Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:serious confusion by the author (Score 1) 235

by ttsai (#47687515) Attached to: Email Is Not Going Anywhere

Right, because people understand and care about that.

So much that they've flocked by the billions to closed, centralized platforms.

People may not necessarily understand or consciously care for open platforms, but they at least subconsciously cling to it. Of those that have flocked to closed messaging systems, how many have given up email? How many of us know even a single person that has given up email?

Comment: Talk of unit conversions is off the mark (Score 1) 164

by ttsai (#47671911) Attached to: Giant Greek Tomb Discovered

Pro-metric folks talk about the ease of metric conversions, but that's mostly useless. Few calculations are of the shift the decimal place around. Rather, most calculations require more arithmetic than most people can comfortably handle without paper or a calculator.

But, even more important, the most relevant aspect of using either any system of measurement, be it metric or English, is gut feelings. That's what used daily over and over again. I have a gut feel for how big 100 miles, 1 gallon, 160 lbs, etc. are, but I have to do the conversion from metric quantities to understand metric units. I can do the conversions, and I understand the math, but it's the intuitive understanding of the quantities that is useful. It is this one quality of measurement systems that allows the English system to continue to flourish despite its mathematical limitations.

Comment: Apple Store numbers heavily skew numbers (Score 1) 557

by ttsai (#47665795) Attached to: Apple's Diversity Numbers: 70% Male, 55% White

From Wikipedia, "Of the 43,000 Apple employees in the United States 30,000 work at Apple Stores." Because of this, none of Apple's numbers are comparable to other tech companies. What would be interesting to see is the breakdown for the 13,000 non-store employees. Non-tech vs. tech is not a valid point of comparison unless other tech companies provide numbers using the same criteria, since it's not always entirely obvious who is tech vs. non-tech.

Of course, the real questions are (1) whether the aggregate statistics are of any use to represent current fairness or to drive future policy and (2) if and to what extent specific individuals are disadvantaged due to certain demographic characteristics. I think the aggregate statistics are useless because target numbers do not exist. Sure, the media and CEOs happily decry the current numbers, but then they cowardly balk at stating what the desired targets are. Also, they try to portray that their sense of "fairness" may be focused on individuals, but they selectively pick and choose which individuals are worthy of fairness and which are not. It may be true that it's not fair that a certain black woman doesn't have a tech job, but does the fact that lots of other white men have tech jobs make it any more fair that a specific white man doesn't have a tech job?

Comment: Re:Fatal flaw: China can't adapt (Score 1) 115

by ttsai (#47617819) Attached to: China Bans iPad, MacBook Pro, Other Apple Products For Government Use

Long run (maybe, even near-long-term) this does not bode well for China's prospects, because when one is sealed off from outside ideas and innovation, one will ultimately fall behind and adapt only in suboptimal ways. What results is a waste of social and intellectual capital.

China is only refusing to buy some foreign products. There is no policy of isolation. I imagine there will still be a great deal of reverse engineering and other data gathering activities (interpret that how you wish). So, the idea is to negatively impact competitors financially while at the same time benefiting from their innovations.

Comment: Re:Mission creep. (Score 2) 285

by ttsai (#47503349) Attached to: How One School District Handled Rolling Out 20,000 iPads

Yes, the kids love them and yes, they probably do have educational value...

Actually, the question of educational value is the big elephant in the room. It is completely questionable and absolutely not obvious that these tablets have educational value. Do the kids learn more, faster, or in different ways? Can this be quantified or even vaguely estimated? There are huge IT capital and operational costs involved, and such large expenditures must be justified in terms of return.

It's telling that the article and even the discussion on Slashdot centers on technical questions because those issues are all tangential. If the main goals focus on avoiding the theft of machines and the bypass of parental controls, then the entire project is misguided. How are the children learning, and how does that learning compare to the previous system of learning? What did the $20 million buy?

Comment: Re:How many employees does Slashdot need? (Score 2) 272

by ttsai (#47483865) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Many Employees Does Microsoft Really Need?

Unfortunately, these MS employees are likely to be unceremoniously dumped with minimal chance of re-employment.

It depends. It could very well be that the main reason for this mass layoff is not that Microsoft carries more deadweight than another company, say Google or Apple, for example. Many of Google's employees are not necessary, but it can afford to pay them due to its money spigot. Financial metrics, such as operating profit or more importantly projected stock price appreciation, quickly turn non-deadweight employees into deadweight. It's obvious that Microsoft (or any other company) does not execute layoffs in response to an appraisal of the quality or necessarily even the usefulness of employees but rather the financial implications of the cost centers that these employees represent.

Comment: Re:user error (Score 1) 710

by ttsai (#47458495) Attached to: People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use

I've never made any concerted effort for "environmental reasons," but I do notice that I don't use nearly as much energy as most people do, which is a side effect of how cheap I am.

