Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why now? (Score 1) 234

Jurors are not supposed to be complete blank slates, and it's possible to be impartial even if you have some prior knowledge.

Complete bank slates is certainly the ideal, even if it's impossible even in principle. Most people form their opinions from things they've been told, or things they've experienced, neither of which are impartial sources of fact. Hence, "do they know something is true, or do they merely think something is true?".

Furthermore, establishing legal fact is a different process from establishing scientific fact. Even if they were a gender research scientist, that doesn't necessarily make them sufficiently unbiased to judge whether sexism happened in this case.

Comment Re:Why now? (Score 1) 234

Suppose that there is some sexism in tech. In that case, filtering out people who claim there is some gets rid of the people who know what's going on

Do they know, or do they just think they know? The whole point of this jury selection process is to filter out such assumptions and establish an impartial jury, to let the each side present their case and let the facts speak for themselves.

Comment Re:Why now? (Score 2) 234

I would think it would be reasonable to have some jurors who can acknowledge that sexism exists in tech, and then decide whether sexism was at play in this particular case.

You're only describing one side of this. Yes, jurors who are already convinced sexism is happening were filtered out, but so were those that are convinced that sexism isn't happening. The point is to have a set of people that have little to no information or opinion on the topic, to provide them the facts of this case, define sexism as enshrined in law, and to let them reach an unbiased verdict whether the facts entail that the law was violated.

Comment Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose (Score 5, Interesting) 474

Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose: you'll be happy with your job to the extent it has these qualities. How much autonomy do most engineering jobs give you? Not much I imagine. How much mastery? Well you're certainly not going to be exploring many new skills, or even masterting particularly difficult ones on average; it's mostly repetitive scaffolding with glue.

Purpose is pretty much the only one that technology work has plenty of. Everything runs on information technology now, so if you're interested in tech, which you probably are, you'll find lots of purpose in developing or administering information systems. This only goes so far before the lack of autonomy gets to you, or you hit the mastery ceiling pretty quickly at any given job.

Comment Re:Compile to JS vs WebASM (Score 1) 94

maybe the fact that Javascript doesn't even have integers?

That's indeed a problem.

Or that (other than in asm.js) it doesn't support C-style malloc/free heap-based allocation? Or that (again, other than in asm.js) the runtime is garbage collected? Or that it doesn't properly support threads (a huge deal given the demands of modern computing), or sharing of memory between WebWorkers and the main thread?

Those aren't problems. Shared memory concurrency is hard, and we don't want the resulting bugs in our browser. Event loops are perfect in this domain.

Manual memory allocation should never be the default; I'm not even sure it should be an option at all. If you're using JS for games, then what's really needed is simply latency annotations to indicate that low latency is more important than throughput in this context.

The biggest JS problem IMO: weird implicit coercions resulting in surprising equalities and inequalities.

Comment Re:And I'm the feminist deity (Score 1) 446

I coach an after school program in robotics and programming at my local elementary school, and I agree that this is baloney. The parents are pushing hard for their girls to pursue tech, and it is the girls themselves that are disinterested.

This is only a meaningful data point if you can demonstrate that such families aren't already biased towards selecting for parents more interested in tech careers.

I rather think it's quite biased towards such parents. After all, why would you be hearing from parents not interested in tech for their daughters? So your ancedote wouldn't be meaningful in the face of rigourous data (assuming Google's study has such data).

Comment I don't even... (Score 3, Interesting) 386

Further, "Like many of new languages, Rust is walking the path of simplification. I can generally understand why it doesn't have a decent inheritance and exceptions [...]

Spoken like someone who has no clue about the breadth and depth of the various programming paradigms available. The fact that he still considers inheritance as somehow essential just reveals his ignorance on the progress on comp sci over the past 20+ years.

Exceptions are more debatable, since we don't yet have a better error handling abstraction that scales from local to global error handling (checked exceptions are the best we have so far).

[...] but the fact itself that someone is making decisions for me regarding things like that makes me feel somewhat displeased. C++ doesn't restrict programmers regarding what they can or cannot use."

I don't even... So by this argument, C++ restricts me from using generators and first-class delimited continuations, so it's not good enough either.

This argument is both a contradiction because C++ also makes such decisions thus disqualifying it despite the author's claims, AND it's tautological because every language makes opinionated decisions about acceptable idioms. Really, no language could possibly satisfy the author's requirements.

Given its goals, I think Rust made a pretty good set of opinionated choices though. Certainly better than C++ overall.

Comment Re:For those who can read... (Score 1) 237

It's information about me, but it belongs to the phone company, and they have it.

Does the phone company have ownership over data about you? Should it? A person's "house, papers, and effects" recognizes a person's property rights. It doesn't seem unreasonable that use of a service, particularly a common carrier, generates new "papers and effects" that ought to be considered personal property.

For instance, we already recognize a person's right to provacy protection over their medical records, even though by your argument, hospitals and doctors "own" those records in a very similar way a phone company "owns" your metadata.

Comment Re:We're so screwed. (Score 5, Insightful) 237

You've tasked these loyal people with a job to do in order to keep the USA and its citizens safe, and then removed the tools they need to do the job effectively.

Except there's no proof that these tools are actually effective, and there are plenty of arguments made by experts that they cannot possibly be effective (too many false positives ties up scarce investigative resources). So I reject your whole premise.

A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard. -- Prof. Steiner