>The controversies and scandals surrounding DEI were not about this
Oh but they were about this. This is the common trend of people thinking that "the good ones" are implicitly exempted from their general and sweeping attacks on $THING. C.f. the hardline anti-immigration voter who thinks that the guy who mows their lawn obviously won't be included in the crackdowns. If you attack the whole concept of DEI (as many did – not necessarily you), then you are in fact attacking events celebrating the achievements of women in fields where they're poorly represented.
>C.f. the hardline anti-immigration voter who thinks that the guy who mows their lawn obviously won't be included in the crackdowns.
huh, that's pretty bizarre, at least here in Australia (where in recent years immigration has exploded to 2x ~ 3x that of the USA), all the anti-immigration voters are sincerely hoping the guy who mows their lawn grew up across town where his wife's sister now lives.
the crackdowns are for the economic migrants just taking a lifestyle arbitrage
ultimately, immigration into large developed nations is an act of altruism, which, like most things in life, cannot scale indefinitely (much to the chagrin of business owners, women, arts students, etc.) - which is not nice, but is true.
A hardline anti-immigration voter is probably less likely to employ a likely-illegal-immigrant guy to mow their lawn than someone who is pro-immigration.
Similarly, someone who has actually attended the Grace Hopper conference is more likely to be pro-DEI than someone who has never attended and doesn't care about it happening.
I don't see how these probability claims are relevant. To avoid going off on a tangent, let's leave my immigration analogy out of this.
My basic point was that when people attack DEI in general, they create an environment that's more hostile to a conference like this one. They may say "oh, but obviously I wasn't talking about things like that". However, words have meaning. If you attack DEI as such then you attack all instances of it – not just the ones that happen to irk you.
This point has nothing to do with the likely views of the people attending the Grace Hopper Celebration.
No? It would be pretty remarkable if the majority of all UK housing was built in a single decade. If you meant to say 'from before the 1970s' then that might be a more defensible claim. But old houses can be upgraded with double glazing, insulation, etc.
C++ still doesn't have a sane modern pattern for tagged unions. If you want to define a type to represent, say, a simple parse tree, then Rust makes that easy and obvious, whereas C++ offers you a hundred options, all of which suck.
I take your point about it being the default, but IMO std::variant is pretty much unusable for a parse tree. It could work for small unions that you visit once in a while, but traversing a nested tree of std::variant types is just a disaster. It somehow manages to be comprehensively worse than using manually tagged unions in all aspects except safety.
Simplified, the point is that a lot of badly typed code that this bug lets through might be mostly harmless (or even fully semantically correct, in some instances). So you can't conclude that 'normal' code wouldn't trigger this bug just because no-one's noticed it until now. The bad code could could be happily executing and performing as expected.
In this case the issue is that the compiler just isn't properly type checking the implicit call to the drop method that's inserted at the end of the nested block. AFAIK, no correct code should depend on the absence of that check.
I don't think you meant to write 'green card' there? At least, what you've written makes absolutely no sense as a description of how a green card might fraudulently be obtained.
I was talking about timing of the HN comment, not the tweet.
As you can easily see from the HN thread, yes, it is false that she was (as claimed in the tweet) hired for an entry level role in 1968. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50002873
Who she was married to is neither here nor there, and you are doing your case no favors by fixating on that.
That's already in the comment that I linked to. There are records of her contributing to the codebase as early as 1966, and she's cced in the minutes of a senior management meeting in 1967, so the claim in the tweet that she was hired for an entry-level role in 1968 is clearly false. As is the claim that "her name does not appear [on the command module software] until 1969".
Correction accepted. She was hired earlier than the tweet said. The outstanding information is that she became the manager in the last 3 months before the event. In other words, the vast majority of development did not occur under her “lead”. The comment you’re holding up also acknowledges this overstatement.
Now I don’t know about you, but I think she still has a pretty cool job and did cool things. Why do we need to exaggerate?
