> I can guarantee you that way more men applied to Caltech than women did.
You cannot guarantee that. Show some data or don't say anything.
> That means the most talented and impressive young man who applied and didn’t get in is objectively more talented and impressive than the least talented and impressive (though still extremely talented and impressive) woman who applied and got in.
This doesn't follow. If women self-censor (not sure how to say it in English correctly) their applications in such a way that only top women dare applying, while men don't, then no, it's not true that the men who didn't get in are more talented than the women who didn't get in. I'm not speaking in hypothetical, this is what actually happens - see e.g., Bosquet C., Combes P-P., García‐Peñalosa C., 2019, « Gender and Promotions: Evidence from Academic Economists in France », Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 121 (3), 1020-1053 or https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/nos-blogs/dialogues-economiques/pl...
The rest of your comment is based on faulty premises so I won't bother replying point by point.
> At Caltech, there has been an average gap of 10 percentage points between the acceptance rate for male and female applicants since 2003-04. Women were accepted at more than double the rate for men for the 2022-23 school year.
It's worth noting that men have it easier time getting into liberal arts universities like Brown or Yale.
> If women self-censor (not sure how to say it in English correctly) their applications in such a way that only top women dare applying, while men don't
In my personal experience, it was actually the opposite. I self censored my application to MIT because I noticed that they rejected all the men from my high school and accepted all the women who applied, despite the men being equally or more qualified.
> At Caltech, there has been an average gap of 10 percentage points between the acceptance rate for male and female applicants since 2003-04. Women were accepted at more than double the rate for men for the 2022-23 school year.
This is about acceptance rate. We were talking about number of applicants. Where are the numbers for applications?
> In my personal experience, it was actually the opposite. I self censored my application to MIT because I noticed that they rejected all the men from my high school and accepted all the women who applied, despite the men being equally or more qualified.
It basic math. You divide the numbers of people accepted by the acceptance rate. And before you nitpick my data some more, enrollment is a a fair proxy for acceptances because there is no reason to believe that accepted men are twice as likely to reject the top STEM universities than women.
> Your anecdote is supposed to beat data...?
This is ironic coming from someone so willing to dismiss the data that challenges their worldview without providing of their own. My anecdote beats your pure speculation. Applying to an optional promotion isn't the same as applying to colleges.
While I get your point but it's short sighted to not view college as a place where both men and women learn and grow as humans outside of formal study. Learning to navigate relationships, discover your sexuality, and generally learn to work with and collaborate with people of different backgrounds. In an environment where the population is radically unbalanced there is less opportunity especially for the people who need to learn about these things the most.
Yes, a lot of growth and exploration of various kinds happens at college. Diversity in the university is probably good.
But, in the context of a society which historically denied women a place in higher education, and an institution which did not admit women, and then had disproportionately few women, to react to higher numbers of women with "this is good for men looking to date" is a really bad take. It frames more women in corners of higher ed where they were previously underrepresented in terms of how it's good for men, and specifically in framing women students as romantic opportunities for men.
You pretending that yeeetz's comment is part of some broader appreciation of a diverse college environment is kinda bs, b/c yeeetz did not say anything about learning from/working with people of a different background -- just that it makes dating easier for guys.
Similarly if you advocate for more women in STEM jobs so straight men in those jobs can date in their workplace more easily ... maybe HR should keep an eye on you and you shouldn't consider yourself to actually be supporting real equality.
This is unhinged. You think women go to university to date? In this country with the cost of higher ed?
- when women were mostly or entirely excluded for higher ed, they still participated in society and courtship and had "functional social skills"
- men and women today who never go to college still participate in society, date and have functional social skills
So maybe women go to university to learn or to launch their career or to appease their parents just like everyone else? And commenting on their growing numbers in terms of the benefits to straight male students looking to date is fundamentally objectifying people who are just trying to live their lives? And when someone points this out you imply that women who have the attitude that universities are for something other than dating are on some track to be broken non-social loners, that's failing to account for the broad opportunities to (a) date someone outside your school (b) defer dating until later because you're focused on learning and paying a huge amount to be at this institution or (c) being open to the possibility that people who don't date aren't doomed to be lonely cat ladies b/c there are other kinds of valuable human connection and the people that perpetuate this myth are invested in continued oppression?
Pearl clutching and shrieking about objectification is so 8 years ago. Doesn't really work anymore because it doesn't drive an emotional reaction; people just roll their eyes and move on. This appears to be your special interest but you're responding to normal, healthy men as if they just killed your dog.
