In that Reddit thread the topic starter mentions that his CS faculty has a diversity issue. According to the Reddit TS because 30% of undergrads and 15% of the professors are women.
I was triggered by that and wanted to comment on it because I can imagine specific parts of CS are currently so new, evolving and hard to master that I can hardly imagine that diversity is considered an issue.
I can imagine society should already be happy with anyone who is able to complete an university CS study.These studies often require a specific mindset, passion and probably also a specific 'beta' brain.
I might be totally misunderstanding diversity anyway, but in my eyes all society can do is provide equal opportunities to everyone and the outcome can be a result of other factors.
In some specific industries like healthcare (specially nurses) and childcare the far majority is women. That is not because men don't have the opportunity to become one, but there are other factors that create this specific outcome where men are outnumbered.
In e.g. construction the majority is men. Also here women have the opportunity to get such a job, but women probably less likely apply for heavily physical construction jobs because of different physical conditions.
Therefore I think diversity itself should never be a goal, but making sure that _everyone_ gets equal chances/opportunities should be? And then accept the outcome.
In case of the Reddit TS it seems improvements on equal opportunities could perhaps be made on how is dealt with paternal leaves.
To me the limit in freedom of speech is when one calls for violence. As I truly believe in free speech, every exception you make to free speech, is arbitrary. If we have to everyone's exceptions into account, it's over with real free speech.
I personally can't be easily hurt by people I don't know well, but also understand that other people are easier hurt. This can be due to their current situation or things from the past that can more easily hurt their feelings.
I also want to stress that there's obviously something as politeness, empathy and social behavior. These should be encouraged at all times. But we all know some people simply can't behave and sometimes you even yourself can make an insulting remark
But due to free of speech, I do believe that people who are rude, insult others and make insensitive jokes, should be allowed to do so. Without any limit. How terrible it is what they say
They practice their freedom of speech. And we shouldn't punish them, other than telling them how we feel about what they say and making clear it can hurt the feelings of others.
On the other side we should invest in becoming more resilent to insults etc.
Obviously I see a task for parents and maybe even schools.
Thet should invest time in teaching children how to deal with rude, insensitive, insulting people and make them more resilient e.g. by boosting their self confidence.
For me that would be the best solution to keep an open society where people can speak freely. Making exceptions will kill it.
After all what can be insulting to person 1 can mean totally nothing to person 2.
Unfortunately, there are now so many care workers that many people with issues are getting fed up with all the people that come to their house for all kinds of help (think a care worker for finance, one for mental issues,one for physical issues,one to help the person get back to work, one for the kids etc. etc.)
So if there will be a shift from 'police as is', to more like a care worker system, this would be something to consider.
But other than that, it seems to work well. The police is considered your friend. They pretty know each of the people that have issues or who ever committed crime.
They continue to offer help to them,but will make sure they also get off the streets when they become a potential threat.
There continues to be a lot of criticism from certain groups within our country that wants the police act tougher, but I think the majority of people are happy with how the police does it's job here.
There is also a wijkagent - "neighborhood cop". Actual policeperson (with gun and all) that has "office hours" when they are walking around the neighborhood talking to people (even just for a chat) at the playgrounds, business owners and so on. People come to them with problems. There is a website where you can look up wijkagent for each neighborhood. Sometimes they're also active on Twitter, FB... Works quite well
It's very important that police is connected to the community they police, and cares about that community. My impression of police in the US is that that is rarely the case in cases where this police brutality occurs.
I'm fairly happy with Dutch police. They're visible and approachable. They're not perfect; there was a case in the 1990s where they cracked down unreasonably hard on a peaceful student protest. And in that case, it turned out that many of those cops were indeed looking forward to a fight, which is a dangerous and harmful attitude. Those instances are fairly rare, though.
Even so, no tear gas, no beatings, and despite the protesters resisting as much as they non-violently can, the police are not using any violence beyond pulling and shoving them into the bus.
(It's surprisingly hard to find anything online about events before 2004. This was all over the news at the time, but now it looks like it never happened. My quality newspaper lacks proper archive functionality for searching more than a year ago. Search engines and Youtube have never heard of this, frequently returning 0 results.)
I am an American living in Netherlands, and policing is very different here. Think Dutch police (or at least Amsterdam police) have a much more positive impact on neighborhoods than American police (or DC / San Francisco police). I have seen more mediation and deescalation between neighbors from police in a few years in the Netherlands than decades in America.
This is a tangent, there also seems to be way, way less paperwork in routine police work in the Netherlands than in America.
Very nice to see someone admitting and making changes after someone makes valid points!
You would think it would be the obvious action, but history has taught us people can go a long way in trying to convince others they are right, when they are not.
I was also surprised by the physical masks. It seems they are intended to 'encrypt your face' which gives me the impression it should make you unidentifiable.
When peacefully protesting, I can't imagine why you would need to hide your face.
