1. If McAffee could differentiate y = x^2, I'd be surprised.
2. Although it sounds intense, a 2nd order partial differential equation represents either an oscillating sinusoid, a decaying or growing exponential, the product of the two, or a trivial solution: a constant.
Ever pulled on a spring and let it bounced back and forth a few times until it came to rest? Congratulations, you've just "visualized" a 2nd order partial differential equation. Same thing (,Leon). I learned thisin high school 20 years ago and it was invented/discovered hundreds of years ago. It's much harder to actually solve than to "visualize." And it's much harder to apply, to combine with harder math (try solve the wave equation!), etc.
3. 4 dimensional images of software structures (during sex). If you can imagine a call graph in 2-d (doxygen/dot), then imagine the same call graph in 3-d (not flattened), then imagine the same call graph at several moments in time, like a multiple exposure image, congratulations, you've just spontaneously created a 4-dimensional image of a software structure. No phenethylamines needed.
McAffee is all bullshit marketing, swagger and trying to sound deep, tough and cool. If you read his backlog of attempts to do anything on his own on bluelight.ru, you'd feel sorry for the poor guy. He could barely synthesize meth and ecstacy under ideal conditions.
Whatever happened to his B.S. plan to provide a secure anonymyity VPN blackbox-whatever from six months ago? 
* Somewhat related to the last category: Have you ever wondered why the initial sound in chair and chandelier are pronounced differently in English? There was a sound change in French, chair was borrowed before that change and chandelier, like many other French word that start with ch, after that change.
* According to OED the reason that some animal names have the same singular and plural was that they originally contained a long vowel, e.g. deer, sheep, fish. Turns out, horse was also in this group but after a sound change its vowel shortened, hence the -s plural now.
Another example of words borrowed from French before and after the 'ch' -> 'sh' shift: chief and chef are actually derived from the same French word, but chef arrived later and was applied in English only to the cooking context.
It seems very possible to me that "babe" was the original, "baby" was derived from that, and "babe" in modern colloquial use is a shortened version of "baby" that just happens to match its predecessor.
This is a common phenomenon in English. The "Adder" (type of snake native to Britain) was originally "Nadder". In old/middle English, it was "a/an", "my/mine", so "mine Edward" and "my Nedward" sounded the same, hence a nickname (ironically originally "ekename", so another case) for Edward is "Ned".
Adder, apron and umpire all used to start with an "n". Constructions like "A nadder" or "Mine napron" were so common the first letter was assumed to be part of the preceding word. Linguists call this kind of thing reanalysis or rebracketing.
Kinda-obvious guess: definite article "la" rather than indefinite article.
Apparent counter-evidence: the relevant Portuguese definite article is "a" rather than "la" as in Spanish.
Counter-counter-evidence: at least one source (W V O Quine's "Quiddities") tells me that once upon a time the Portuguese definite article was "la" rather than "a". However, Quine was a philosopher rather than a historian of language, this particular book is a fairly frivolous one, and I don't know how far I can trust him.
Counter-counter-counter-evidence: A few minutes of googling haven't found me any other evidence for Portuguese, or any other language spoken in Portugal, ever having had "la" as a definite article.
Make of all that what you will. I'd be very surprised if it weren't derived from a definite article prefix, but exactly how it happened I would rather not guess.
As to the counter-counter-counter-evidence, the development of definite articles in Romance languages is well-understood (Latin didn't have them). They come from the adjective "ille, illa (, illud)" meaning "that" (imagine pointing at "that"). So we can immediately conclude that yes, there was an L in there at some point in the history of portuguese. It seems a little more likely that the adjective became an article with the degenerate form "la" and then degenerated further than that the adjective lost its only consonant and then turned into an article.
> * According to OED the reason that some animal names have the same singular and plural was that they originally contained a long vowel, e.g. deer, sheep, fish. Turns out, horse was also in this group but after a sound change its vowel shortened, hence the -s plural now.
