richmarr

5 ms·

1.
by richmarr 7y ago
> If its wrapper is open, assume it is used. You can only do that safely with single-use items. How about putting the re-usable item in a wrapper so that the same rule can apply.
2.
by richmarr 7y ago
> These tech companies aren't direct buyers any more than you or me Well, they're (a) further up the supply chain that we are, and (b) have the resources to understand and influence their supply chain. You can be pedantic abo
3.
by richmarr 7y ago
Information, and control . All of the products I can buy may or may not contain this unthetical cobalt. I don't know which, and my personal buying choice doesn't effect anything. What are you proposing, that everyone with a smart
4.
by richmarr 7y ago
If you offer them a better margin to mine in a more ethically palettable way, and any up-front resources to do so, then it's reasonable to assume that they will. I think this quickly gets into the details though. How much safety is req
5.
by richmarr 7y ago
Because the direct buyer is the one who has the most information and the most control. In contrast the end user has almost no information, so punishing them is both unfair and ineffective.
6.
by richmarr 7y ago
> I will say though, the problem is one of “standardization” across an organization where it’s too big for everyone to fit in a room. I think you've got a lot of this right (disclaimer: we've built the product I think you&#x2
7.
by richmarr 7y ago
If you have a point, just make it.
8.
by richmarr 7y ago
In a world where the median per capita income is $2,920 per year this just pushes us closer to the plot of Elysium. (Gallup 2013)
9.
by richmarr 7y ago
> Later during a calibration, the signals and the evidences are presented to the interviewing peer group (recruiter, hiring managers, interviewers from other rounds), and pretty much disallows for any unconscious bias such as "I do
10.
by richmarr 7y ago
If I understand you correctly I think this is misleading. Discussing candidates after an interview allows social dynamics within the group to distort the signal so you reduce the value of taking independent data points. Not only will it not
11.
by richmarr 7y ago
So your argument is that they should be above examination of their interview process because their investments are doing well? Come on, you're just arguing for the sake of it now. Multiple independent assessments are great at reducing
12.
by richmarr 7y ago
> They are much less likely to be similarly biased against irrelevant factors like accents, mannerisms, backgrounds, etc. They're not less biased, they just average out their biases over the group. Your assumption is that three pe
13.
by richmarr 7y ago
So we're agreed that "top 1%" and "upper class" are not interchangable terms.
14.
by richmarr 7y ago
> You can still avoid most of the effects of a worst-case bias by adding two additional measurements... given 3 who all had the same experience You're right that it's an advantage, but it reduces noise, not bias. Bias by defi
15.
by richmarr 7y ago
Presumably there's more to this than comes across in your comment. After all, you don't avoid the unconscious bias of a single mind by adding more minds. That just gives you three sets of unconscious bias and adds biases caused
16.
by richmarr 7y ago
> The threshhold for being in the top 1% of income is that 99% or more of people make less than you. Clearly I mean the threshold for being upper class a term mentioned in your actual comment... unlike "top 1%" which was no
17.
by richmarr 7y ago
Thanks a bunch.
18.
by richmarr 7y ago
Where should that threshold be? Does it move every year due to inflation? I think a more reliable distinction would be whether a person's income predominantly comes from their labour, or whether it proedominantly comes from what they o
19.
by richmarr 7y ago
> That’s a weird characterization, given that the trend has been in the opposite direction: ... I don't think you've adequately supported that criticism. The article you're citing discusses the "top 4%" of incom
20.
by richmarr 7y ago
Autocratic countries like... ones that ignore and undermine their own judicial system and appoint family members to positions of power?
21.
by richmarr 7y ago
This post discusses 'terminological precision' and tries to clarify 'mischaracterisations', which is fair enough, but fails its own litmus test by using terms like 'hate fest' and 'witch hunt'.
22.
by richmarr 7y ago
> I personally am concerned about my impact on the environment, but I consistently vote against collective action because articles like this make me really afraid of how crazy people are and what nonsense they'll believe. On what
23.
by richmarr 7y ago
I don't know what their actual budget looks like, but I do know that they're huge and have been making significant changes around digital transformation. That would result in high spending followed by later savings.
24.
by richmarr 7y ago
> The two are indistinguishable, unless... So are they indistinguishable or not? Two things can't be a bit indistinguishable.
25.
by richmarr 7y ago
How would your hypothetical defence mechanism tell which C-suite initiatives are worthwhile, and which are ego driven make-work?
26.
by richmarr 7y ago
> ...at no extra cost Complexity and dependency are costs too, and I would argue often more significant costs than the $30/month to run a server.
27.
by richmarr 7y ago
What threshold of proof are you expecting?
28.
by richmarr 7y ago
It may not be a lie, but it is argument ad hominem, so you can probably do better
29.
by richmarr 7y ago
There's a startup in London called Synthesized working on part of this problem space. Given a source dataset they create a synthetic dataset that has the same statistical properties (as defined at the point the synthetic dataset is cre
30.
by richmarr 7y ago
We're hiring two developers, ideally ONSITE in London. We can be flexible once we all know each other. We work primarily in Node and Vue. Apply here: https://app.beapplied.com/apply/vcariijrr6 Applied is a company

More ›