I'm responding to your direct personal attack on the parent, demonstrating what such assumptions look like.
And for your initial assumption to be true, men would have to be doing the asking. Otherwise, why white knight to save the poor women? Yet if women did the asking, there's no downside for them, yes?
There isn't anything profoundly wrong with Elisp. Emacs needs a programming language, Elisp is a programming language and that is the end of the story, more or less.
You can level complaints against Elisp. You can level complaints against anything. They aren't a big deal - Elisp supports variables, loops and if statements and that is enough to implement a text editor to a first approximation.
If the slate was wiped clean, the Emacs community would probably prefer that Emacs was written with Common Lisp. Then Emacs wouldn't need its own lisp reference manual.
I can't speak for the Emacs community, but like to caution that Common Lisp is a large language and IMHO would be too much a burden to learn for someone just to customize or extend the editor. I'd rather think it's the Common Lisp community who would prefer Emacs to be written using CL ;-)
Emacs Lisp gets there anyway, somehow. Just decades later.
Examples:
Lexical binding. SCHEME in 1975, Common Lisp in 1984. GNU Emacs in 2012.
Native compiled code. LISP 1 got that in 1960. There are now native compiled code builds of GNU Emacs since a few years.
Cooperative threading. Common Lisp had that in the 80s. Other Lisp dialects probably earlier. Now concurrent native threads would be a thing, so that Emacs Lisp too can take advantage of preemptive single and multi-core threading.
But (setq variable var) looks the same in CL and ELisp, so it takes the same amount of learning to customize, right? It is not more to learn just because there exist more possibilities in the language.
This already exists, right now...? I've seen tons of USB hubs with an hdmi output and several USB ports that can be used concurrently. Hell I'm using one right now. Are you asking about something else?
> I think in practice, people write "Emphasize words like this.", then <left> , then <C-left><C-left> . At least I myself usually add markup immediately after writing the words to be marked up.
Is this very different from "<left> <Ctrl+Shift+left> <Ctrl+Shift+Left> <Ctrl+I>"?
There's no reason it wouldn't "work", the question is "why". Having such precise dates obviously comes with some compromises (e.g., the representation is larger, or it's variable depending on the value which comes with additional complexity, etc.). So surely there must be some pros to counterbalance the cons. "Because it's what Go does" is an answer, but I don't know if it's a convincing one.
WTF. I'm interested in what you've created and want to understand the reason for your design decisions, and this is how you reply?
edit: Well, it seems that the parent comment has been edited. But honestly, after reading the initial comment, I'm not interested in engaging in any way whatsoever with this person.
There's nothing in the linked blog post justifying why you might want a higher precision time. In fact the blog post would benefit from an explanation that outlines the current datetimes in sqlite and why they're insufficient.
Internally, SQLite uses milliseconds since the Julian day epoch stored as an 64-bit integer for date math, and uses the proleptic gregorian calendar (no leap seconds).
Externally, it uses either (a subset of) ISO 8601 with millisecond precision for a textual representation, or a IEEE 64-bit float representing either days since the Julian day epoch, or seconds since the Unix epoch.
You can also use integer seconds since the Unix epoch, but you'll get outside the supported date range before you use 53-bits, so 64-bit floats are equally safe.
The supported date range, btw., is from JDN zero through 9999-12-31T23:59:59.999.
In the 21st century, both of these representations can store the correctly rounded millisecond.
SQLite accepts time zone offsets, but immediately converts all times to UTC (or local time) and does not store the offset, so date functions can only output UTC or local time (no other time zone or offset).
I think you're being overly defensive. The GP is curious about the decisions you made, and just asking questions in a bit of a blunt (but not rude or accusatory) style that's typical for HN.
edit: the comment I'm responding to was much more vitriolic, it's since been edited
You cannot guarantee that. Show some data or don't say anything.
> That means the most talented and impressive young man who applied and didn’t get in is objectively more talented and impressive than the least talented and impressive (though still extremely talented and impressive) woman who applied and got in.
This doesn't follow. If women self-censor (not sure how to say it in English correctly) their applications in such a way that only top women dare applying, while men don't, then no, it's not true that the men who didn't get in are more talented than the women who didn't get in. I'm not speaking in hypothetical, this is what actually happens - see e.g., Bosquet C., Combes P-P., García‐Peñalosa C., 2019, « Gender and Promotions: Evidence from Academic Economists in France », Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 121 (3), 1020-1053 or https://lejournal.cnrs.fr/nos-blogs/dialogues-economiques/pl...
The rest of your comment is based on faulty premises so I won't bother replying point by point.