If not peacefully protesting and/or looting, such a mask has use for criminals, but I can't imagine that's the intention of Signal.
I think in free, democratic countries, you shouldn't be allowed to hide your face, so you can be held accountable for your deeds.
In non-free countries I can imagine you would need to hide your identity, but would Signal be able to distribute them there?
Saying only criminals would want to cover their face is the equivalent of saying only criminals worry about privacy. The old "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" argument. I've never looted a store in my life and I don't ever plan to but I still don't want images of my face stored in a police database or used in facial recognition software. Wanting to protect my right to privacy is not and cannot become a presumption of criminal intent.
As the looks of it, US is pretty non-free when it comes to peacefully protesting. So I guess this feature is very timely and directed towards users there ;)
It's most certainly not just the US. In the (western European) country where I live, for instance, even a static protest or demonstration with no chanting or marching and only a few participants requires non-trivial and somewhat expensive police approval ahead of time. Most larger spontaneous events seem to just ignore this and the police haven't generally responded violently, to their credit.
Depends what you mean by "allowed". If the rules say "you definitely can't do this", but there is no penalty for going ahead and doing it anyway, is it allowed?
I think you are confusing "didn't want the medicine to work" with "never believed that the medicine worked".
I also think you are trying to say there is some inconsistency between applauding health workers for doing necessary work that put them in danger of catching and spreading covid, and applauding protesters for doing necessary work that put them in (much less) danger of catching and spreading covid?
As a paramedic who has responded to these protests, and has also worked at Quarantine/Isolation facilities, I appreciate some of your presumptions here about issues, etc.
Three of Trump's personal trusts have investments in Sanofi, the manufacturer of HCQ. In fact, in one of the trusts, Sanofi is the largest holding. So I don't think it's entirely unwarranted to question motivations.
Celebrating someone being wrong is, agreed, wrong.
A local radiostation has a broadcast of four hours. They are required to play an x amount of music tracks by the station (about 6 per hour), but there has been demand to make the broadcast available as podcast without the music.
Could this make it possible to automatically remove the music from the MP3 file they have available? With 6 tracks per hour times 4 hours, manually removing the music is time consuming.
I doubt it, as it seems all vocals are are output to a single file...
Presumably they own the rights on broadcast material, so they'd have to be directly involved in the podcast production. That given, it would probably be more straight forward to take the microphone feeds from their broadcast desk (via "aux-out" perhaps) and record only the spoken output separately.
Sox etc. could be used for silence detection, probably best done in post (scriptable), but could be piped through after experimenting with settings. Otherwise, even old desks can trigger when a mic channel fader is raised, so that too is a possibility for pausing the recording during music.
1. Playback the recording at 4x (1 hour of playback for 4 hours real-time broadcast). Mark the edges where music stops and starts. You have to do that 12 times for 6 songs. Youll have to slow down near the changes in order catch the precise time of an edge. Delete the music between the two edges. Repeat 5 more times.
There may be audacity plugins that do what you want or do something closer to it.
2.use some combination of low pass and high pass filters to remove the music. It's not going to be perfect and you'll still need to edit out the filtered music anyway.
I would prefer to buy property any time. People will always need housing. So while the price of the property is pure speculation, rent is a nice steady source of income.
Only if people want to live where you buy the property. If you bought property in Detroit in 2005, how much rent would you have collected in the last 15 years?
This is true, but it's worth considering that investments in individual stocks or in index funds (I would avoid actively managed funds) are incredibly liquid.
If I decide the housing market isn't for me or I need to raise cash quickly, I could be forced to wait anywhere from 8 weeks to 18 months, or longer to get any of my investment back (even longer if I don't want to lose money through desperation to sell).
If I need to raise money from stocks or index funds I can get market value for those investments instantly during business hours.
Assuming you had no property, would you be comfortable with your first purchase being something you can't yourself live in? Also, would owning mean a huge time investment maintianing it?
I was triggered by that and wanted to comment on it because I can imagine specific parts of CS are currently so new, evolving and hard to master that I can hardly imagine that diversity is considered an issue.
I can imagine society should already be happy with anyone who is able to complete an university CS study.These studies often require a specific mindset, passion and probably also a specific 'beta' brain.
I might be totally misunderstanding diversity anyway, but in my eyes all society can do is provide equal opportunities to everyone and the outcome can be a result of other factors.
In some specific industries like healthcare (specially nurses) and childcare the far majority is women. That is not because men don't have the opportunity to become one, but there are other factors that create this specific outcome where men are outnumbered.
In e.g. construction the majority is men. Also here women have the opportunity to get such a job, but women probably less likely apply for heavily physical construction jobs because of different physical conditions.
Therefore I think diversity itself should never be a goal, but making sure that _everyone_ gets equal chances/opportunities should be? And then accept the outcome.
In case of the Reddit TS it seems improvements on equal opportunities could perhaps be made on how is dealt with paternal leaves.
And once we can