I learnt that by reading The Wee Free Men by PTerry:
"Aye, it's no' that good for the ship, havin' tae drink oout o' that pond after we've been bathing. It's terrible, hearin' a ship try tae spit."
(When in doubt, assume the more "dialectal" pronunciation is the older one. Though I think the wee free men actually overdo it and pronounce plural ship too.)
No problem, it just seemed that you had a priori assumptions that may not be correct. If you want to sell to women, of course you would be interested, e.g. the great scene where Darcy first meets and teaches Nick this point in What Women Want (great movie all through, btw). As an edge case, think of people in Mattel not being interested in what girls think!
I never understood this. Does hacker school think women as a demographic are less wealthy than men? If they are applying its because they are interested, offering to pay wouldnt make more women interested, it just favors the ones that are even !ore. There's a reason women get imposter syndrome so often, because they are given extraordinary benefits and attention.
I feel deeply uncomfortable with it as well. Getting paid $5,000 for having a vagina is usually something associated with, err, other industries. I'd feel much better if it were on the basis of financial need rather than which set of genitals you have (and as a non-cis person, makes me wonder what they'd do with a trans person...).
Again, I'm all for achieving the same goal of equality, but maybe not in the same way that some places go about it. Hacker School is just an example institution, and I'm not trying to bash them or question their judgement - they really do seem like an amazing group of people, which is why I'd love to go there.
That said, I don't see why any man who isn't able to fully fund his stay, shouldn't be able to apply for a HS grant. If its for encouragement, then it would seem discouraging to those that can't apply for it. I'm not in this boat, but I can think of a few people who should go to HS but just can't afford to.
> the sex based discrimination being pushed on the field by feminists
I've tried to avoid this inane discussion, but realizing that you're probably misinformed rather than malicious, I thought I'd chime in.
Feminism is egalitarianism. Feminism literally means that women should be equal to men. I'm not going to argue with you about so-called "segregationist" policies, because it seems like we'd come to a stand-still. The only thing I'd like to point out is that we should all be feminists, because the only alternative is sexism. Seriously, look it up.
If you've had a bad experience with radical women who say "all men are pigs," please don't use that as a reason to not support true feminists (such as myself), who (among other things) are trying to rectify the atrociously low ratio of women in tech.
Yes, we all want a meritocracy. Yes, there's something that we're doing to prevent more women from entering the field. Yes, we need to change that.
To play devil's advocate, I think what he might be referring to is when we try hard to fight for equal rights, we tend to over extend and give more benefits at the same time. This would make us men feel the need to fight more.
Feminism doesn't know what it is. For every feminist who thinks it's about everyone, there's a feminist who thinks it's only about women. All of the legislation? The policies enacted and enforced? Created and aligned to the views of the latter. Feminist laws kept me in an abusive situation as a kid. Maybe if feminists didn't bully, send death threats, and kill the dog of the person who created domestic violence shelters for everyone, or never passed laws based on models saying that only men abuse, I'd have a different opinion.
Actions speak louder than words.
>The only thing I'd like to point out is that we should all be feminists, because the only alternative is sexism.
I have chosen to identify as an egalitarian. Please don't remove my agency. I have very good reasons not to identify with an ideology that cannot even agree on what it is, and has done considerable harm to both myself and many others in the past and present.
I think you can be a feminist and still be a good person. I think it's silly to imply that in order to be a good person, you have to be a feminist.
If you believe the sexes are equally represented in this field, you should probably try to learn more about a topic like this before forming such strong feelings on it, because the numbers show that not to be remotely true. I honestly have trouble believing you really think this, but I'll assume you're sincere but misinformed, which is kind of a relief. The claim that there are as many women in tech as men is as poorly borne out by the numbers as the idea that Topeka is five miles from Tokyo.
Please, do some cursory research and you will see that women really are badly outnumbered in tech.
Nope, this is in fact one of the topics that I feel strongly (and try to work on with high school prog teams). Yet, I feel there's a bit of hysteresis effect on that discussion, with HN flooded with such posts. Most of the "normal shit" on HN you refer to stems from the above.
