Race is a social construct, there's no biological explanation for race. The set of characteristics that are identified with different races are social constructs, those clusters of features does not correlate to a significant difference in biological terms. Genetic methods do not support or explain the classification of humans into discrete races. Races are not genetically homogenous and lack clear-cut genetic boundaries.
Two people from different races can be way more similar genetically than two people from the same race. The concept of race was built over a long story of separating humanity in different ethnic groups, and then physical characteristics of some of those ethnic groups started slowing being adopted as a mean to show that those people are intrinsically different, but they are just an unimportant set of characteristics that does not convey important information from a genetic perspective, they gained social meaning through culture. The modern concept of race took form in the enlightenment, https://twitter.com/Limerick1914/status/757227361582608384, when the original western notion of which ethnic groups exists in the world was built into a racist anthropology.
That doesn't mean that "all lives matter" or we shouldn't talk about race. Race is a social construct, and as a social construct, it exists. Money is also a social construct. But, the concept of race makes no sense besides the social structure that was built on. That why different countries consider that the set of existing races is different, for instance, the only country that really considers "latino" a race is the US.
Going back to your question, the extinct humans actually had important biological differences, the different races have not.
"Philip (President): Our factory is underutilized by 10%. Either we start building more of our backlog or we lay people off. I'd rather keep everyone busy, build inventory, and get ahead of the curve before the busy season. How can we do that?
Lee (Operations Manager): Company policy restricts us from building more than 3 months of backlog. If you just change that to 4 months, we'll have plenty of work."
You can't have one week of 10% less productivity if not you will immediately fire everyone? And you company policies only work if you change a line of code? And this line of code is from some old legacy code that no one touch and your whole process depends on it? No, 6 days of development is the least of the problems here. This company is absurd.
6 days for the line of code wasn't optimal, but wasn't that bad. What this story shows to me how bad management pretend things are IT fault.
I find surreal how much people underestimate how big is the population that deals with those unicodeerrors. It's SO MANY FUCKING LANGUAGES AND SO MANY PEOPLE. The majority of the world population writes using non-ASCII characters!
It's a HUGE problem in Python 2. Python 3 was needed. If you don't think the Unicode change was needed and you actually work with texts in any form, you should also stop developing "for web scale" before fixing this. Because you're actually focusing on a small percentage of the world population on your software.
For me Zed's argument sounds like "This is America, speak English". Specially with his quotes around "international".
Yes, but that's something a lot of people are arguing here and I agree. The "I could build in a week" is ridiculous, but "I could what this 1000 engineers company do that with a small team of 10, in a lean way in 18 months" is very frequent in the market.
But no one really knows that much about all the technology world, and it is important to be humble about it. I used to be more arrogant when I've started programming, that was a self-defense mechanism against my insecurities, and by that I used to just reinforce the hype. A bunch of new hype technologies are not that interesting, they just repeat things that have been done before or they add layers that sometimes don't bring any benefit. So it is important to have a beginner's mind every time you read someone's else's project, because there's a thousand different ways of doing things.
Said that. It is fine to give constructive criticism, and to show other ways of doing things. One thing I believe is that all software is crap. And that we shouldn't treat code as if it was literature and an intrinsic part of our being. If you want to express your inner self, do art, not code. If you code for art, do the end project the art and not the lines of code that no one would understand anyway. It is important to detach the code from the person. And we need to assume that every line of code is a potential problem. We work to deliver features not code. Code is a necessary evil.
In summary: Think if you're not being aggressive due to your own insecurity. Of everything that there is to know in the code world, and how that can be scary. And try to give constructive criticism, give criticism to help people get better at their projects and deliver it, not to make them feel less valued.
"
Art history is generally thought of as a linear progression of one movement or style after another (Romanticism, Realism, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, etc.), punctuated by the influence of individual geniuses (Delacroix, Courbet, Monet, Cézanne … ).
(...)
The story Danto tells in “The End of Art” follows on from this model. According to Danto, the commitment to mimesis began to falter during the nineteenth century due to the rise of photography and film. These new perceptual technologies led artists to abandon the imitation of nature, and as a result, 20th-century artists began to explore the question of art’s own identity. What was art? What should it do? How should art be defined? In asking such questions, art had become self-conscious. Movements such as Cubism questioned the process of visual representation, and Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal as an artwork. The twentieth century oversaw a rapid succession of different movements and ‘isms,’ all with their own notions of what art could be. “All there is at the end,” Danto wrote, “is theory, art having finally become vaporized in a dazzle of pure thought about itself, and remaining, as it were, solely as the object of its own theoretical consciousness.”
Warhol’s Brillo boxes and Duchamp’s readymades demonstrated to Danto that art had no discernible direction in which to progress. The grand narrative of progression — of one movement reacting to another — had ended. Art had reached a post-historical state. All that remains is pure theory:
Of course, there will go on being art-making. But art-makers, living in what I like to call the post-historical period of art, will bring into existence works which lack the historical importance or meaning we have for a long time come to expect […] The story comes to an end, but not the characters, who live on, happily ever after doing whatever they do in their post-narrational insignificance […] The age of pluralism is upon us…when one direction is as good as as another."
I didn't knew about "Feynman Lectures On Computation" and was reading the reviews. There's only one 2 star reviews, I clicked to see what it was about. And surprise, it is by Guido Van Rossum! (And he's not that impressed by the book)
Sometimes only. big O cuts all the constants and they are really important in actual software development. A lot of actual work involve improving the speed from a 10N to a 2N, it is a big difference for the costumer, but they are all O(N).
OMG that is AMAZING. What. You worked on both 3 feet high and rising and All Hail the Queen. WOW. Sorry about the not very informational post, don't fully follow the HN recommendations. BUT I AM LOOSING IT. WOW.
But if we see this in a more broad perspective, there is electronic music (not necessarily techno) that is as complex as Beethoven 9th. Specially if more avant-guarde electronic music is included, not just EDM.
Two people from different races can be way more similar genetically than two people from the same race. The concept of race was built over a long story of separating humanity in different ethnic groups, and then physical characteristics of some of those ethnic groups started slowing being adopted as a mean to show that those people are intrinsically different, but they are just an unimportant set of characteristics that does not convey important information from a genetic perspective, they gained social meaning through culture. The modern concept of race took form in the enlightenment, https://twitter.com/Limerick1914/status/757227361582608384, when the original western notion of which ethnic groups exists in the world was built into a racist anthropology.
That doesn't mean that "all lives matter" or we shouldn't talk about race. Race is a social construct, and as a social construct, it exists. Money is also a social construct. But, the concept of race makes no sense besides the social structure that was built on. That why different countries consider that the set of existing races is different, for instance, the only country that really considers "latino" a race is the US.
Going back to your question, the extinct humans actually had important biological differences, the different races have not.