I teach windsurfing and i find my most important task for the first few lessons is to encourage people. It's so hard to do all the things at the same time right and it's easy to get discouraged falling in the water time and time again.

But it's totally fine to keep falling over and messing up. That's a normal part of learning. The trick is to see the fun in the messing up and trying. Someone screaming at you and being judgemental at such a time is the fastest way to kill your fun. I'm sorry that instructor did that to you.

I just want to encourage you to go out and play again, by yourself like you did before your lesson. See if you can find that fun. Don't let one jerk ruin it.

Yes. So? Amazon isn't recruiting nobel prize winning physicists.

It also ignores the question if there has been any bias in getting more men in positions where they can win a nobel prize. In general, if you are a man you are more likely to be told to pursue physics. You are less likely to feel like an outsider in your class and so continue in that career. You are more likely to get picked as a teachers assistant. You are more likely to get picked for a phd spot. You are more likely to get grants. You are more likely to get a job at the right universities where you can actually do the science. You are more likely to be mentored on your professional skills then in how to improve your softskills. You are less likely to be 'promoted' out of the field. You are more likely to be hired as professor who guides phd students, hence getting your name on a lot more work. There's a thousands points where bias can and does play a role. No wonder nobel prize winners are mostly men. There's hardly any woman left in the field at that point.

Also, this bias was even worse in the past and most nobel prizes are handed out based on relatively old research. 2022's nobel prize in physics was awarded for research done in the 1990's. Looking at the birthdates of the nobel prize winners there's hardly any that were born after 1950, even those who won recently. Women in 1950 definitely did not have the same options as men to get into physics.

And even IF 99% of nobel prize winners in physics would still be men if the playing field is completely level. Then still do you not want an algorithm that's biased because it will make you miss that 1% woman that you do want to hire.

That's not what happened though. The program was fed resumes of people that aplied in the years previously. Which was a very biased sample to begin with. We do not know for which outcome they trained this model, but it's not unlikely they trained that on people hired. So you can add bias of recruiters on top of the biased sample. This has nothing to do with actual performance.

You're just adding bias on bias which results in missing the better candidate. Even if the better candidate is often male, you don't want to miss out on those amazing woman.

Here's one story: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G

There's better sources out there, but this was the first google result :)

https://www.lifehack.org/317021/scientists-tell-you-why-making-your-bed-disgusting-and-bad-for-your-health

Which isa good thing. It lets your matress air and get rid of some of the moisture and other gunk in there. Same reason you shouldn't make your bed. Not because you have just one sheet though, that's weird. That takes the covers off in the morning and put something clean on at night.