This one is quite different though, it's actually about female founders, not just targeting girls for coding.
Sometimes the gorilla surpasses a mere 800 pounds. ("Whose the 900-pound gorilla now?" asked a headline on a recent tech story about Facebook overtaking Google as the biggest web site in 2010. Sometimes the gorilla sheds a few hundred pounds. ( Colorado's governor-elect was quoted last month calling the state's billion-dollar shortfall "the 600-pound gorilla.")
For some reason, the 900PG is common in tech posts, this may be due to the effect of a rock band with that name. We may be witnessing a the emergence of a differentiation like the soda/pop one.
When [...] asked who didn't make it out of Vietnam, Stockdale replied:
Oh, that's easy, the optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, 'We're going to be out by Christmas.' And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they'd say, 'We're going to be out by Easter.' And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart."
Stockdale then added:
This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.
The optimism described by Stockdale was a false promise and when broken proved hollow, whereas the optimism described by Holocaust survivors tend to be more about belief in things despite a feeling of betrayal.
Was it really optimism or rather the ability to find meaning within the experience? I ask because one of the top 10 books I've ever read is Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning". He survived the death camps and figured out how he and others did so. Compared to it, _The Secret_ is revealed to be a shallow mindless "gimme, I'm entitled" attitude towards life where hard work is deemed unnecessary - i.e. reality is nothing but a psychological construct and you can manipulate it with merely your will. In others words, an excuse for airheads to indulge their inner two year old.
For me, these "crazy" ants demonstrate a risky but valuable startup lesson for certain industries: Think about the biggest weapon your huge competitor has and use the same thing to fight them, they'll be unprepared. Rather than running away from the fire ants venomous sting, as any sane creature would do, they've developed a way to go right at it and nullify one of its biggest advantages. Caution: you will need a "secret sauce", like these guys do.
Obligatory pg reference that's related: "We delighted in forcing bigger, slower competitors to follow us over difficult ground. "
Some information on HW other than the touchscreen would have been interesting. On the Control Group product page (http://www.controlgroup.com/mta.html) the only extra info I could find that these use Qualcomm's Gimbal BT beacon technology.
It seems you have been the victim of a similarly unjust arrest, but frankly I can't see how you "already knew where this was headed" after the first paragraph.
Given the photo at the top, at first glance I assumed that the woman at the lectern was the OP, only towards the end of the story did I get understand that the OP was a man. I cannot see any reference to the OP being black in the text (his About thumbnail is too small to see clearly).
yardie isn't saying the author was black. They're saying that this is the typical experience of black people's interactions with police in the united states. Whereas the author is surprised at being treated this way, many people learn to expect it.
See, when you spew crazy BS like that, not only you give bad cops like the ones in the post a basis but you lose most of the support of people that you will need to make the change.
In order to make these officers spends years in prison you will need law to apply. And that will take pressure and public shaming through posts like this. If you feel so hot headed about this issue you can sign up with organizations like ACLU and the like and help bring the change.
Or, you can play gansta, go at it vigilante fashion, and see how far that takes you.
"...even though sample size is small it rings 100% true"
I just want to point attention to the (perhaps ironic) fact this sort of reasoning is exactly the same one used by the (allegedly) racist hosts and drivers in the story, i.e. people are much more prone to accept what they are told (mostly in sample size = 1 cases or anecdotal generalizations) if it aligns well with their beliefs (e.g. "another BnB host told me a black guy thrashed his house", "we all know that girls can't code").
A (very) rough characterization of the process, I think, would be:
1. Creation: For this or that reason an a priori belief is formed, e.g. "world is inherently racist" or "blacks are much more probable to be criminals".
