It's so important to take these testimonials seriously, whilst also being careful we don't hurt the chances of those that are able to get the help they would have had no access to only a decade ago.
Diversity is not important in and of itself, but it has been shown again and again that people will discriminate against it over of just selecting for quality. And it doesn't seem to be the case that having to overcome their aversion to diversity then negatively affects long term outcome. Since it is hard to measure and affect what people actually think, it's easier to measure and make policy based on outcomes, and in that sense, businesses should care about diversity as a metric. And perhaps as therapy, to cure their company culture of systemic discrimination - through exposure and by taking away the power of the drivers of discrimination to affect hiring.
You say "special moderation treatment", as if it is something sinister. Have you considered that it may just be the fact that she was so broadly loved, that this happens naturally?
As a rider of both motorcycles and bicycles (lifetime, being a Dutchie), I think this article is a waste of space and time. I just bought an ebike last year (nothing to do with the pandemic, but with my living in hilly Brisbane now) and I think it's perfect. I wouldn't ride my non-electric here in the heat or for long distances on the hills - I ride my ebike almost everywhere, often instead of taking the car, an Uber or public transport. My motorcycle remains a favourite for really long distance weekend outings, or a commute if I need to be quick. It fills a niche (or even gap) perfectly. This guy is a rigid conservative thinker, that doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes, because learning C will teach you about computing and how your computer works. However C is not the only language that could teach you and you don't have to become fluent in it to understand enough to help your Python. Learning enough about a few languages (i.e being able to write something in them) will help you appreciate what Python does for you behind the scenes, but also how Python limits what you can do with it. Ultimately, if you master Python, you may want to write some packages for it that aren't written in Python and then C is a sensible choice.
OK boomer. Which is exactly what I felt when young left. I despise Rogan and I don't like that Spotify got in bed with him like they did. But the behaviour of these artists is hypocritical and tone-deaf.
Bring out a duet criticising Rogan and put it on the Spotify front page by promoting the hell out of it. I thought that was what these hippies were all about, positive change. Not this entitled precious rich person "I can afford not to be on here"-bullshit.
I wonder: is this a technical issue, or just a practical joke by someone who has managed to convince Google Drive that they have the copyright to files containing only "1"?
Sounds to me like the author should be using Windows, because it is not Apple and not Linux, but they have been duped into believing that this is the OS that shall not be named, if you want a shot at being a cool kid. I share the author's disappointment over no commercial business appearing to be able to take Linux and make it into a consistently good experience for new and veteran users alike - but that's probably more to do with the Linux crowd consisting mostly of people who seem to consider free as important as Free. All that said, I learnt next to nothing about Framework, so yeah - just Linux-on-the-desktop bashing.
On an individual level I just don't see the point right now. It's not that it's particularly bad, it's just that it doesn't fix anything important about 10, and there is nothing I could do on 11 that 10 won't let me. From a point of view of risk, changing is almost certainly worse, between fixing no major issues and introducing a lot of change all the same. From a group perspective, I imagine that slow adoption will put more pressure on Microsoft to fix what people are disliking about it, so politically I think not upgrading right now is better.
Science on this is great. However, don't parrot this to your friends until you see it replicated somewhere else (preferably somewhere not governed by ivermectin-peddling populists) and confirmed in a double-blind random-controlled trial (which this doesn't even get close to). After all, no reason to hold this stuff to a lower standard than the anyone want to hold the vaccines to (regardless of whether they realise these standards were already met there).
I'm not sure about the author, but certain about many commenters here, that popular opinion and scientific standpoint are confused. Being charitable to the author, I feel they are writing about popular opinion, politics and zeitgeist and the sudden change in them - people just suddenly surrendered. Many commenters are defending the changes in scientific position, which is something else altogether - and nowhere near as sudden. With science, as should be, when the data changes, the conclusions change - and in a pandemic, what the response of the people is and is likely to be, is part of the data. The science is solid and sees only small, incremental change, there is no surrender there.
Which is it: you want them to use the software or not? What do you care if it carries the added label? If they secure your software, stick a label on it and you get to add their changes back to your project if you like them, what's the problem? Normal open source process, in a good way - or do you want open source to be open, but just to people you like?
The only thing you might complain about is the already existing problem that it's damn hard to get paid for writing good open source software, unless you work for a business like these - this doesn't really make that worse though, or at least not for the wrong reasons.
It's only "luck" if you actually know all the words - most people do passively, but can they find the right one actively? That's part of the 'skill'. The other part is constructing a mental graph that allows you to find your way to the correct word within 6 steps, regardless of the word. An interesting question is whether there is actually any luck involved and how much. i.e. What is the optimal graph reducing the luck factor to a minimum, and is there a perfect one, if you know all words in the game?
People who say "it's just luck" either don't know, or don't care - but it's neither a correct, nor a clever position.
Nothing wrong with loving learning, but I can't help but think "You need better friends". Personally I was in the best space in my university years, plenty of intelligent people around, almost all of them more knowledgeable than myself in many areas, so never a boring conversation if you can get people talking. And part of learning is testing your ideas and understanding with others, after all.
The article mentioned causation isn't shown, but can be inferred. However the inference comes down to "they happen at the same time and are related", so just correlation. All work enabled by new generations of GPUs happened at the same time and is related in the same way. Someone would have to come up with some real numbers of the actual number of cards used in specific scenarios. Mining will be in there, but so will scientific and engineering modelling, design applications, and obviously gaming, as well as some others I may be missing. What percentage of cards was purchased primarily for what applications?
We have something that might be a baby taking its first steps. It might also be a weird freak that won't live past its first few years, dying of some painful deformity. Time will tell - I'm hoping for baby, but won't be surprised by circus freak.