Black pepper definitely has a taste, like I can taste it on food and I add more when it's needed. Try tasting a steak and then add some pepper and see if you can't literally taste it, or even try it with bread or rice or anything really. Or have I just gone mad?
It may be that the zesty quality of pepper outpaces any taste. I’m curious to put it on something bland now to see if I can taste it, but my original comment was meant to convey that I might be blind to the actual taste of black pepper as a result of its cultural omnipresence.
I personally can’t taste black pepper, although I enjoy the smell. But I once asked my parents about this and they both said they definitely could taste it.
Can I ask why? I did similar hours for a while but I couldn't date or see friends or exercise and even sit done and read a book for long. If I was forced to do that often I would have quit. Its not like its hard to get another job as a developer. When working 80 hours or more you're basically doing the work of two developers and the company should really just hire another IMO.
The startup is my baby and I'm solo. I don't just develop, I design, market, handle investor relations, etc. I wouldn't do this if it wasn't this specific situation.
Edit: Haven't had a girlfriend or dated or regularly socialized with friends in years, but I don't feel bad about it. Most of my friends who I respect the most are just as busy as I am pursuing their goals in music and neuroscience. :)
Edit2: I do hire additional devs when I can afford it, but that doesn't have an effect on my hours.
I have seen this a few times here on HN and it's just totally incorrect. The new law still places the burden of proving that consent was not given on the victim. Some papers reported it incorrectly but have published corrections.
I don't have a view on whether this reflects the Swedish law correctly but if it does, I don't believe that changes anything nor that I am incorrect. Unless the other party established explicit, provable consent (he says-she says won't help in court), we are in absence of consent, and therefore rape territory. You can't prove absence of anything.
You aren't measuring the people they keep off the street using that money. Dollars spent per homeless person is useless. If they spent 5 dollars more to reduce the homeless population to 1 would you say they spent 300MM per homeless person?
Do you have links to any data about how much of that money was spent to keep people off the street and/or how many people were kept of the street by this expenditure per day during the last year?
> Also would you mind expanding on how he uses science to give new meaning to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western society?
The first lecture should give you a good idea, but if you're looking for discussion, I'd be willing to have it but we'd be here for hours. We'd have to get into philosophy and define terms like "science", "God", "society", etc. We'd then have to explore psychology and models of consciousness, like Jungian archetypes and Freud's subconscious. We could also cover biology and how some substances trigger spiritual experiences that have positive life-changing effects. All the while, we could relate these discussions to the stories of the Bible or chapters of the Tao Te Ching and why they are both at the very least profound and contagious.
I'll give the lecture a watch. I am more interested in how he approaches the subject. I've had my doubts out Peterson for a while since some of his views seem very regressive, however I haven't watched everything he has said.
When we know we have unconscious biases to people who are of the same race, gender and orientation and ourselves is it really unreasonable to take action to try to counteract this? Especially for internships where there isn't even a professional history to compare.
Yes, it is unreasonable. I am a visible minority, and am very offended when that factors in to hiring practices. It matters to me that my acceptance is legitimate and based on merit, and it tarnishes my reputation every day that others who do not meet the same standard are accepted (i.e. meet the threshold) merely due to their skin color.
Aside from that, whoever this "we" is that you're discussing, it does not include myself. You may have unconscious biases to people who are of the same race, etc., that's on you, and people on average may have such inclinations. However, you have cited no references indicating the universality of this phenomenon, nor do you possess any pertinent data on me. It would be more fair and correct to use "I" or "in general, people...".
The fact that you're a racist person is not in dispute here, we both agree. The question is whether you want to apply your prejudices in an affirmative or negative sense. My contention is that I prefer and believe it is ethically superior for hiring and acceptance practices to consciously remove, as much as possible, the influence of prejudice for each candidate.
> My contention is that I prefer and believe it is ethically superior for hiring and acceptance practices to consciously remove, as much as possible, the influence of prejudice for each candidate.
It is! But many people in charge of hiring have no interest in doing so, although they’ll claim they have. And when the numbers don’t back them up, they’ll always have a convenient excuse.
> You give them a technical test and whoever scores the most wins, if they score equally, you can pick at random.
The thing is that people don't have equal opportunity to prepare for the technical test. Thus the people who do best might not be the best for the job. Especially as a lot of value can be obtained from hiring someone with a different perspective on life, which the hiring manager might not appreciate (as the other perspective doesn't align with theirs).
> You can't conclude too much from an isolated example.
You can conclude that the effects of implicit bias are not well understood and maybe we should study it a little bit more before we treat it as absolute truth and factor it into decision making.
I don't see how I could conclude anything about how well understood implicit bias is from one or two examples of it materializing or failing to materialize.
People thought they understood it, they started applying policies around it and then their assumptions turned out to be false, hence me saying it's not well understood.
>"We should hit pause and be very cautious about introducing this as a way of improving diversity, as it can have the opposite effect," Professor Hiscox said.
