Women leave interviewing.io roughly 7 times as often as men after they do badly in an interview. And the numbers for two bad interviews aren't much better.

Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely. So while the attrition numbers aren't great, I'm massively encouraged by the fact that at least in these findings, it's not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever. Rather, it's about women being bad at dusting themselves off after failing, which, despite everything, is probably a lot easier to fix.

Also the title here is particularly bad, but I guess it's part of the Science News Cycle

This got me thinking of the maliciously constructed ZIP/RAR files that would expand endlessly from a very small zip into files that were larger than any hard drive could handle, as well as make directory/file structures so deep you couldn't delete them in windows. Sure these days they are hiding malicious payloads in there as the above bugs mention, but I could see one of these being the payload for annoyance purposes if they still exist.

They didn't declare the same variable twice. They declared two independent variables with the same purpose to use the same name. If the second one said "d" instead of "c" it wouldn't break the pattern but it _would_ confuse the point that the two ifs create two scopes with no bleeding through.

Your comment seems to miss that point.

The real goal is to create an initializer that is valid for both the "then" and the "else" part but that DOES NOT introduce variables beyond the scope of the liftime of the if. That's why the full comparison text include the outer braces {thing c=stuff(); if (some_status(c)) okay(c); else no_bueno(c); } implies printf("%p",c) error because C is out of scope.

Using the same variable name twice was exemplary of the common closure of scope in the suggestion.

Alos note that the particular example was to bring it into line with the okay=complex_function(); if (!okay) return error; okay=next_complex_function(); if (!okay) return error;

Programmers _suck_ at stringing conditionals and making sure that the whole stop and exit at first error paradigm is met. The above monad can already be done as a number of graceful or degenerate cases.

if all your success states are boolean true, and failure is boolean false then a simple "return co1() && co2() && co3();" series continues until one fails or all succeed. But larger cascades from less boolean series can get "interestingly decorative" depending on how the programmer likes to arrange this sort of thing.

Of course the "Real Answer" is exceptions, but only if you don't then screw that up...

So the solution is a "not bad" attempt to deal with the horror that is "in-band error reporting", a horror that most languages make us blind to due to ubiquity alone.

Also: The BSA's "nauseating" anti-piracy tactics - Piracy watchdog threatens small businesses with court, but hasn't pursued a single case in years

I'm shocked anyone has forgotten, or gives credence to anything they put out.

BUSINESS SOFTWARE ALLIANCE (BSA) AUDITS: TOP TEN THINGS TO DO IF YOU RECEIVE A BSA LETTER
Have You Received An Audit Letter From BSA - Business Software Alliance?

Oddly enough people seem suspicious of the BSA and their audits, wonder why? ;)

Looking up the tech it's just a cloth bag... Scissors. Their fancy "lock mechanism" has been defeated with fucking scissors. Good job.

By citing a specific case one might conclude that AMC’s attorney is confident that the cases are similar, but reading the details casts more than just a little doubt on his claims.

The historical case in question involved the publication of a book by Publications International which covered in detail the first eight episodes of the 1990/91 TV series Twin Peaks. The big question was whether this use of copyright works was protected under fair use but in the end the court decided the publisher had gone too far.

The court found that the defendant’s “detailed recounting of the show’s plotlines went far beyond merely identifying their basic outline for the transformative purposes of comment or criticism” adding:

Because the plot synopses were so detailed, and in fact lifted many sections verbatim from the original scripts, the court found that defendant copied a substantial amount of plaintiff’s original works.

This hardly seems to mirror the situation playing out alongside a potential spoiler of an unaired episode of The Walking Dead. Presumably that spoiler can be achieved by saying a single name too, which by no stretch of the imagination amounts to a substantial part of any show.

I'm ambivalent about spoilers myself, just knowing who it is doesn't equal seeing it play out with the acting, effects, etc. Sometimes I'm glad not to know, sometimes I wish I didn't know a spoiler, sometimes I love knowing.

A dispute is a request to get a charge "investigated". A "chargeback" is an instruction to the bank/credit company take the money back and make it my problem.

Most people don't know that (in the United States) these are completely different things.

If I dispute a charge then the credit card company may contact the vendor and ask them what happened and generally do a resolution where I may, or may not, get a refund. A dispute takes days, weeks, or even months to run its course.

