> It’s also mighty interesting how it’s always the male division that’s open, until you happen to have a sport where women are beating men at it, and then suddenly it’s the women’s division that’s the open one! (See shooting.)
Just in case you're referring to Zhang Shan winning Gold in 1992: the decision to bar women from competing in the 1996 Olympics was made before Zhang had won her medal. [0]
> Until men with genetic anomalies are equally banned from sports (for example, being an outlier in height for basketball)
We don't have height categories, we have categories based on sex. We have categories based on sex because there are physical difference caused by difference in sex that lead to advantages in sports competitions. As such, people who have physical advantages over others based on their difference in sex (e.g. going through male puberty vs. female puberty) shouldn't be able to compete in the category created to protect participants from precisely those differences.
I would argue that it's the formerly presumed binary nature of sex/gender that made it a logical split for all sports. While marital arts and weightlifting tend to seperate by weight as well, that is because those particular events are particularly biased toward muscle mass and height/reach by proxy. Most sports are less clearly advantaged by size (soccer, for example). You just can't practically divide entire team sports by gradations of height, because there aren't enough players in a school for more than a few squads.
If you wanted to divide by height or weight in a binary fashion to reduce the number of teams, then obviously you'll just have some sports where everyone in the under-6' team is 5'11.5, which seems not optimal and unfair.
The sports in which I’ve competed — cross country cycling and cross country running — also have handicaps for age. I always liked that type of system because it also gives both the open results and results by category, and there are lots of categories. W20 can thrash an M30, and plenty of M20s too, even if the overall winner is likely to be an M20.
It was simplistic for sure but gender identity was only a proxy for the handicap that impacted performance: the genetic disadvantage of not having been through a natural male puberty. If we can no longer rely on gender identity as the proxy then it makes sense to either drop the handicap system altogether, or refine it to look at the performance enhancing impact of genetics rather than what your pronouns are.
> We don't have height categories, we have categories based on sex.
I mean, we do have weight categories in combat sports, right? I don't see why we couldn't come up with similarly neutral categories if we think it's good to segment people out by physical advantages. The parent comment is making a good point, though: it feels like some people care a lot about physical advantages that map onto gender stuff they care about, and not a lot about weird genetic anomalies that provide physical advantages that aren't gendered.
We could do that! I'm just trying to say that given categories based on (biological) sex, we should find some criterion based on biological sex to sort people into said categories, which the OC decision seems to do (at least better than the alternatives I have encountered). I don't have a problem at all with finding different ways of defining categories for competitions.
Re: anomalies - I think this is just unavoidable in any sort of category system, and I don't have a good solution for it except to consider frequency and severity.
> Why does anyone need to know what order you’re going to present things in.
I agree with the sentiment, and many talks do this really badly ("Here is our outline, we start with an introduction, and end with a summary"), but it is worth mentioning that the alternative isn't no structure at all, but trying to convey a bigger picture to your audience for them to anchor each section in once you actually start your talk. This could be done like the OP suggests ("Just tell people the key idea upfront"), but there are other ways: instead of telling people the end result, tell them the question you set out to answer, and present your talk as this journey. look at the same thing/topic through different lenses/perspectives. Present a rough outline of a proof you are going to go through, or a case study you are about to present before going through the details sequentially.
> How does one become a good collaborator? The golden rule: Do not block.
Not only is this great advice for effective collaboration, it is also a very nice habit to have in any place where people's impression of your ability determines your future (career) trajectory
The key is that 1 and 3 shall have a suitable proportion of length to 2. Bad presentations just rattle down the index point by point. That sucks. The introduction is there to tell them what they will hear, some of the context needed to understand it and why it matters. It is best to see this as a way to make the crowd perceptible for the actual content, a bit like everything that happens at a good restaurant before the main dish is served.
This doesn't mean you need to give away the most interesting bits (results) in the beginning. But it would be good to tease them a little by focusing on the question, or surprising factoids that emerged through the research. Ask yourself the question whether the introduction serves the middle part and if it does not, adjust it or remove it.
In the end there are infinite ways to structure a presentation, the most important bit is to know the purpose of each part and then ensure the part fullfills it.
I'm a director at the Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems. Prior to joining the institute, I was Associate Professor for Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley. My research contributes to the scientific foundations of machine learning and algorithmic decision making with a focus on social questions.[0]
Also simply knowing of him doesn't answer the question.
This looks pretty cool! However I feel that if the README starts with "Drop-in replacement for X", it should also start with "Why use this over X".
I do like the idea of saving prompts for projects like these (Which is also where the above question is answered: "Creating an MIT-licensed wrapper around Moto that has 100% feature parity with Localstack." [0] Which (i assume) is motivated by the recent changes to Localstack's distribution model [1])
I thought that line was kind of funny: When a CI run fails, you don't rerun it and wait for the result, you rerun it and check why the original run failed in the meantime. Is it flaky? Is it a pipeline issue? Connectivity issue? Did some Key expire?
If you just rerun and don't go to find out what exactly caused CI to fail, you end up at the author's conclusion:
extensive tracking of self-related metrics to improve ones health is the equivalent to reading tons of self-help books to improve ones life/social skills/...
We already mostly know what makes people happy/healthy: personal connections, physical activity, healthy diet and some sort of purpose/goal in life that goes beyond day-to-day activities.
The problem is that these things generally require (hard) work and can be unpleasant sometimes, so humans do what humans do and spend unreasonable amounts of time doing the more pleasant things such as reading and gathering info rather than applying these and what they already know.
(That's not to say that a project like this can't be fun or lead to insights, especially across longer time spans, but i feel like all of the questions in the first paragraph have fairly obvious answers if you know yourself at all, that don't require extensive tracking of stats to get)
> Tickets are sent via PDF for trains running 3 hours late
I agree that the delays are unacceptable, but the official app is great w/ digital tickets + seat registration, you don't need the PDF at all (it's even optional during checkout, so if you don't like them you can just uncheck the box lol)
Just in case you're referring to Zhang Shan winning Gold in 1992: the decision to bar women from competing in the 1996 Olympics was made before Zhang had won her medal. [0]
> Until men with genetic anomalies are equally banned from sports (for example, being an outlier in height for basketball)
We don't have height categories, we have categories based on sex. We have categories based on sex because there are physical difference caused by difference in sex that lead to advantages in sports competitions. As such, people who have physical advantages over others based on their difference in sex (e.g. going through male puberty vs. female puberty) shouldn't be able to compete in the category created to protect participants from precisely those differences.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Shan#cite_ref-nyt_4-0
reply