I don't think so, but for zero-cost logging you just need the conditional for your branch to be constexpr. If the branch is known not to be taken at compile time, the compiler can just throw it away.
Something like:
void MyDebugLog(text) {
if (<constepxr check if logging enabled>) {
// actually log...
}
}
I'm curious why you see Sanders' plan as a "clean and elegant" solution to this problem. It is a solution, but it seems likely to introduce some bad incentives at hiring time. For example, if a high school student and a single mother apply for the same job, which one should Amazon hire? Right now, both cost Amazon the same, but under the Sanders plan, hiring the single mother would likely cost a lot more due to the chargeback.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "who defines where that partiality starts and ends?". I'm not advocating that anybody be deciding it.
Here's my understanding. If a company posts a job and receives 30 applications from women and 70 applications from men, you need to explain the reason for the disparity. Why is there such a difference? I think it's generally accepted that in this case in the software field, the majority of the disparity is due to cultural/social factors. And there are a lot of programs dedicated to outreach, education, raising interest, etc to counteract these societal factors. And I think these are good!
The point I was replying to was whether or not some of the difference in application rates could be explained because women, as a distribution of individuals, have a lower percentage that are interested in a particular type of job than men, perhaps due to biological factors. I don't think there are any conclusive studies that have shown this to be a significant effect, but for the sake of argument, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider. Of course, if it's not backed up by the evidence, then I won't continue looking at it.
I think one of the many issues with the memo was that it significantly overplayed speculative (and incorrect) biological factors, while ignoring the many social and cultural factors that we know to be the cause of most of the lack of diversity.
I don't think that's what he was saying. His point was if we have equality of opportunity, meaning that interviews/applications are completely blind (this is impossible to do 100% in practice) and "fair", what would we expect the application and hire rate of men vs women to be? Is it 50/50? Or might it be different distributions for different jobs depending partially on biological predisposition to certain interests? If there are less women and more men interested in that type of role, then that could be partially due to biological predisposition to wanting that type of job.
This is not at all to say that, as the person in charge of hiring, you should be concerned about these things. You should set objective standards for what you need in a particular role and hire the individuals that best meet those standards.
That being said, there is ample evidence that most of the disparity in tech in hiring is due to cultural/social factors and focusing on biological aspects is mostly a waste of time. I think a lot of the diversity-increasing efforts in place at companies such as Google are commendable and should be continued.
True, but there are many open-source wi-fi drivers out there already. Unless broadcom's implementation is something out of the ordinary, releasing their driver doesn't really change the game.
Something like: