What if the number of people upset with the schedules was actually much larger (and more diverse), but only privileged families felt comfortable or justified protesting the schedule?
It seems unlikely that EVERYONE hated the schedule changes, given that the changes were designed to benefit the majority of them.
We can speculate all day about how people may have felt, but we just don't know. The district should have done polling to see what the overall reaction was before they pulled the plug. And if the counter-arguments amount to "I don't like change" then I think the district has a prerogative to optimize for health, safety, and costs.
And that's why Google's recruiting has the extra step of a hiring committee which didn't meet the candidate. Interviewers fill out interview feedback based on how their interview went with the candidate, and there's guidelines to try to reduce bias (no gendered pronouns in feedback, the candidate's code is included as-is in the feedback, etc) and the committee makes the final decision based on the feedback.
Sure, what is included can still be slightly biased, but if you're talking about non-technical things at the beginning or end, it won't really make it into the technical interview feedback, and probably will have little to no effect on the committee's decision. At the end of the day, the problems you're asked have optimal solutions and your code will either work or it won't.
Most of the energy of getting a rocket to orbit is in achieving orbital velocity, not orbital altitude :/. Unless you accelerate your satellite really really fast, it'll just fall back to the earth.
If you could build a proper space elevator, a payload could be lifted to the geostationary point and then released. At that point it's already at orbital velocity, and can use much less fuel (compared to an Earth launched rocket) to get back down to low earth orbit.
But again, this is still a materials science problem.
If I search for "restaurants", it shouldn't give me restaurants in Shanghai because that's the city with the largest population. It should give me Northern California, since that's where I live and Google knows that.
Similarly, Google might reasonably infer that if someone is searching for their own race, sexuality, or religion, they're probably more interested in information or support groups than porn. Not that both can't be served as results... just... priorities of what people are looking for.
> Similarly, Google might reasonably infer that if someone is searching for their own race, sexuality, or religion, they're probably more interested in information or support groups than porn.
Sure, if they have data to back that assumption up. My interpretation was that the parent commenter wanted them to make assumptions just based on politics, which I think is a bad idea.
> Similarly, Google might reasonably infer that if someone is searching for their own race, sexuality, or religion, they're probably more interested in information or support groups than porn. Not that both can't be served as results... just... priorities of what people are looking for.
Don't they already do this for porn? I thought that feature was in place years ago. It's even a minor Internet joke that Bing is only good for porn (since they're more lax about letting porn into their results).
Humans make use of the fact that the optimal solution is not necessary (or probably even desirable, given the multitude of parameters to optimize for). By heuristics we can find a good solution that is also understandable to others.
A computer can understand that an optimal solution is not always needed. There is nothing about the problem being NP complete that means the computer HAS to find the optimal solution.
Humans are capable of deriving and applying new knowledge about a problem while solving it. So when confronted with a specific NP hard problem, a human solver applies intuition and thereby restricts the solution space that must be searched significantly. These intuitive rules can be very specific to the problem. There is no good computer algorithm that can do the same combination of creating and applying rules automatically.
I agree that his comment was not in good taste, but I think he must have simply misread or skimmed the parent comment, or misunderstood.
Your comment is a great example of unnecessary escalation. He made a mistake, no need to pin all this angst about the disconnect between doctors and engineers on one mistaken comment on the internet. While I think the parent commenter should apologize, I think ideally you should too, this is blowing things out of proportions and that's not the kind of dialogue I like to see on HN, or anywhere on the internet.
Fair enough, happy to go first. I hearby apologize for escalating, although the disconnect and it sources stand. What is sufficient remedy? Shall I delete my comments?
chill. I personally don't think you really escalated all that much, and outside of the casual misandry (hehe, couldn't resist piling on with another complaint) I got genuine value from reading your comment.
Love the simple, straightforward design.