Yes, energy usage moderation is a matter of economics and not religion. Rich people with big houses use lot of energy regardless of their views on the environment. Similarly poor people tend to try their best to minimize their energy usage, not because they necessarily care about the environment but because that is what they can afford. This is what I've seen in my life from my experience as part of the bottom 10% as well as the top 5%.

Comment: Re:Um, here's a glaring fact (Score 1) 123

by ttsai (#47446675) Attached to: Elite Group of Researchers Rule Scientific Publishing

Academic publishing would be a much fairer process of reviews would be truly double blind, and if there were a severe penalty for breaking the rules. In the absence of that, people win Nobel prizes and will continue to do so. But that's because those people are outliers, not because the system is sane.

Outstanding papers for the most part will continue to be published. That's not the issue. The problem is that the overwhelming portion of submitted papers are not seminal papers, and it's these papers that are subjected to the defects in the review process, including the following:
(1) Not all reviewers are equally competent for their assigned papers.
(2) Not all reviewers are equally committed to spending the minimum amount of time needed for a thorough review. I have seen reviews submitted by well-known and regarded individuals that were obviously hastily written with a cursory reading of the submission.
(3) The assignment of papers to reviewers is mostly random. Explicit conflicts are filtered, but the assignment is mostly random, even if some sort of bidding process is used, as is done for some conferences.
(4) The number of reviewers is often minimal. For journals, often two reviewers are used. For conferences, 2-5 reviewers may be involved. However, that number includes the less competent and apathetic reviewers.
(5) Decisions are often swayed by a few very opinionated individuals. Especially on a PC, it is not at all rare to see political motivations determine the fate of a paper.

Double-blind reviews are idealistic but not practical. For many/most papers, it's almost trivial to figure out who the authors are based on the title, the subject material, and the references. Most authors will self-reference their own papers.

Comment: Yes, but only if it's independent (Score 1) 381

by ttsai (#47440685) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Do You Want a Smart Watch?

Fourteen years ago I carried a phone and a PDA. The PDA had wifi, office apps, games, etc., and when needed I could use the phone as a data modem. I eventually migrated to a single device with both phone and PDA functionality, and I've gotten used to the convenience of a single device with the same functionality. I would not want to go backwards in time to once again carrying two devices for the same functionality.

I consider bio-sensors to be gimicky. I imagine most of the people who would find those sensors to be a positive have already bought existing sensor devices.

Using a watch as a convenient but significantly crippled interface to a phone seems like a huge step backwards. I would only accept that huge loss of interface functionality if I could leave the phone behind, i.e., if the phone migrated to the watch. Now, that is something that I would buy in an instant. Anything else is just Pebble++, even if it happens to have a fruit logo on it.

Comment: Re:why the word needs openstreetmap (Score 2) 132

by ttsai (#47426869) Attached to: How Google Map Hackers Can Destroy a Business

Fifteen years ago, you opened the yellow pages for the same information. Did you say then, who controls this book? Did you worry about all the power being in the hands of a single phone company?

Likely not, and for two reasons. If the phone company abused it, they'd lose the trust and goodwill that makes the very product valuable, and if it was no longer accurate someone else would come alone and make an accurate version.

Why is that not the same for Google? If their maps become unreliable, won't people move to Bing? If not, why not?

The problem with "hacking" is the openness and crowd sourcing aspect of Google Maps. Wikipedia has the same problem, and the answer was to decrease the openness for editing. Maybe Google will have to adopt a similar strategic decrease in openness for certain parts of Maps.

Will people move to an alternative if Google Maps becomes unreliable? Well, maybe but probably not. If I'm misdirected to a competitor but I'm still able to complete my transaction, then I probably don't care or maybe I don't even realize the misdirection. If a small percentage of the links I click on fail, but most links continue to work and the rest of Maps functionality remains intact, then I won't switch. The losers are not the browser users but the businesses trying to get free advertising. I imagine Google will take care of paid advertising businesses, but they probably don't care as much for the "freeloaders", i.e., Google wants the freeloaders to populate their database, but they don't really care if they benefit or are hurt.

Comment: Re: This means nothing without context (Score 2) 265

by ttsai (#47328755) Attached to: Tech Workforce Diversity At Facebook Similar To Google And Yahoo

One interesting study would be the correlation between the characteristics of the hiring manager and team members. In my experience the correlation is strong, especially in terms of race and ethnicity. At Bell Labs in the 90's, one out of the three research area organizations had a very high representation of Indian managers and researchers. At Sun, the same was true except that most managers and researchers were white (Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc.). I worked at another company where the manager was Serbian and two other researchers were Serbian.

This is a hypothesis that can be fairly easily corroborated with statistical studies. I'm fairly certain that the bias exists. Of course, whether that bias is good or bad is a separate question.