>The outstanding information is that she became the manager in the last 3 months before the event
No, this is not outstanding. The comment I linked to already pointed out that Hamilton is shown as the head of CSM programming in the following org chart dating 9/30/68. Apollo 11 launched July 1969.
That org chart of course gives the latest possible date of her appointment. The general consensus appears to be that she was appointed to this position in late 1967 (see footnote 102 of https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/Birth%20of%20Softwa...) And we know from the source code that her overall involvement in the project dates to before 1967.
As for overstatements and exaggerations: by all means say what you like about Margaret Hamilton if it's true and you've checked that it's true. However, the claims that you keep repeating from the tweet aren't true, which is why the comment containing it got flagged. If you want to post a considered comment about how some aspects of Hamilton's role have been exaggerated, then go do that, rather than flogging the dead horse of this trashy tweet.
Not really. Here's what you claimed in your comment:
>A link [...] argues [...] that she did not participate in the moon landing project to the extent suggested here [i.e. in the article]
And what do we find in the article? A statement of exactly the facts we've tediously established above:
> Hamilton worked first on the software for the uncrewed Apollo missions and then was promoted into leading the team developing the on-board flight software for the crewed missions. By 1968 she was assistant director in charge of the Command and Service Module team, and more than 400 people were working on Apollo’s software.
>these genetic clusters are from a particular snapshot of time when we decided to classify these
Not even. No 'races' as commonly understood are defined based on a snapshot of genetic clusters. The concept predates modern genetics or knowledge of DNA. Races are complex social constructions based on appearance, language, ethnicity, etc. etc.
Why would you be depressed by someone else enjoying photography? No-one is stopping you from making darkroom prints yourself if it’s something that brings you joy. Selection of artistic tools and processes is an inherently personal thing. Someone might enjoy using film cameras and not enjoy doing darkroom prints (which especially for color negatives, is a very involved process). Then there’s the fact that you can’t easily share prints, so you’ll most likely have to scan the prints if you want anyone to see them.
>It’s such a basic thing, not having it has to be deliberate to make you accidentally spend more than you’d like.
This is unlikely. The big cloud providers routinely cancel bills based on accidental usage. The real explanation is just that it's technically difficult to calculate all usage in real time and shut down systems immediately as soon as a certain cap is reached.
> This is unlikely. The big cloud providers routinely cancel bills based on accidental usage
That is not an evidence alone. They also don't cancel bills in many cases. Most people also just swallow the damage and pay. Like gym subscriptions where people just pay because cancelling was too hard and they postpone the canceling because it takes so much effort. And they also think it is their fault of not cancelling, because it took that much of effort.
> The real explanation is just that it's technically difficult to calculate all usage in real time and shut down systems immediately as soon as a certain cap is reached.
That is trivial to add these days. Cloud providers usually say that "we care about your business and don't want to make your systems go down unexpectedly if you did not pay your bills".
The difference between Amazon and gym subscriptions is that Amazon can easily make more money by upselling to happy customers than it can by screwing individuals or small businesses out of relatively small amounts of money for their accidental usage.
In cpu compute margins are high and there is a lot of excess compute, you can give some away and make money.
In the age of AI this is gone. These companies have taken on huge debts. The operating margins are going to crash as interests increase. AI enabled fraud is going to make stolen service even more common.
That may be true, but I don't think it really affects the point. "Make people use our services accidentally and then force them to cough up" is just never going to be a good business plan for AWS. AWS makes money selling to big customers who willingly come back for more. AI might make it harder for AWS to turn a profit, but it's not going to make a lack of hard usage caps suddenly become central to AWS's business strategy.
Oh but they were about this. This is the common trend of people thinking that "the good ones" are implicitly exempted from their general and sweeping attacks on $THING. C.f. the hardline anti-immigration voter who thinks that the guy who mows their lawn obviously won't be included in the crackdowns. If you attack the whole concept of DEI (as many did – not necessarily you), then you are in fact attacking events celebrating the achievements of women in fields where they're poorly represented.
reply