A chargeback tells the credit card company to suck the money back out of the payee's account right now and debit it back to me unconditionally. There is no investigation. There is no delay. Once a chargeback has been issued the credit card issuer is no longer involved in the transaction. They payee may sue the payor or otherwise deal with the financial dispute by legal means. A chargeback is the "nuclear option" for dealing with a credit card transaction that's gone bad.

But understand that a chargeback isn't magic. If you buy something through an intermediary, the credit card bank is taking money from that next step in the chain, from that intermediary. That intermediary may then choose sue you or never do business with you again. So issuing a charge-back to ebay might get you a lifetime ban from ebay or a lawsuit from ebay and leave ebay holding the bag, unable to get the money back from the seller.

I've disputed several charges in my lifetime, but I've only ever once issued a chargeback. A local scaffolding company didn't properly log in the return of the scaffolding I'd rented. So they kept on billing me monthly rent for it. I tried to work it out with them, but they just kept saying they'd be charging me forever unless I showed up with the scaffolding. The individual pieces aren't serialized so it was impossible to coerce an audit to support my claim. I'm a home owner, not a business, so it's not like I could misplace that much stuff.

So I called the credit card company and issued a chargeback. The guy on the phone was all "what charges do you wish to dispute?" and I said "_NO_, I am issuing a chargeback for (amount) and blocking all further charges from (company)." I had to go several rounds and get a manager involved because the phone monkey didn't know what I was talking about. Finally I made it happen. Then I contacted the scaffolding company that I'd charged back everything they'd charged me since the date of the equipment return. With the money back in my hand and the door closed they became way more responsive and we agreed to go our separate ways.

They cold have sued me or whatever, but they would have lost since all of their records were messed up and their procedures were lax at best. So they decided (amount) and whatever equipment they thought I still had wasn't worth going to court.

A full chargeback is the last milestone before a resolution or a law suit, and if you issue (or receive as a business owner) more than a couple a decade you are likely to be dropped by the card company. It would _suck_ for a business to be banned by, say, all of Visa Corp. It wouldn't be fun for a consumer either.

But the full "chargeback" is a guaranteed protection to credit card holders as enshrined by law. The "dispute" is a contract term in your card and/or vendor agreement and subject to civil terms and other sections of law.

Chargebacks exist because the buyer and the seller are the actual involved parties, so either party can say to the payment processors "get out of this dispute completely" but to do that, to get out of the middle, the money must be put back into the hands of the original people.

It's twisty, and you shouldn't ever take legal or financial advice from the internet, but "disputing a charge" and "issuing a chargeback" are _totally_ different things.

These days I can do just about anything I need with KODI (formerly XBMC aka XBox Media Center) including record from tuners. No thanks to using a console for my media consumption.

The TPM is an _outstanding_ idea, but the implementation is flawed by the fact that the owner of the machine doesn't get the keys. It's not actually a "root kit", it's a self destruct that someone else has the key for.

I would _insist_ every computer I owned had a TPM _if_ I were in control of that TPM so that I could have it validate that my (linux) box has not been tampered with.

The technology is great. The implementation, however, is designed to work against me, the owner. Were it not _obviously_ laid out in a way intended to turn my computer into a gaming console or cable television set-top box, it would be outstanding.

There is absolutely no reason that the "publicized" goals of the TPM couldn't be realized while still allowing me my full rights.

But Microsoft et al wanted to make a copywrite tool instead of a true trustable boot experience. Signing keys are, after all, part of the public key not the private key. So I should be able to initialize my TPM with my own key pair, load microsoft's signing keys into it as I choose along with any other keys for my e.g. Linux boot system etc, and then get the security without the nonsense.

There is some rationality to wanting to protect the computer from it's operator. I've worked in tech support. There's more rationale to wanting to protect a computer from root kits and tampering. I've worked security. But there is no reason that the person who actually paid for the device should be denied access too it.

If I had my way in all things, every computer would have a TPM like device. And a little dongle plug. And it would have an SD card slot that the TPM can directly access. When the slot is occupied with a matched SD card, the computer will only do boot maintenance. When the card is not matched it's just regular storage. If you invoke the reinitialization system, the TPM will secure-erase _everything_ in the box then mint a new matched SD card. So now the machine _won't_ run normally if the boot stack is exposed, but it will run normally if it's not, so the average user is safe (they can't make the "leet" decision to leave the matched card in place and still have a working computer). The extreme tamper-evidence of having the machine blanked means that _nobody_ can sneak in a bios keylogger virtual machine layer without wiping the machine. And the owner would have the option to include-or-not the signing keys from the various sources like Microsoft or the Linux distro of their choice, or even signing their custom boot stack as they see fit.

