> what we're talking about here is a protocol for performing eugenics...
No. What we're talking about is if it's ethical to essentially create a race of monster-people by altering their DNA.
GP is saying, no way it's ethical, because if they have offspring it would be unethical. I'm saying maybe it's as ethical as current medical science, as long as you sterilize them.
You're the only one talking about eugenics.
> ethically that isn't a hang-up for you
Look, ethics is in its core, a public affair. Ethicists are primarily concerned whether general people will find XYZ acceptable, and why or why not.
For me personally, I'm not concerned with academics. I'm concerned with whether I feel it's right or wrong in my personal view. Is genetically altering humans ethical in my personal view? No.
Harder to track down the person. Unless the hotel is logging every packet on its network and paying to archive the TBs of encrypted video streaming data that goes through every day. And it's a purely local network, so not like the NSA can help out.
Edit:
"Unauthorized" computer access is a serious federal crime under the CFAA, and that you did it as a joke is not a legal defense. Famous examples:
The threat to the perpetrator -- of 90 days prison time and a permanent criminal record of being a mischief-maker -- prevents people from pulling the alarm.
> We’re so focused on grades because they are a believed to be an important part of the credentialing process for getting jobs.
Various colleges (ex: Reed, Brown) in the U.S. don't have grades. Their graduates do just fine, afaik.
In defense of grades, they are a good extrinsic motivator for learning boring subjects. Grades are a good consequence for phoning in it. I would probably have skipped reading most of the books I was assigned to read in school if there were no consequences, and would have ended up an (even) less educated person if not for grades.
> At least one point of those ethicists is to stop people who are naive from doing things with permanent consequences without first checking to see what those consequences would be.
Are the consequences really that permanent? It's pretty easy (in China) to monitor a handful of test subjects with heritable mutations and make sure they don't reproduce.
> At this stage of the science you're more likely to cause harm than cure disease
The potential upside of developing the science is huge, which is essentially what He is doing.
Sorry I edited out all the discussions about WW2. Assumed this was a dead thread and it was safe if I did it quickly. I'll edit this and address them here... please forgive me.
Edit:
> The US didn't forgive Von Braun and Japanese scientists, they simply chose to look the other way out of expediency, because the evils of the Axis had become a commodity for the Allies. That's a subtle but important distinction.
Right -- you're making the distinction, between forgiveness in the sense of amnesty, and forgiveness as a ritualized, cultural, and Christian purification concept. Von Braun and Unit 731 received amnesty-forgiveness. Hirohito received ritual-forgiveness.
> Anonymity isn't forgiveness
Anonymity is forgiveness in the first sense.
GP was concerned with "the Cancelled" receiving both types of forgiveness. Anonymity only provides amnesty-forgiveness. It's up to you to reconcile that with the fact you don't receive ritual-forgiveness (and have to be ok with mere amnesty). Probably explains why most anonymous folks on the internet are so anti-establishment, because in this sense it (i.e., placing little value on ritual forgiveness) is a requirement to accept being a real person inhabiting an anonymous identity.
Anonymity is the forgiveness of the internet machine.
> The broader question is how any of us – but especially children and young people – can become comfortable with our own freedom, our own spontaneity, against the backdrop of surveillance capitalism, which is the real condition of the reaction economy
Separate digital identities from real ones.
Edit 2: I originally had a much longer discussion about WWII and forgiveness but edited it out and did not indicate that I edited. Basically, I made a mistake, I take full responsibility, although you will bear the consequences.
Agree with everything you said. I also did the same thing basically, undergrad CS and grad math classes.
The author basically did all of undergrad math and physics, and now apparently they're planning to self-study all the grad math. The thing with self-studying is you're taking yourself out of the system, and at some point you have to inject yourself back in. I hope the author is able to do that and doesn't miss out on undergrad college too much, because it's really enjoyable if you find the right friends and you'll look back on it fondly.
If you go through for the "great books" approach, just be aware that it's not the same curriculum as a major in mathematics:
> Mathematics is one of the many subjects studied in the college’s interdisciplinary great books curriculum. There are no majors at St. John’s.
It may be fulfilling from a humanistic/personal development perspective, but you won't really have the tools to do anything useful like cryptography, algorithms, physics, statistical inference, data analysis, etc., which, in my mind are the really cool things you can understand by learning math.
> Interviewer: Tell me a bit about your life situation at the time. Were you working on the project full-time? What did you do for funds?
> Diego: The year COVID hit was the most transformative year of my life. I was 15 at the time. A combination of both personal circumstances along with isolation gave me so much clarity—I transformed 180 degrees. During this time, I really got into self-improvement and started working out, meditating, reading, taking cold showers etc.
Personally, I did some of what he did when I was his age, but not to the same extent and I mostly decided to chill out and enjoy college.
