Open source would not be nearly as impressive as reproducible.

Yes, although is reproducibility even possible in polls? People's opinions change on a whim. In fact people's opinions can change simply because they were asked a question so the answer might be different if asked the question again,

I guess you could conduct the same poll with multiple sets of people and see how the results compare, but in a way that's what poll aggregators do.

Isn't the reasonable definition of reproducible for a poll having overlapping margins of error? A useful poll should do that.

The result is qualified, comparisons of results shouldn't ignore that.

It isn't arrogant to assume other people are at least as well read as you are. It would be arrogant to assume that they aren't.

It probably isn't if you're coming at the material for the first time, or after a long break. I took a 15-week course in Linear Algebra a few months ago, and we only covered about half the book in that time. I spent just about every weekend and evening doing those exercises. It's very time consuming.

However, if you gave me my old College Algebra book, I might be able to skim through it in a month of weekends and refresh myself on most of it, because I've used that stuff a lot in various jobs. Same goes for a lot of (but by no means all) programming books. I'm immersed in that stuff daily, so I can get through it pretty quickly.

Well, math really isn't a spectator sport. You have to do the work on your own, reading is only part of the work. A very time consuming hobby indeed.

It depends. I tend to remember a fair amount of material in math classes from just paying attention. I rarely explicitly study at all for math classes and when I do the results are mixed. Example: In calculus 2 there were all those annoying weird trig integral forms. I couldn't remember them all because it was like a new one arrived daily for a while. I set out to do practice problems with them but still didn't remember much and did poorly on parts of tests that required them. Other things like arc length, double integrals, integration by parts or integrating vertically instead of horizontally, all were just intuitive to me and I remembered them without trying to. I'm not sure how typical or not my results are but in general throughout school if I felt the need to study something and practice it, it was bad news, but if something made sense to me it stuck without much further effort.

I'll add on my own anecdote here, I'm a stats major and I've found that in my stats (as opposed to pure math) classes, I find the learning is very much done just by reading the book because every new concept is just an intuitive application of earlier ones, once introduced to the concept I can understand it even without working through the excercises.

In my more pure math classes (and admittedly in some topics like counting problems) I have to spend a lore more time doing exercises to actually have a grasp of the material. It's frustrating but that's just how life goes.

It can be if you make it. It has been about a decade since I finished coursework for my pure math degree, I do not work in mathematics, and I am enjoying mathematics more than ever just from reading books. I do not miss doing textbook exercises (evaluating integrals? computing determinants? I reach for Maxima or Wolfram Alpha), and am content with reading other people's proofs.

> Periodically over on Stack Overflow (and in many other programming forums) the question comes up about what books are good for programmers to read. The question has been asked and answered several times, in several different ways. The same group of books always seems to rise to the top...

That's not discrimination against young people because it's not saying that young people aren't allowed to ride the bus, just that they have to pay the regular price. (Also, most children in the U.S. are bused to school for free. Is that not the way it is in the UK?)

So, it's OK if normal seating is at the back of the buss, but white only premium seating is at the front?

What leap? You said normal vs premium was perfectly acceptable? Premium aircraft seating was at the front of the aircraft... How about if we call the back of the bus the 'premium area' and exclude whites?

PS: If you don't defend your argument, I am going to assume you already conceded defeat.

You're just twisting the words. Your way it's not discrimination to say that European people can ride the bus free but Asians have to pay?

[Aside: where we are the closest suitable [high] school must be more than 3miles away in order for you to get a free pass.]

Yeah, I'd hate to be exposed to eight more great films if they were made by women. /s

"...to a 5 year old" should be pretty safe. "...to your grandmother" could be construed as both sexist and ageist, so I'd avoid it.

Personally, I don't really see much of a difference. Some 5 year olds are better at $x than "grandmothers". So wouldn't "to a 5 year old" be ageist as well?

Use some common sense. For how many values of $x that would be the subject of an interview question are 5 year olds going to be better than grandmothers?

Your missing the point though: There's a reason the "non-technical grandmother" is a stereotype. By using "common sense", it makes sense to use that stereotype.

Please do advertise that since there's a reason for stereotypes, your company uses them in making hiring decisions. Let me know how that goes over.

I really don't think I'm getting your point. It's OK go stereotype for one group, but not another?

And yet, people still don't make a new pot when they take the last of the old.

If a bot can detect that you "don't buy feminist agenda," then it is evaluating based on content, not on sex or race.

The two can correlate, so "based on content" isn't enough, "based objectively/justifiably on content" is.

e.g What if the basis was about the non-/usage of gender-neutral pronouns?

That's all fine and good in an environment where people can actually come to physical harm, but this article is about academia. I think we need to stop excusing asshole behavior in academia and IT.