Re: Ummmm
Doh - accidentally introduced during the edit. It's fixed. Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot a problem.
C.
3532 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Sep 2011
"The manifesto says to judge each person on their merit."
While at the same time saying certain people - women, for instance - aren't suited to certain jobs due to their biology. You can't have it both ways: you can't say 'treat people on their merit' while also writing them off because "on average" they suck at certain tasks. Which is it: treat people on merit because everyone has every chance of being competent, or assume "on average" women aren't as competent as men? How can you take people on merit if you've already decided half of them are potentially defective? It's hardcoded bias. It don't make no sense.
This is why, here at El Reg, we just don't buy it. We don't buy the memo. It's shit reasoning by a PhD dropout that has now spiraled out of control, fueled by latent biases.
C.
"And then your article doesn't really delve into the memo, it just picks five people whose politics you don't seem to agree with for a barrage of insults."
Yeah, that's kind of the point (hence the headline)... finding people flailing miserably to defend a shonky manifesto, and ripping the piss out of them. We tend to rip the piss out of a lot of people.
Also, you don't have to lecture us on Google. We've written tons on the corp's overreaching power and influence. I've even been interviewed on the subject by a chap writing a book about Silicon Valley and power.
But the target isn't Google this time; it's incoherent views on fairness and discrimination in the workplace, and the morons seizing these views to further unsavory agendas.
C.
" judge each person on their merit."
Judge people on their merit, but on average they won't be any good, but still judge them on their merit anyway, even though there's a good chance they'll suck at it, but still, hear them out, even though you'll interview them assuming they'll suck. That's the memo's thinking. If that's a rational, coherent and fair thought process for you, then... I don't know what to say. No wonder particular groups feel unwelcome.
Right. Let's say you were a fan of the Sopranos on HBO, or you like Brit metal band Cradle of Filth. And say there was a study that suggested Sopranos and Filth fans tend to be unstable in stressful situations. And you go into a job interview with the interviewers knowing from your Facebook that you're a fan of the Sopranos or the Filth. And immediately they're thinking: on average, this person isn't going to be a reliable candidate.
Or your colleagues you pair program think the same.
C.
Damore blundered pretty badly in the way he brought up the issue: the memo is contradictory, and so poorly thought out. He can apparently code but he can't string together a coherent line.
He then became a corporate liability by making colleagues feel uncomfortable, as well as breaking internal policy, right in the middle of Google fighting off legal complaints of discrimination. And, we hear, the CEO had to cancel his vacation to fly back and sort it out. At that point, in corporate Silicon Valley, you're toast.
And yes, we did read the memo. I still can't get my head around it. It just doesn't make any sense. People claiming we've misread are, I suspect, projecting their own opinions onto it to fill in the blanks, so to speak, and warp it to fit their narrative.
C.
Hm. Slight confusion, here. A proton accelerator produces photons from the collisions, which is the light that the detectors pick up. However, to be clear: it's the beam of protons that smashes into the sample, producing the light. I've made it clearer in the piece.
Don't forget to email corrections@theregister.com if you spot any problems, so they can be fixed quickly.
C.
You're like clockwork. We're happy with the story - we disagree with your interpretation of the situation. For example, you can bang on about companies changing names and so on all you like, but it doesn't negate what we said:
> [.sk] has been in private hands since the 1990s, resulting in a number of different organizations running it
C.
"Does ANYONE have evidence that ALL computers trashed by NotPetya were operated -on a workdaily basis- by people with admin privileges?"
All right, calm down, calm down. We've tweaked the sentence so it's a little sharper. Not every trashed machine had admin access, obviously. And giving people and software the least possible privs is a good thing, obviously.
C.
Hi - yup, I've taken the sentence out. On its own, it's meaningless. If you check our other IBM articles you'll see we're not really down with running Big Blue 'press releases' - and our other chip stories go into a lot more detail when comparing features.
Take this article as-is: a product announcement, not a product endorsement.
C.
Lol, time travel, aliens, the TARDIS, all this fantasy, but a woman is too far fetched? What are you afraid of?
There's no rule to say Dr.W has to be a bloke. If someone wants to try another gender for a JA character, why complain? I wouldn't. It's art. It's entertainment. The world is a fluid place. Try new things.
What are you afraid of?
C.
There was no mention of NVDIMMs by Intel in the tech materials its engineers shared with El Reg, so I guess this has been paused?
I must confess, I'm a software and CPU dude, not a storage person, so I didn't pick up on this. I've let my colleague Chris Mellor, our storage writer, know so he can follow up.
C.
(The other Chris)
I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree: there's clearly a clash of views.
If there are specific sentences in the story you disagree with, email them to me (with a brief explanation why you disagree with them) – cwilliams at theregister dawt com – and I'll take a look.
C.
Thanks for the feedback - you're probably right that Spiceworks is biased in favor of Windows-centric orgs (it does offer Linux monitoring tools, though). It's something we'll keep in mind.
We've tidied up the section on Linux/Windows web server stats: there Unix-ish OSes rule the roost.
C.
> What are you talking about "animal care products"? Equustek does high end electronics
Hmmm, OK. Fixed. We're investigating how this happened.
Edit: A company name mix up (there's an Equustock that does animal care products. The name was corrected during editing but not the product type, oops. It was quickly fixed.)
C.
Yes - that's why it's called machine learning. Chess programs aren't AI. They are algorithms and preprogrammed patterns. Airbus autopilot isn't AI. It's algorithms and preprogrammed patterns. Compare this to DQN, which didn't even know what the game controller's buttons did. It was given video frames and told to get on with it. It had to figure it out from scratch. That's where AI wants to head if it's going to make anything remotely intelligent.
Sure, the world runs on algorithms and preprogrammed patterns. No problem with that. Let's just not trumpet it as AI.
C.
Thanks, Nick. All links welcome - don't forget that while most of us Reg hacks have been reading the site for ages, we haven't been working for it's entire lifespan. So the people producing El Reg today for you, based on the values we've long held dear, may have skipped an article or two in their write up. Basically, if you can't see a link, it's because we've been running around on fire trying to make quality content for you, and may have left off some old links. I am sorry.
Yeah, it was a long day and brain wasn't fully firing. Nvidia quoted 120 "Tensor" TFLOPS (see my comment below), which we took to be marketing spiel for INT8. Duh, INT8 is integer so TFLOPS makes no sense. I've taken out the stat because Nv doesn't, TTBOMK, define exactly what a "Tensor" TFLOPS is.
Edit: See article update.
C.
It's actually 120 "Tensor" TFLOPS which we took to mean INT8, but Nvidia claims it is not - so we've taken it out. Last time we asked, Nv wouldn't define what a "Tensor" TFLOPS is, so we've axed that stat and stuck with industry standard metrics (64FP and 32FP).
We've asked Nv to clarify what a "Tensor" TFLOPS is. If they give us a clear explanation, we'll update the story.
Edit: See article update.
C.