throwaway5250

Apologies for my lack of originality.

It's difficult to get someone to understand something when it's in their interest not to.

Thanks for posting. Looks like hysteria to me, but I'm glad to know what happened.

Indeed, SQL is a declarative language. It'd be quite shocking if short circuiting were happening.

Generally I agree and aspire to this.

I do wonder, though, how I would keep track of the list of phrases I'm no longer allowed to say without being fired, shunned, or worse.

At least lately, it's become pretty obvious that WaPo and NYT are feeding us crap on a regular basis. If you go look at the source materials, you'll realize that their "neutral" summaries aren't close to neutral, or aren't factual at all. Many times you don't even have to go to the source--the articles/headlines themselves aren't even internally consistent. ("Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong...")

Maybe it was always this way, and I never noticed.

+1 for "exercide"

Personally, I cannot be productive in a noisy environment (sans headphones), and I most definitely cannot be productive pair programming. (Or, good god, mob programming.) Yes, I've tried it.

I've been on one or two interviews where this requirement was brought up. For the common good, I just excuse myself.

It seems possible that some people can actually produce good results via pair programming, but I'm not aware of any examples myself.

Glanced at that link, and not spotting any reason to regard this person as "trash" (if indeed there ever is one).

What are they saying here that is objectionable, and what is your rebuttal?

You can peel my zero-based arrays from my cold, dead hands.

Try getting rejected at the final executive approval (i.e., their magic eight-ball) after passing the in-person day and the hiring committee.

Once you've seen the inside of the hiring process, you'll never take this stuff personally again. It's utter garbage. At best, the process manages to select for a few traits that are probably useful, while de-selecting for others they didn't realize were crucial for ultimate success.

If you doubt this, ask yourself how one of the tightest hiring sieves in the world managed to produce Google+.

My point was that this looks quite the same from the other side of the aisle.

More damningly, that article has nothing useful to add beyond ad hominems. Instead, try this: https://heterodoxacademy.org/social-science-hidden-tribes/

tldr: The half of the country that voted for the current President are all awful, stupid people, and they spend their time reading awful, stupid websites.

What happened to NIPS? Last I heard they had decided against a name change, since that was the sentiment of the survey, and even women seemed indifferent.

https://nips.cc/Conferences/2018/News

Yeah, lost my account this way, even though it would have been blindingly obvious who I was. Even had a Googler buddy go to bat. No dice.

If it absolutely, positively has to work, don't do it with a Google account.

This sounds good--who could object to silencing white supremacists? But recent history suggests that this will morph in very short order into simply suppressing unpopular ideas, science even.

The telephone seems like a better model. Yes, people can do bad things with it, and law enforcement has significant resources for policing it. But we don't just turn off people's phones because we don't like them.

Ideas: Get some good headphones and listen to trance/edm/whatever music to get yourself in the zone. Get distractions like phones away from your desk and use a web blocker to zap crap sites like this one. Adrafanil or nicotine gum, maybe.

Something tells me Linux guys/gals will still be the ones getting calls when the Kubernetes instance explodes.

Garbage. Here, have this: https://quillette.com/2018/11/30/the-new-evolution-deniers/

accused of physically touching a clothed area of the woman's arm without being granted consent

Is this really an offense worth ending someone's career over?

(And is it any surprise that we might all deduce the lesson if it is?)

Avoiding unnecessary risk is not cowardice. In fact, most of us are paid, in part, for doing just that.

Why can't these men just learn to treat women like the humans they are?

This sort of willful misunderstanding of concerns feels like a subtle gaslighting campaign.

The vast majority of men being discussed here have zero problems in their treatment of women. They quite rationally have calculated that being around women at work is now a significant risk to them, with little or no upside in return, so they're bowing out.

You can preach all you like, but in my experience it's almost impossible to get people to act against their own self-interest, especially when the welfare of their loved ones is on the line.

Welcome to the new normal.

Google++

Advice from a dinosaur: Find a divorced dad who has custody of his kid(s) and is in dire need of help with raising them. Nothing is more meaningful that providing children with a good home to grow up in. Pour her soul into it. Make sure said dad is reasonably good with money, as she clearly is not. Don't be too picky about looks, but make sure it's someone who can basically float her boat. Forsake all others. Then follow grandma's recipe: Keep his stomach full and his balls empty.

Does that sound awful? Does it matter, if it works?

Wow. That article is from 2009, and it really shows. Giving random compliments to strangers in 2018 is just a really bad idea. Doubly so in any kind of professional environment. Save it for your mate or your dog.

You got lost in the meta. There's a difference between someone's beliefs about evolution, which might be true, false, or nonexistent; versus evolution itself, which is a force that will act on us regardless of what we believe.

Are we evolved to have religion? Maybe, but the answer to that has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not evolution itself is true.

"[W]e see a heat-map version of it steadily light up in the areas where the women are being grabbed: mostly the lower back, backside, and arms."

This isn't exactly what the word "groped" conjures up in my mind. (I don't frequent the club scene, though, and I don't know anything about Brazilian culture.)

Clarifying, I did "quit" my job, though likely I'd have been dismissed, or simply worked myself to death. This was after the settlement was signed, and I knew full well when I signed it that there would be no relief--that I'd have to continue full alimony payments regardless of what salary, if any, I could get in the future.

The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth.

From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment.

As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.

Generally, community property will be split 50/50. Alimony would generally be set as a percentage of all income. Judges have a lot of leeway, though, and may lean considerably towards whomever seems more sympathetic (according to lawyers).

One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It kind of sucks to have every dollar you've ever saved wiped out in one stroke, replaced with a nice pile of debt.

Yes. I should have said "unreviewable after the initial court approval".

In my case, made it clear during negotiations that I simply could not keep up with my current job, and planned to downsize dramatically. (All quite true.) Noble of me, but probably a mistake to mention during negotiations. I was in serious denial about just how far my ex would push things.