>Either the studies are not confounded as the author claims, or drivers giving cyclists less space is not the problem he thinks it is because those cyclists are actually safer cyclists.
mm, I think you missed something here -- It is always a bad thing for a car to give a cyclist less space. Even if a cyclist wearing a helmet is more likely to be a safer cyclist, giving that cyclist less space is dangerous. It doesn't matter if the cyclist is a safer rider than most -- what matters is that the driver may _think_ the cyclist is a safe rider because of the helmet, and so may give the cyclist less space.
"I seriously didn't think it would work at all but to my surprise it did so I put my phone along side my $500 Valentine detector and they both went off same time"
The thing that sets Jawbone apart from other health wearables companies is how much Jawbone has embraced the idea of providing insights to its customers.
The next iteration of these devices (Basis Peak, Jawbone up3, whatever fitbit comes up with) will no longer be just about quantifying your physical life. With more data comes an increased ability to make inferences about your behavioral patterns, and that's going to be the killer feature of the future.
The first company that actively tries to answer how to instigate real behavioral change in its users through notifications, insights, and other motivational tools will be the first to make fitness wearables ubiquitous devices.
Of course, the band has to be actually _wearable_, too.
Jawbone is doing both of these things, faster than the competition.
Basis is _just_ starting to try and do insight work, after years of perfecting their sensor infrastructure. Fitbit is a toy in comparison, and afaik they haven't even touched doing inference work on small individual user data.
The insights I get from Jawbone now suck, but they're doing those with _just my steps and sleep_. Who knows what will become apparent with my heart rate and automatic activity identification.
this is a likely side effect of selling user data to data brokers or data co-ops, where companies sell individual user data to a larger user database that's accessible to all companies in the co-op or that pay for the data broker's services.
an interesting case of 'who owns what' in terms of user data. You created the data - does that mean you own it? does it mean you should have a right to delete all record of you or that data for a service?
I wonder when the productivity benefit to ATK employees will outweigh the $$ they spent paying you to make this.
It actually would have been very interesting to poll employees and get data on 'failed bathroom trips' per day per employee before you finished the project.
From there, you could extrapolate the (supposed) daily productivity increase and do things like plotting the $$ or minutes saved per day on the screen.
Well aside from the fact that most of this development was done in my free time, I can say personally it's saved my a good amount of frustration and time. Hard to really quantify though.
Not yet... We don't price enough properties yet for it to make a significant change to city wide prices, but hopefully that's a problem we have to deal with.
I use seafile as well - I host it on my digital ocean instance and it works very well and things sync very quickly.
best part is that it does automatic, granular snapshots of my data - I've stopped using git for things like papers because I know it's backed up in seafile.
I get furious at the types of comments that plague these submissions to hacker news.
usually it starts when someone submits an article that in some way holds society at large accountable for things like the lack of women in STEM, or someone’s difficulty in entering the “hacker” or “maker” culture.
this article hits both targets really well. and, like clockwork, the top comment does the following:
1. immediately suggests that it’s absurd that the author could blame society in any way for her difficulty/inability to enter the field of computer science.
2. uses his now-accepted theory that it is always, unfailingly, willpower (and only willpower) that prevents one from doing anything to basically posit that sexism doesn't exist (because it's all willpower). he implies that sexism in tech is a fault of a character flaw - impressionability
3. completely invalidates the concept and social power of identifying as part of a larger group. this guy is so privileged and used to identifying as a “hacker” that he can’t even comprehend the concept that someone might want to identify as a hacker (but have trouble doing so, say, because of comments like this)
if it’s not something like the above, it’s a comment that completely ignores the content of the article, and nit-picks about something like what the author _actually_ meant by the term “hacker” (which, if it was spoken by a man, would most likely not raise such questions)
I know I'm spitting venom, but I see this stuff so often and say nothing...I felt like it was necessary here.
I really don't see how you are countering or disproving anything I said, you aren't bringing forth any own arguments for a meaningful discussion, which you yourself admit.
2. If you would supply an argument or article or lines of reasoning to what exactly "sexism" is in the tech field and how this hampers the individual in pursuing ones interested I would be thankful. In my view only the law dictates what you can and can't do, anything else is choice.
3a. I recognize that people want to belong to a group, but I personally find it weak and ultimate foolish to let ones life be dictated by groups. I guess it is more important in the US were you have hundreds of school student groups for every interest available.
I find the word "hacker" to be a childish Anglo-Saxon world word used for group identifying and I would never call myself a hacker, I am nordic country based.
3b. Well if you would consider someone who grew up out of the city with one parent working at factories as privileged I let you stand for that definition.
Thank you for saying something this time. I agree this "impressionability is a character flaw" business is bull. As if reacting badly to other people behaving negatively toward you and excluding you is something only worthless people do. As if humans don't have profound effects on other humans through their words and actions. As if the author is somehow above being in anyway influenced by other humans. I'm sure he's not, but he wants you to think so.
So much talk about games and making an appearance. I assure you that I don't care either way what your opinion is of me.
It is always choice to handle your reaction.
Also you are strawmanning, it is a far cry from that society didn't actively shove a computer and a programming book to you as a child and people behaving negatively towards you.
mm, I think you missed something here -- It is always a bad thing for a car to give a cyclist less space. Even if a cyclist wearing a helmet is more likely to be a safer cyclist, giving that cyclist less space is dangerous. It doesn't matter if the cyclist is a safer rider than most -- what matters is that the driver may _think_ the cyclist is a safe rider because of the helmet, and so may give the cyclist less space.