Hacker News: crackercrews

New comment by crackercrews in "Book prizes don't work how you think"

crackercrews — Sat, 18 Jul 2026 07:27:03 +0000

> And second, this really come across as hidden

It's easy to win arguments when you get to put words in the other person's mouth. Congratulations! Victory is yours!

New comment by crackercrews in "Book prizes don't work how you think"

crackercrews — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 02:16:13 +0000

It does not explicitly admit it, and seeing the quotes pulled separately make it harder to infer. But it's pretty clear when read in context that she's admitting that diversity is being factored into the longlists (which of course play a huge role in which books eventually win).

Are these quotas or just nudges? It's hard to say. But I've been in the room when decisions like this were made, by institutions that are legally barred from even considering race. But in reality, race wasn't just part of the decision, it was determinative.

New comment by crackercrews in "Book prizes don't work how you think"

crackercrews — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:53:33 +0000

I think she's missing the point here. First she says:

> Every couple of years, someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about complains publicly that judging panels are picking books based on wokeness or diversity quotas or some other nonsense.

OK, so the judging panels are not picking books based on diversity quotas, cool. But then she admits that the longlists are subject to diversity quotas:

> It’s true that longlists don’t look like they used to. This might have to do with prize committees themselves finally diversifying, which means a broader variety of opinions and tastes. And it might have to do with all of us preferring books that, you know, do not sound like every other book we’ve read.

> It turns out that when we read broadly and fairly, it’s no longer true that 95% of prizes go to straight white men, go figure.

To be honest, I don't pay much attention to book prizes, but I'm well aware of claims that it's not just that "white men don't get 95% of prizes anymore" but rather that in some cases, white men are not included at all, despite making up a fairly large chunk of the population. For example, apparently no white men born in the last 40 years have published literary fiction in the New Yorker. [1]

Are there book prizes with similar track records? I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that whoever is deciding on publishing at the New Yorker is probably pretty similar to the people handing out book awards.

1: https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-vanishing-white-male-...

New comment by crackercrews in "The California state assembly has passed the 'Protect Our Games Act'"

crackercrews — Fri, 29 May 2026 23:00:50 +0000

Seeing this headline I thought it was about AB Hernandez. Guess I should have realized the assembly would not have passed such a bill.

New comment by crackercrews in "Bitwarden scrubs 'Always free' and 'Inclusion' values from its site"

crackercrews — Fri, 15 May 2026 19:25:47 +0000

> Bitwarden has also stopped listing “Inclusion” and “Transparency” as tentpole values on its careers page.

I'm pretty sure I have never cared about what values a company listed on its careers page, unless I am considering working there.

New comment by crackercrews in "Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent"

crackercrews — Thu, 14 May 2026 21:13:27 +0000

Unless I missed something, no one ever addressed the original question, which is how we know the policy was enforced along racially discriminatory lines. This requires knowing the extent of cheating in various racial groups and the extent of enforcement in each group. No evidence of the former has been presented.

Even if most of the people who were disciplined are from URM groups, that doesn't prove racially-biased enforcement.

New comment by crackercrews in "Wash Post: "Trump's Attack on DEI May Hurt College Men, Particularly White Men""

crackercrews — Mon, 08 Dec 2025 17:09:59 +0000

Is it mitigated where the article is a discussion of coverage of Trump, rather than just ranting (in either direction)? This article was pretty nuanced, IMO.

New comment by crackercrews in "Wash Post: "Trump's Attack on DEI May Hurt College Men, Particularly White Men""

crackercrews — Mon, 08 Dec 2025 17:03:41 +0000

The author makes a good point about how dating dynamics vary based on gender balance. There was a recent study that showed how much more power men have in the dating/hookup scene when there are more women, and how much less women like/trust men under these circumstances. Even if women are put at a disadvantage in the admissions process, there may be a net benefit to women (who end up attending) because they have more power in the dating market.

Wash Post: "Trump's Attack on DEI May Hurt College Men, Particularly White Men"

crackercrews — Mon, 08 Dec 2025 17:01:45 +0000

Article URL: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/12/08/washington-post-trumps-attack-on-dei-may-hurt-college-men-particularly-white-men/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46194725

Points: 7

# Comments: 5

New comment by crackercrews in "Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?"

crackercrews — Sat, 06 Dec 2025 00:11:45 +0000

The autism part was only millions, I believe.

New comment by crackercrews in "Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?"

crackercrews — Fri, 05 Dec 2025 05:18:11 +0000

Who said it was scary? I just said there's been a spike in diagnoses.

It did cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and I assume that only a fraction of that will ever be repaid by the perpetrators.

New comment by crackercrews in "Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?"

crackercrews — Fri, 05 Dec 2025 03:25:47 +0000

I was referring to the social services scandal that is rocking the state of Minnesota, and which involved fake autism diagnoses. [1]

1: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/09/24/feeding-our-future-...

New comment by crackercrews in "Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?"

crackercrews — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 23:24:16 +0000

A swing and a miss. Note the geographic specificity and give it another go?

New comment by crackercrews in "Why are 38 percent of Stanford students saying they're disabled?"

crackercrews — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 22:44:03 +0000

The rate of autism diagnosis is really off the charts in MN these days...

New comment by crackercrews in "We're bringing Pebble back"

crackercrews — Wed, 29 Jan 2025 04:08:40 +0000

I stand corrected. [1] Google owns the name Pebble.

1: https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/27/24352968/pebble-smartwatc...

New comment by crackercrews in "We're bringing Pebble back"

crackercrews — Tue, 28 Jan 2025 18:52:07 +0000

It's unclear that they sold the trademark in the first place.

New comment by crackercrews in "We're bringing Pebble back"

crackercrews — Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:09:40 +0000

Some can stream music over BT. If you want notifications you can get a cellular model or connect to wifi. But many people want to be left alone in the gym so would stay disconnected.

New comment by crackercrews in "Are Americans' perceptions of the economy and crime broken?"

crackercrews — Sun, 26 Jan 2025 19:20:25 +0000

Do any of these sources adjust for the fact that people are not reporting crime in many places? When prosecutors don't enforce, police don't investigate, and people don't report crimes.

New comment by crackercrews in "Ask HN: Why are banks charging so many fees for accounts and cards?"

crackercrews — Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:39:22 +0000

Automatic payments make banks sticky. Once you have your credit cards and utilities paid off with a particular account, you're probably not leaving.

New comment by crackercrews in "Ask HN: Why are banks charging so many fees for accounts and cards?"

crackercrews — Sat, 25 Jan 2025 20:37:48 +0000

Because a small number of checks have been free for many decades. They cost almost nothing to print. But banks now charge $20 for a small box. Add another $10 for shipping.

I don't use checks often but have to buy a box in order to have >0.