In a longer run this may not look as good for Wikipedia as it does now. It shows that they are willing to sacrifice their cultural values, particularly neutrality, for other impromptu values that Jimmy sees fit to promote. It also shows that they are willing to turn on their business partners and screw them.
This is the logical next step part of a much longer trend on Wikipedia, that of the solidification of power in the hands of a few, which has been happening with the editing for some time.
Neutrality does not require passivity and inaction. In fact, it requires that you actively distance yourself from politicized parties so that your neutrality is not called into question. GoDaddy has, of their own accord, become a politicized party in the SOPA debate. It is altogether reasonable for Wikipedia to choose not to be involved with them.
So has Wikipedia: they could have just dropped GoDaddy without saying a word, that would have been neutral. Publicly proclaiming you severing business ties for a politically-charged reason is just bad business.
"publicly proclaiming" is 'as discussed in our own online spaces where we came up with the decision'? Do you have evidence of wikipedia seeking out other media to promote their decision?
I don't see that as bad business. Wikipedia requires neutrality. SOPA is anti-neutrality. Can you really imagine sites like Wikipedia existing in a post-SOPA universe?
It shows that they do care about their users, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to make them comfortable. A few Redditors started a cause to donate money to Wikimedia in return to ask them if they would acknowledge the fact that GoDaddy is/was Pro-SOPA and they should plan on switching their domain over somewhere else.
Jim is also a Anti-SOPA guy, he had the idea to move the domain once the news was out about GoDaddy supporting SOPA. Wikipedia saw an opportunity from their users that were encouraging them to switch.
Along with many others, I also agree with the choice WikiMedia recently made.
>> It shows that they are willing to sacrifice their cultural values, particularly neutrality, for other impromptu values that Jimmy sees fit to promote
Opposing SOPA is a must for wikipedia to maintain neutrality. Else, soon you will see that most of the so called controversial articles on wikipedia are no longer available because it will make it mandatory on the part of wikipedia to remove them.
And moving their domain from Godaddy is the right thing to do.
Isn't the obvious, uncomfortable answer, that management wants to maximize profitability? It's almost the definition of their job to find these 100x productivity programmers and pay them the 1x salary. Also, note that when you have an entire team of 100x programmers, and you are only paying them 2x or 3x the salary of the 1x programmer, the manager has succeeded well in their goal - not only has the pay-me-more-for-my-skill argument disappeared (they are all the same 100x skill level) but you are extracting the massive amount of excess productivity into profitability. bottom line is that if you really are a 100x programmer, it is difficult to fully capitalize on that skill
The syrup comes from the motion of the fluid in the tree - when it gets cold at night the sap goes into the roots, when its warm during the day the sap rises. so to get a good flow you need cold nights and warm days.
during the flow the sap picks up the maple taste from other bits of stuff in the tree - grade b is actually the first sap produced in the season and has the most of this 'stuff'. As the season goes on theres less and less of this stuff so then you start making grade a and fancy.
The Golden Rule - if you wouldn't trust the other party on a handshake, all the paper in the world isn't going to be enough to put the deal in writing.
A rather confusing post: does the author want to work only 20 hours? Or work 40 hours but be rewarded the same as someone who works 60 hours? Or work 60 hours doing something they love all the time? All of these seem quite unrealistic but for different reasons.
The 40 hour week was brought to America in 1938, brought about primarily by unions - the word 'weekend' didn't even exist until the 1870s. Enjoy the freedom that so many worked so hard to provide you.
I don't know how you found that post confusing. It's pretty clear: a fixed-length work-week for any type of creative, rewarding or challenging job isn't ideal. (I added the creative, rewarding and challenging part, because I'm sure it's implied).
The op's point is that the freedom you think we ought to enjoy, isn't freedom...it's a rigid pre-defined template. Real freedom, when it comes to work-life balance, is working the amount of hours in a week which you want and is appropriate.
