And my comment. In a private window I can see that he replied to my comment as well, despite the fact that I blocked him, so blocks are still not working properly apparently.

I'm not expecting perfection, but there hasn't even been visible commitment to a strong moderation policy. ernst has as far as I can tell remained mostly silent on the matter, occasionally deflecting to "tools aren't ready yet", but also not really committing to what he wants to be done with the tools.

10A is a particularly prolific problematic user, and as a single user (unlike the flood of porn spam) it's a simple matter to ban him. It should not have been a hard decision to make by now.

Personally, a bit over a month ago, I defined banning 10A (as well as one other individual) as the canary that would let me consider recommending other people come here. I was willing to give it some time, but it hasn't happened yet. Whether this is an explicit policy of weak moderation, or simply an accidental one thanks to putting it at too low a priority, I don't know. But I don't particularly want to be on a site that I don't feel comfortable recommending other people use. So I'm taking my own (lack of) recommendation for now and going to take a long break from this site.

Ugh, and 10A somehow also hasn't been banned yet (and a quick check to his profile shows that he isn't just still making bad-faith arguments about "free speech" but is also still spreading xenophobia, fake news about the last election, and so on).

I'm out. Anyone know of a kbin (not lemmy) instance with reasonably good moderation?

Republicans have traditionally been the party of "regulation doesn't work, elect me and I can prove it to you".

Maybe Musk is just taking the logical counter-part to this "regulation doesn't work, put me in charge of a heavily regulated company and I can prove it to you".

On what basis would it?

Surely the government is allowed to teach what courses are run in government run schools by government employees in general. I mean, someone has to, and who else would it be?

Or if you're referring to the religion aspect of the first amendment... this seems religiously neutral?

The constitution doesn't ban bad governance, just some particularly easy to enumerate forms of it.

The funny thing about religious fundamentalists is their beliefs frequently outright contradict the written word of their religion...

Trying to grant fetuses rights isn't "supporting pregnancies", the line to restricting what pregnant people can do, including abortions, is direct and obvious. The fact that the sponsors of the bills have previously passed bills attempting to restrict abortion is a fact.

Supporting pregnancies would be doing things like passing more healthcare funding, better parental leave, literally just giving money to people with kids. That's not what this bill was about.

Olive oil?

You wouldn't live long, but compared to the other options you're listing...

This is just completely untrue. Musk founded SpaceX from nothing, there was no prior entity he acquired or invested in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX

There are lots of legitimate reasons to dislike Musk, there's really no need to make up lies about him to justify having an extremely low opinion of him.

Permanently Deleted

Wtf.

Also wtf that murder has a maximum of 3 years?

Just wanted to chime in that I had the same experience. I was rather unsatisfied with the fact that a user I blocked could apparently see (while logged in) and reply to my comment at all.

If blocking someone is just license for them to make terrible replies to my comments without giving me the chance to answer them... that's unsatisfying.

Did you know that Pepsi briefly owned 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer?

Edit: On less of a technicality, the East India Company had something like 250k troops back in 1824.

The word "potentially" is doing a lot of work there.

In many cases of piracy, the result of not pirating the work would not have been more income for the rights holder, it would have been the person just not acquiring a copy of the work at all.

Yeah, I don't know what Colorado's laws are on this in general, but even if it's technically legal it seems like a huge risk that someone is going to plausibly allege that given the specific facts denying them time off was race/religion/family status/... discrimination. It might be legal (don't know), but it's a stupid policy for a number of reasons.

It really isn't unreasonable to call 12 as the size of the dataset.

What you really want to discuss is how you calculate how unlikely this is. Here's how I would go about it

The following very useful assumptions are close enough to true that I'll assume them:

• The probability that each hire was male/female was equal (this wouldn't be true if, for instance, they started actively looking for woman once they realized they already had 10 men, but if you do nothing it's very close to true).
• The number of employees at launch was fixed (this is roughly true, they could have waited for a few more or launched a few earlier, but not by a whole lot).

Then there's one parameter, let's call it p, the probability that any given hire was a woman. 22% (portion of newgrads who are female) or 16% (portion of tenure track faculty who are female) are both reasonably justified by the stats I posted above.

The probability that they are all not woman (men) is then (1-p)^12.

If you take the 22% you get 5%, if you take the 16% number you get 12%.

So there you have it, 5 to 12 percent chance of this happening coincidentally to an uncaring-but-not-malicious company who decided to completely ignore the PR effects launching with 12 men as the entire company would have. I think that's enough to criticize them for it.

Of course I initially posted with just my gut feeling, I knew the math would work out to something roughly like this, but couldn't have told you the exact values.

The entire paper is already sub-field (AI) in industry (software engineering) specific. No stats are perfect, but I think these ones are pretty damn good for something where peoples role are pretty poorly determined in the first place. Of course you're welcome to try and find better ones.

The "pure tech" companies I've worked at have been roughly equivalent or better than these stats, but at that point I'm sampling from software engineers in general (not having worked at an AI specific company), and my sample is unlikely to be unbiased anyways.

Isn't the fact that he's repulsive sort of the whole complaint?

Eh, the gender imbalance is bad, but not 0/12 bad... here are some stats

We should really amend the law to be "and if they incorrectly deny a claim they have to pay 10 times more". Enough to make it cost more than it's worth if they do it intentionally, not enough to bankrupt them...