Seriously, this sounds a lot like the convoluted "Curb Your Enthusiasm" style situations featured in the show.

She has scammed her supporters numerous times the below text was taken from this link, to see the image gallery from the Reddit chain click here.

There's no doubt in my mind that you all know who Tess Holliday is. Founder of "Eff your beauty standards", plus size model, (apparent) body positivity icon.. oh, and scam artist! In November 2014 hundreds of her loyal fans purchased shirts with her "EYBS" branding emblazoned on them,also under the impression that a portion of the proceeds would be donated to a Domestic Violence charity (many fans have said that the reason they were able to justify spending $40 on a shirt is that they were glad that some of the money would to go a DV charity). Not only did hundreds of fans NEVER receive their shirts/merchandise, but not a single cent went to charity. Fans asked Holliday why they hadn't received their items yet via Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, only to be blocked by her (Tess herself has admitted that she is in control of all of her social media accounts).

After several attemps by many disappointed fans, the Facebook group "Eff your Customer Service" began. With now 450 members, Holliday could no longer ignore the fans who had rallied against her.

The clothing company Redress took on Holliday's EYBS merchandising responsibilities, and tried their best to reimburse customers.

Still, many were disappointed that none of the proceeds from their purchases were going to the DV charity as they had been lead to believe. Holliday claims that the reason for this is because EYBS operated at a loss, despite doing their own packing, advertising and selling shirts at $40 each. Fans asked her why she couldn't just donate some of her own fortune to the charity to write her wrongs, however no comment was made. Holliday (whose real name is Ryann Maegan) claims to earn 6 figures, and her constant updates on her expensive lifestyle understandably angered fans who were left with no refund, no shirt, and no DV charity contribution.

Of course, making donations to things like Amber Rose's Slutwalk is no problem!

Holliday's scamming/thievery goes even further, as this image suggests. The identity of the person who made this comment is protected, as this Facebook group was a secret group where people could talk about their experiences with her without facing scrutiny from Holliday and her friends, who are constantly harassing anybody who speaks out about her.

Holliday is also known as a horrible person to work with. Despite claiming to be against traditional beauty standards and standing up for body positivity, many photographers who have worked with her in the past have said that they will never choose to work with her again.

Additionally, the plus size clothing company Torrid have severed ties with Holliday for a number of reasons.

In a Buzzfeed video, Holliday is seen claiming to be a size 22, while complaining about the fit of a pair of size 28 Torrid shorts, despite having modelled for them in the past.

Lastly, Holliday's general stalking-behaviour of people speaking out about her says a lot about what kind of person she is. She knows she's doing wrong, and she knows that people can tear her down if they need to.

tl;dr, Don't hate Tess Holliday because she's fat, hate her because she's a scam artist, liar, and generally a bad person.

Her response to this? Blame everyone but herself in the press like here in People magazine, the comments sections are particularly informative about the fact that not everything has been addressed. Any group associated with this person is enabling a scam artist.

I was curious how the ratings for this new BDSM/Kink show/softcore porn were skewing so I checked out the breakdown on IMDB. It's audience is definitely the Mommy BDSM set who made 50 Shades of Grey a sensation, and features women as leads, with a dose of nudity and sex for the men. I was surprised then and am still now that it's got more ratings in to see women voting it on average lower than men, despite it being their target audience. Of course maybe I should actually get around to watching it and see for myself. :P

Is a complete personal digital assistant, concierge, etc. If it can't do all the things with minimal input from me, what good is it. As it is I'm duplicating work like adding calendar entries from one site (that is account protected) to my own calendar, I should be able to have that done automatically for me once I'm logged in. I don't want a Virtual Personal Assistant, I want an AI Personal Assistant!

Downloadable computer software for testing and analyzing the speed of a user’s Internet connection.
There is no word on any downloadable software yet, but the website is certainly now live and it’s a fairly straightforward offering.

Anyone find the downloadable version, maybe a beta? It's not mentioned in their weirdly styled "?" help section.