The goal then should be to use visual representations and interaction and learning models where visual stylings provide advantages or over other approaches. Rather than designing for so-called "visual learners", instruction needs to combine materials using the medium best-suited to the needs of the material.

I took a look at a bundle yesterday and it didn't appear the ability to put everything to charity had yet been removed, but when I looked at the default split, it was overwhelmingly weighted in favor of Humble Bundle. It was something like 90% HB, 7% publisher, 3% charity. Given how Humble Bundle started, that's a major shift. I'm not sure the Humble Bundle model actually makes much sense any longer under ZD's Humble. They still push the optics but the defaults don't really respect those optics at all. I think some of the newer, smaller sites doing this are paying the idea itself a lot more respect.

It's not a bigger lens that's needed and that the article is arguing for, but a bigger sensor. A bigger sensor has more space to capture light, making it more sensitive to detail and less sensitive to noise. The smaller the sensor, the more likely it is to suffer image noise and reduced detail, regardless of how many pixels it is supposed to generate.

That standards document doesn't actually appear to advocate for not teaching standard mathematical practices, but rather putting them in a social and historical context. It is a curriculum attempting to be math+context, not merely math. Whether that's a more effective way to teach calculation is one thing, but it has a chance of getting more non-white children interested in math and its place in society. The article you shared does not adequately cite the various things it purports to be commenting on, and I suspect it amounts to little more than hyperbole.

I use Opera at work to host a Slack channel, and after being open all day mostly just in Slack, it will often crash with an Out of Memory error, so it's far from a perfect browser.

I'm replying again to correct myself. Basically, the study found that women quite as a result of interview rejection at a much higher rate than men, skewing their numbers. Eliminating early attrition data indicates that women perform equally well at getting jobs from interviews so long as they stay in the game. There are probably socialization issues (which are a result of societal sexism) contributing (some studies are indicated) to women dropping out early. It is hard to know with the data provided, but it is possible that women are just as strong and valid as candidates as men if we can figure out how to address this gender difference in handling rejection.

I went back and re-read. You are correct. The original study was not super well-written, IMO. Too conversational. I think I would have done better with it had it been written in a more traditional research style, including data, etc...

So basically, the answer is to try to deal with whatever socialization factors are contributing to women quitting as a result of interview rejection.

From the Fusion article (and I read the original study to confirm this quote doesn't misrepresent the original work):

'Lerner dug into her data and came up with her own guess for the cause of the surprising results: women were leaving the platform after having one or two bad interviews. In other words, women, feeling discouraged, seemed to be just giving up on interviewing altogether. “Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews,” she writes, “the disparity goes away entirely.”'

That result therefore confirms the existence of gender bias, though because there are fewer remaining data points, the results are less significant.

Actually, if you bother reading the article, you'll find the headline is misleading, and if you do a little stripping of outliers, the headline becomes incorrect.

I hate to admit this, but the mobile space, iOS and Android, is really where the attention is being paid where email apps are concerned. The desktop space has become dominated by free webmail monoliths like Gmail and Yahoo. The corporate/business space is dominated by Outlook and... Gmail, yup. Thunderbird was the only strong, independent email app I ever liked since Eudora become stupid years ago. But these days that entire desktop email space has been a vast wasteland. And yet, on mobile devices there is still so much development going on. Look at Outlook mobile (once an independent app called Accompli). The app is great, integrates with Gmail perfectly, and makes reading my work email on my mobile device almost a better experience than on my desktop.

And the tone and tenor of the responses is exactly what I would expect. *I* don't see a problem and someone found a woman to personally refute the claim, therefore there must not be a problem. This topic has been written on often enough and in enough detail from enough different angles that, while some of the intricacies are still elusive, we (as a society) are not clueless about this. Those who claim most loudly that there isn't a problem truly mean that there isn't a problem FOR THEM.

The problem is that for so many women, they have to write BETTER code than their male peers to be considered on the same level. They are put upon to bust stereo-types. And that may be harder for some women to do in work environs which, many times, cater explicitly to male employees.

Yes, this is an indirect response to the video, but the summary and the slant of the question suggest that the interview is as much about grinding a particular axe as interviewing Liz Bennett.

Thanks to the municipal power utility rolling out gigabit speeds to Chattanooga and the surrounding communities, the Tennessee river valley is starting to become a good place for tech. There have also been local efforts to attract and develop startups to take advantage of that broadband speed. Furthermore, though the average salary for employees is below national average, the cost of living is even lower, meaning people can get by on less. The local natural environs are great, too. If you want to work for a big company doing tech it might not be the place for you, but if you want to do your own thing and form, or be part of, a small team doing innovative stuff, it's a great environment to work in. That and you can always take your startup team for a hike in the nearby mountains with only a 15-30 minute drive. Talk about a break to clear the cruft out of a cluttered mind!

They don't have to show up. They can just lose by default by not showing up. However, they can appeal the small claims court verdict and escalate and by moving things to a larger court screw you over in turn by requiring YOU to show up somewhere that may no longer be quite as local. And if you don't show up for that, you can bet your penalty will be much greater than theirs was to have been for losing that initial small claims case.

This is clearly a cost reduction move on Netflix's part, but that doesn't mean they can pass along the reduction. This reduction may better serve to counter increases in cost elsewhere in the chain, preventing them from having to raise the subscription fee. Manufacturers and service providers can't increases costs constantly, so they have to off-set occasional spikes with reductions. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.