At that age it's really risky to do. Really hard to go to college and sit in classes for 4 years if you already know everything. I guess you could go straight to grad school or industry, but you miss out on a lot of the social maturity and friendships you develop in college. Learning all this is almost a curse; he will always, in some sense, be alone in his newfound abilities.
(Sorry for the edits. Done editing before any child comments.)
> but the claim made by several people in that thread (at least one who said they are a hiring manager) that Databricks has recently hired multiple people who were laid off is verifiable as true or false
How exactly, again, did you verify their identity as a hiring manager?
What I find strange in OP's story is that HC and recruiter actually gave a reason for the rejection. Most companies after they reject you are tight-lipped.
> denied by multiple Databricks employees in the [Blind] thread, who clearly said...
That proves nothing. HR departments shill on Blind.
> The 39-year-old immigrant from India, who works in Seattle on a H-1B visa, said as soon as he heard the question “Do you eat meat?” from his Indian manager he knew he was in trouble.
> By admitting to eating meat, the tech worker had exposed himself as a member of an oppressed caste, or a Dalit, formerly known as an “untouchable,” in the social hierarchy that is pervasive in South Asian countries.
(EDIT: if the article and allegations are true)
I say the following as an outsider, an
American, and with the utmost respect for other cultures and their right to dignity and the integrity of their traditions within our society:
Jesus Christ. What the fuck is wrong with this person.
This is an unacceptable behavior, and it should be banned as a condition of entry to the country. This supposedly enlightened and woke country. Although this is a cultural tradition -- and it's not our place to judge what may or may not go on in India -- all humans are equal here, and this tradition should not be allowed in the United States.
(EDIT: Maybe this story is a false flag, maybe this is all fake, to justify layoffs, purges, etc... but if not, the above is my opinion as an anon.)
I still vaguely remember this discussion from Walden from when I read it 10 years ago:
> "I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude. We are for the most part more lonely when we go abroad among men than when we stay in our chambers.
> The farmer can work alone in the field or the woods all day, hoeing or chopping, and not feel lonesome, because he is employed; but when he comes home at night he cannot sit down in a room alone, at the mercy of his thoughts, but must be where he can “see the folks,” and recreate, and as he thinks remunerate himself for his day’s solitude...
> ... He wonders how the student can sit alone in the house all night and most of the day without ennui and “the blues;” but he does not realize that the student, though in the house, is still at work in his field, and chopping in his woods, as the farmer in his, and in turn seeks the same recreation and society that the latter does, though it may be a more condensed form of it.
> Consider the girls in a factory,—never alone, hardly in their dreams. It would be better if there were but one inhabitant to a square mile, as where I live. The value of a man is not in his skin, that we should touch him.
There is more than one way to live, and it's not a sickness not to eagerly participate in social axe throwing et. al. I think it's great that some people like it. But I don't think not doing it is missing too much. Life is long.
> In my generation it seems like everyone has something they are really into that isn't work or their immediate family.
Not all zoomers. I pretty much confine myself to work, lurking online, occasional periods of HN commenting, drinking, and the occasional walk or hike. Just biding my time and collecting my tech TC. When I get into late 20s and am rich, then I'll think about doing those things.
> Main street suburbia is no longer dead antique shops. There's now an arthouse cinema, axe throwing, duck pin bowling, and a brewery.
I always hear junior tech workers and interns saying how much they do these rock climbing/top golf/etc. type of activities. I always assumed they were signaling. Maybe it's great and more people should try axe throwing.
In fact an incorrect implementation of CBC mode famously caused a vulnerability in Microsoft's ASP.NET in 2010 (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securityb...). The margin for error is small and even subtle mistakes or incorrect design can cripple security. Even Microsoft got it wrong once (although they handled remediation very well).
> Depends on the society. In Asia it's still by far the most popular aesthetic, especially for women.
I guess I outed myself as an American. I'm not sure I want to compare attractiveness standards with other cultures. I'm ok to take a hedonistic view here: if adhering to super-thin attractiveness standards causes women suffering or shortens their lives (which it does) then the standards are bad and I hope people in those countries reevaluate their standards.
No. What we're talking about is if it's ethical to essentially create a race of monster-people by altering their DNA.
GP is saying, no way it's ethical, because if they have offspring it would be unethical. I'm saying maybe it's as ethical as current medical science, as long as you sterilize them.
You're the only one talking about eugenics.
> ethically that isn't a hang-up for you
Look, ethics is in its core, a public affair. Ethicists are primarily concerned whether general people will find XYZ acceptable, and why or why not.
For me personally, I'm not concerned with academics. I'm concerned with whether I feel it's right or wrong in my personal view. Is genetically altering humans ethical in my personal view? No.