Comment: Research methodology questions (Score 1) 86

by ttsai (#47327667) Attached to: Human Language Is Biased Towards Happiness, Say Computational Linguists

Two questions about this research:

(1) How did the researchers account for operational language profiles? Language A may have more negative words than positive words, but maybe the one happy word is used 80% of the time. To me, the incidence of positive vs. negative usage is much more important than the histogram of the available vocabulary.

(2) How did the researchers compare the same word in different languages? Is this comparison possible without the introduction of bias in the selection of words for each of the two languages. From the paper authors' website, "This is a comparison between the average user reported happiness scores between several languages. The "happiness" of each word is rated by 50 distinct users on a scale of 1(sad) to 9 (happy). Words from each row language are then translated into each column language and intersected with each other corpora."

So, how much are the results a reflection of the experimenter's biases and skills in translation to the 2nd language. I'm suspicious of this type of comparison. From the article (not the paper), "For example, on a scale of 1 to 9 with nine being the happiest, Germans rate the word “gift” as 3.54. That’s slightly negative. By contrast, English speakers rate “gift” as strongly positive at 7.72." As a somewhat fluent German speaker, I know that the German word "gift" means poison, and I would consider it not just slightly negative but extremely negative. If the experimenters actually presented the German speakers with the German translation of the English word "gift", e.g., something like "Geschenk", then I imagine the German response would have been very positive.

Comment: Re: Chicago Blackhawks too? (Score 1) 646

by ttsai (#47272371) Attached to: Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

Niggardly...

Some people many find it offensive because it sounds like an offensive word. However, that does not make their offence legitimate.

Now, if people started to get cute and "niggardly blacks" came into common usage as an euphemism for the notorious N-word it could become offensive, but that would be based on the facts around the usage and not the feelings of a black person.

The problem is with the concept of a "legitimate" offense, as though some quintessential characteristic of an action or statement should outlaw personal feelings. How one feels is reality. For those of who are married, try telling your wife that she shouldn't feel offended because you didn't mean to hurt her, so that should make her feel better.

This entire discussion of "legitimate" offenses boils down to whether one cares about what others feels. If I care about the listener and that listener feels offended, then I would address their feelings, regardless of my personal feelings about the offense. If I don't care about the listener, then I either ignore the listener, or if I feel the sting of societal condemnation, I attack the "legitimacy" of the offense or the morality or intelligence of the listener.

Comment: Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (Score 2) 646

by ttsai (#47267659) Attached to: Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

The person it's deriding gets to decide if it's offensive. That's kind of how it works. The white guy doesn't get to decide if Nigger is a bad word. The white guy doesn't get to decide if Chink is a bad word. The white guy doesn't get to decide if Redskin is a bad word. Etc etc etc... This is plain common sense, and everyone arguing against it is an ass.

I completely disagree. It's common sense that the person using the word decides if it's offensive. If someone says "negro" referring to the color of a couch, it's not offensive even if a black person takes offense at it. If a child calls the black paymates he adores "niggers" because that's the only word he's ever known for them, that's not offensive. His black friends may request that he use a different word because they take offense at the term, but the child meant no offense by using the word and it'd be a serious miscarriage of justice for him to be chastised for using the word.

It's much more nuanced than that. There's this incorrect aggregation of the notion of offense, as though something is either offensive to everyone or offensive to no one. A speaker can offend without intention to offend. It should be obvious that each individual is the only person who has not only the right but the ability to determine personally felt offense. The right and ability to determine offense for oneself should not be confused with the legal or moral right to determine the resulting societal actions.

That is, each person gets to decide if the term "redskin" is personally offensive. However, just because one or more people take offense doesn't necessarily grant that group or society as a whole to impose sanctions for that offense. But, likewise, the lack of societal sanction should not be extended to prohibit personal feelings or thoughts. In fact, in my opinion, hearing "You have no right to be offended!" is much more hurtful than the original offense.

Comment: Re:Sensationalist summary (Score 1) 435

by ttsai (#47263015) Attached to: Yahoo's Diversity Record Is Almost As Bad As Google's

Making any comments about the desirability or appropriateness of the percentage of women, blacks, hispanics, etc. in a company implies personal knowledge about the desired or appropriate range of percentages. But, that's where it gets difficult. It's easy to say that the numbers are too low, but it's hard to pin down what the target numbers should be. Should the percentage of women be 50%? But, if there are 10x more men applying for the job, is that appropriate? As others have discussed in this forum, a separate question is whether the 10:1 ratio of men:women applicants is appropriate.

This discussion also presents perhaps a hazy melding of two distinct, important questions: (1) Are there an appropriate percentage of a certain demographic group within a company, and (2) do the members of that demographic group have the same opportunities to get a job in that company? The first question deals with the aggregate end result, while the latter question deals with the probabilities for an individual. In my opinion, the second question is more important but difficult to measure. So, the first question is used as a lazy alternative.

One picture is worth 128K words.

Working...