Yes! I've always found it to be the case that employers that ask for 'passion' are merely interested in turning enthusiasm into dollars. Run, run, run like the plague.
This may often be the case, but it's not necessarily true. I've hired software developers for many years. I believe that passion is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a highly effective developer.
Passion is certainly necessary, but when it's used as a smokescreen for how poorly you're treating the developers, calling it a requirement is flat-out wrong. I certainly see no problem with using it in recruitment spiels; it's using it during the job offer that's a problem.
Efficiency actually increases energy use, as per Jevon's paradox, which goes hand in hand with the technological cornucopia argument that the energy issue will be solved by better technology. Unfortunately the EROEI numbers reflect quite the contrary - where once oil bubbled up from the ground under its own pressure netting 200x EROEI, we're now griming are way through oil sands which net 5-6x EROEI, or sinking 2 mile long pipes into the ocean. This is why Kurzweil argument fails - technology has a tendency to expand and soak up as much energy as possible, all the salad shooters in the world aren't going to bring back $2 oil, in any form.
Since about 1982, the annual world oil consumption has held at roughly 32 billion barrels despite efficiency improvements in petrol energy usage.
Our technological efficiency improvements are doing more with the same amount of energy and not more with more energy, as Jevon's paradox predicts.
Think about this simplified example. Our cars get better mpg today. Which means that we have energy left over to use to sink those 2 mile long pipes into the ocean. Because of the efficiency improvements, we have just done more with the same amount of energy.
In fact the hard cap as to amount of energy we can extract has been reached - we would in fact use more if we could, but we can't extract it - we are running in place. This is often confused with efficiency when in fact it is a peak energy issue. Three billion people in the world living on under $3 a day and we there's no demand for more energy?
The example is not compelling; 100 years ago there were no cars - are we using more or less energy now with the advent of 'car technology'? The obvious answer is: way more. We are not just taking the net energy of 1910 and 'redistributing' it. Because this is what technologies do, provide an advantage that nature does not. But technology is not free - to develop it, make it, use it, dispose of it, all requires a lot of energy. An insatiable thirst to develop and use thingamajigs is what is causing the problem, not solving it.
there is a 98.3% chance that f is b-like
there is a 98.3% chance that e is a-like
there is a 89.3% chance that d is a-like
there is a 53.1% chance that c is b-like
If these are multiplied together, it appears that there is only a 45.8% chance that they are all classified correctly?
You're asking a good question -- but you know a lot more than what you write above.
The main thing is, you know that C, D, E, and F came from either A or B. The p-values above don't account for that; they just say what's the chance, due to random fluctuation, that a sample could have come from from the same source as A.
That's reflected in the fact that the pairs of p-values don't add to one! (Like (A,C) and (B,C) in the table above.)
You also implicitly know that at least one of {C,D,E,F} is A-like and one is B-like (otherwise there would not be a problem). So even if you know P(X and Y have same source) for all (X,Y), which you don't, you couldn't multiply them.
Finally, the p-value returned by the KS test will underestimate the true probability of discrepancy. This is because it's only looking at one thing, the max value of a CDF difference. The significant differences between the distributions may lie elsewhere, like in the tails, and the KS test is known to be relatively insensitive to tail behavior. (Although at n=40 you won't be able to see far into the tails.)
There are a host of other tests that use the same idea (empirical CDF difference) but weight differently. Some can be more effective than the KS test if you're looking for certain types of difference. Here's an OK overview, albeit for the goal of assessing normality:
In a real problem, it's always a good idea to use more empirical-cdf tests than just the KS test, to compare variances and other moments as some people in the thread have done, and to make histogram or CDF plots -- especially if you're in just 1 dimension and the plots are easy to interpret.
I have only two numbers 50 and 60 - one is a weight and another is a temperature. Now I have another number, 80. What kind of number is that? No way to know. The fact that there are multiple values make no difference - the data is the data!
This is the logical next step part of a much longer trend on Wikipedia, that of the solidification of power in the hands of a few, which has been happening with the editing for some time.