To me, this quote succinctly expresses the whole problem behind the push for "diversity" (a term which I have never seen rigorously defined by its exponents) in technology fields. By trying to fix the results with artificial means, they place the cart before the horse. They attempt to fix a painting they perceive to be damaged by doodling over top of it. There appears to be no self-reflection when unintended consequences occur.
They did a study where they attempt to remove all bias, but they got results they didn't like, and so we should "hit pause"? Why should we ever hit pause on removing bias and discrimination from our society?
Seems impossible without outlawing all advertising. Advertising in the nytimes over some other paper or advertising on fox over cnn are all examples of targeted advertising. You'd have to make people randomly choose advertising spots from all of media. Doesn't seem feasible.
> Advertising in the nytimes over some other paper or advertising on fox over cnn are all examples of targeted advertising.
"Targeted" advertising generally refers to the tracking-based targeting of individual people. Re-defining the term to include all types of advertising makes the term mostly useless.
> Doesn't seem feasible.
Banning targeted advertising would be easy with legislation that bans tracking and showing ads to individuals.
> You'd have to make people randomly choose advertising spots from all of media.
Traditional advertising methods worked fine for centuries. Nobody[1] places ads randomly; you advertise where your product's audience will see it.
[1] Advertising intended to build general brand awareness instead of selling a specific product or service might buy ads somewhat randomly, because the goal is simply getting the brand name seen widely and often.
Well I understood targeted advertising as advertising with a target in mind. So advertising on msnbc to target liberals and fox for conservatives.
In terms of tracking people and using their data to precisely target them then I agree with Richard Stallmann's article here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebo...
That's too broad of a definition, it effectively reduces the term 'targeted advertising' to just 'advertising'. For example, even if my advertisement isn't trying to target broad categories of people (roadside billboard, etc) any ad will have a target in mind: consumers of my product.
So no, targeted advertising is not any ad with a target in mind, that is just advertising. Targeted ads are distinguished from regular ads based on targeting a specific individual. An ad in the WSJ may be aimed at a broad category of people interested in business news, but if I know for a fact that 'Letmesleep69' happens to be a reader of that paper and I take out an ad that specifically refers to that user name, then it would be a targeted ad.
I don't think the word 'targeted' has as narrow a definition as you are proposing (at least in the common vernacular). In writing laws, as in code, one has to be very specific and define things properly, but not in frank discussion.
Disclosure: I believe in the eventual success of the fediverse.
>> A lot would be solved by outlawing targeted advertising.
> Seems impossible without outlawing all advertising. Advertising in the nytimes over some other paper or advertising on fox over cnn are all examples of targeted advertising. You'd have to make people randomly choose advertising spots from all of media. Doesn't seem feasible.
Not the OP, but I think he has a good idea stated over-broadly. Let me fix it:
A lot would be solved by outlawing profile-based targeted advertising.
If Facebook can't use you profile to individually target you, the advertisers are left to target the mass of "Facebook users" like they target the mass of "NY Times readers."
Yes, and this also nicely self-regulates the media marketplace to balance monopolies like FB. Want to target a narrow niche, advertise in specialist media to a smaller audience at higher rates. Want to carpet bomb, advertise in mass media at bulk rates. Mass media being able to segment their audience has killed specialist titles income stream and created monopolies. Without that regulation FB has been allowed to have their cake and eat everybody elses.
It's a common misconception that you have to define law precisely in order for it to be useful. States of affairs are rarely fixed with one law, many times it's useful to proceed with the poor law that you can get passed as opposed to no law at all, and spend another season building up political will to pass a better one. The countless piracy acts that keep getting thrown at us every few years get slightly weaker as the content industry just tries to wedge a foot in the door.
Obamacare was intended to be like this. Legislators knew it was going to get attacked the second the ink was dry, so they built in a bunch of clauses making it extremely difficult to 'simply repeal'. New health care legislation almost certainly has to build on top of Obamacare, enough political capital can't possibly be raised to do anything else.
I'm sure there's a technical solution at the browser level -- a way to break cookie matchers. At least when I worked in retargeting, cookie matching was the secret sauce.
Preventing third party sources (images, scripts, "share buttons" etc.) from issuing or checking browser cookies might break a whole pile of useful things, but it'd make the world of retargeted ads dry up quickly.
To be fair it wasn't default. It was just blue while the other was grey. I found the process to be quite easy however at the end the had "see my other options" in grey writing and I accidentally clicked away before I saw it so they certainly abuse dark patterns.
The "see my other options" link at the end leads to a page that explains that there's no way to use Facebook without consenting to the requests on the last page, gives you a button to download all your data and one to delete your account.
Overall, I found the UI pretty good, the buttons for the alternatives (non-consent) were clearly labeled, and they explained well what they were going to do with the data.
Yeah thats what i meant. The coloured in button to catch your eye if you're in a hurry. I was quite surprised to see being asked for such things. Whether that actually makes a difference or not i guess we'll never know.