2. Filtering: The facts that are reported are filtered using a selection bias (usually, mostly subconsciously) so that facts that strongly agree with the belief are remembered more. (The fact that news items generally report on low-probability, high-standard deviation items, a la man biting the dog, makes this effect even stronger)
3. Update The belief is then updated by the facts with their relative weights determined in (2)
The above (well known and documented, e.g. Blink EDIT: Sorry, wrong reference, see below) process is not a bad thing! AFAIK, it's default brain operation. It takes quite a bit of control and patience to push back the default process at all thee levels.
Note that I'm not arguing that racism, etc. does not exist; however, before jumping to conclusions, like the OP and his/her friend did ("AirBnB doesn't work for black people"), we need to be a bit more careful.
Doesn't Blink posit that a person's extensive experience in an area can lead them to a quick, gut reaction that is, in fact, correct, even before they are able to verify it?
It seems that Andrew's friend probably has had a fair amount of experience with being mistreated due to his skin color. His reaction to being denied a room 3 out of 3 times was perhaps hyperbolic, but certainly applicable to his experience with the service. (Andrew noted his friend's interactions with the driver, so it wasn't all his friend's imagination).
You could use the ideas noted in Blink to look at this scenario from a variety of perspectives, not just confirmation bias.
Exactly correct. Additionally, his friend had previously stated that AirBnB didn't work for him, so this "small sample" we're looking at is just Andrew's experience with the issue at this point in time.
It's always disturbing to me how much commentary in threads of this type on HN is devoted to asserting that the individual who's actually experiencing the problem is misinterpreting it. I love data, but demands for data/citations in situations where the problem is experiential are too often used to dismiss people's real, upsetting experiences with privilege and prejudice.
Actually I meant Thinking Fast and Slow but somehow typed Blink, sorry about that.
There are two different kinds of generalization here, I think:
As you state, "Brandon" probably has had to endure many other forms of racist behavior, e.g. taxis not wanting to pick up black clients, so his generalization to the new domain Uber was perhaps justifiable, but how about generalizing to AirBnb. AirBnB host population may be very different than the general population "Brandon was used to deal with" (I don't have data to back this up, hence the "may be", but I think that is a very high probability hypothesis, esp. in SF) yet he was quick to generalize, although the refusals may have been due to other factors. In other words "Brandon" has reliable data from a different population that he is now attaching to a new population.
The OP and greendata, OTOH, are generalizing to various beliefs based on a single data point of "Brandon".
What do you call a stereotype when it is backed by statistical data? The a priori belief that is most common is that no stereotypes are true. It's the polite thing to believe. But if you are of a certain analytical mindset, you can be argued out of it with enough data and anecdotal evidence from friends.
Black people really do commit a lot of crime in America, it's not just a "stereotype". And particularly, young black people, and particularly young black males. Black males between the ages of 14 and 24 commit 27% of all murders, despite being 1% of the population.
It's not scrawny white twitter engineers who are shooting each other in San Francisco
It's not entirely race. I'm certain that e.g. poverty and lack of opportunity play a role as well. Growing up without access to money, good schools, or positive role models can be crippling to success regardless of race.
Poor whites and Hispanics aren't nearly as dangerous as poor (young, male) blacks. There is not another comparable group that manages to commit 27% of murders as 1% of the population. That's a huge ratio.
Keep in mind, most black males will never kill anyone. But black males commit a plurality of murders in the US. And 1 in 3 will spend some time in jail in his life. 1 in 7 American black men are in jail at any moment.
Remember, there are more whites in poverty than total blacks in the United States, and blacks commit 48% of murders.
If you're in an urban environment, don't be a progressive hero and try not to avoid young black males. It can be dangerous
My point was the sample size was small but the "experiment" here is very similar to one seen with taxi cabs and other older services that are very similar to the new online "sharing economy". The discrimination in the former businesses is well documented and studied. I'm not basing my statement of "it rings true" on the data points alone as you are implying but on the large body of similar work.
"it rings 100% true" does not necessarily imply any conclusion. It just means that the initial data on the new sharing economy are inline with other older experiments which study almost the same thing (taxi cabs, cleaning services, etc).
I'm not sure I trust Malcolm Gladwell as a reliable source any more.