the end of the day it's always going to seem all subjective and a matter of opinion. Because it's too hard to pinpoint the objective part of what we are doing when we decide what's great and what's garbage. If there even is an objective part.
I like playing video games with a computer. I also like playing music with a computer.
I've learned far quicker playing chess against an AI than I would have playing against humans. And yet I still really enjoy playing against humans too. In fact the experience playing against humans is richer thanks to a deeper understanding of the game that came from AI.
Your argument is along the same lines as arguing electric guitar is lifeless when compared to the non-machine acoustic version. When what really matters is who is operating the machine. AI is just another tool. It will be used in insensitive mechanical ways and in ways that deeply enrich our lives.
What's terrifying about it?
US companies provide the most valuable services and products by a long shot.
Seems like it could be fun to use these but no way am I trusting Meta with more personal info.
They drink wine on a daily basis in at least some of the blue zones where people regularly live to a hundred years old or longer. So it's not reasonable to say alcohol is relatively unsafe. Relative to what and in which circumstances?
As far as cannabis being "pretty darn safe", a recent study shows it causes heart disease. And more than one study shows it increases the risk of heart attack for up to an hour.
What we really need is an end to prohibition, and continued funding for studies on the substances that are the most popular so folks can make the most informed choices.
In my experience, that's not correct.
Can you please share your sources? I'm always happy to be persuaded by studies.
There is some evidence it interferes with REM sleep and stops you from dreaming. I've often wondered if the folks who it helps with sleeping have disturbing dreams.
You might consider taking occasional breaks. Vivid dreams are reported when folks quit.
Just as there is a level of alcohol use that is "zero risk". But that level might be one drop in a glass of water at meals, and a level which has zero pleasurable effects.
It's not accurate to say any amount of alcohol increases your risk of cancer. There is clearly a threshold amount and one droplet of red wine in a glass of water one time in your life is not going to increase cancer risk in any measurable way. The threshold amount does matter if people want to make the smartest choices and still enjoy life.
The same can already be said of cannabis.
"People who use marijuana have an increased risk of heart disease and heart attack, according to a large study led by researchers at Stanford Medicine.
The study also showed that the psychoactive component of the drug, known as THC, causes inflammation in endothelial cells that line the interior of blood vessels, as well as atherosclerosis in laboratory mice." [1]
Other studies have shown the risk of heart attack goes up in the first hour after smoking cannabis.
Prohibition doesn't work. And we need loads of more studies like this so folks can be well informed in their choices.
However regulations and taxes do work. Smoking cigarettes continues to become less and less popular thanks to information, higher taxes, and other regulations.
Considering how popular cannabis is, we should be funding more research so we can make informed choices, and at tax it at a level that recovers the actual cost to society.
[1] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/marijuana-hea...
Alcohol addiction is not immediately obvious for many people.