> Any person acting as an official representative of the US government has many laws covering his communication with the public.
While I'm very sure this is not true, there's a distinct possibility that I'm just wrong. I would like finding any juris prudence (stare deceisis or statutory) that applies to all federal civil servants, in regards to communication (or just the POTUS, would be very cool). That would be handy in my discussions about civil discourse and would have wide-ranging ramifications, of which I am currently ignorant.
> They are alleging that the presidents twitter account is being used for official communications
I think the reasonableness of the assumption is rather obvious. It would not be advised to make effective communication equate to official communication, without potentially dire consequences (eg liability for misinterpretation/equivocation).
> As such, blocking Americans from it is probably not allowed.
Why? Exactly what right exists (in the US) that remotely implies this? What can be interpreted that any given member of any branch of the government has to see/read/listen to anything sent to them? I'm interested in this idea. Does every US postman, as a possible representative of the US gov also have to? The POTUS isn't a special man. He's in a unique position, which is not the same thing. Treating him as something more than he is, because of his civil position, is dangerous ground.
I'm interested in scientific studies that refute or at least clarify specific claims, in regards to neurobiology. However that article is full of links to books (see below) and makes the claim that because only testosterone is mentioned, it's the only biological factor that has deterministic merit. The structural and functional differences found between male and female brains, seems to be something Dr. Fuentes is unaware of? This is a questionable source, when cherry picking for a (nearly) unsubstantiated narrative.
Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA by Richard Lewontin, PHD "How is it that this book, indeed any science book, could earn such a title? The chief reason is that Lewontin recognises what few scientists do" This is code for "he doesn't have the science to back him up, but his theories suggest..." That being said, I subscribe to his view that neo-Darwinism is not sufficient to explain differentiation results, so I'm a little disheartened to see his views used to support a supposed sex-differentiation ideology discussion...in which neither side is an ideology (insofar as any or no answer, is idyllic).
Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World by Anne Fausto-Sterling, PHD Dr. Fausto seems to be an actual biologist, but has produced no science and lots of opinions on the issue of underlying biological sex differences. She tends to expand the 1-2% of intersex overlap into a general theory to apply to the rest of the population. She published a number of good papers on genetic components in-vitro, but as early as 1986 was publishing such opinionated gems as Good Science = Feminist Science, which characterize the entirety of her contributions toward the issues.
Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences by Cordelia Fine, PHD Dr. Fine has been revising and reworking her assertions for years, dutifully. This review of her work (as of 2010 - https://www.researchgate.net/p...) is quite detailed and she's made some excellent points. She also has no actual science, but has seen it sufficient to say what "might be true" as a critique to all the published science so far. None of her critiques constitute evidence, but are ideas worth exploring that might narrow the existing findings...assuming that researchers and reviewers have made some pretty serious oversights it should be a cursory exercise. I expect to see some of these ideas tested.
From the article, by Agustin Fuentes, PHD - "An evolutionary history clearly divided into women staying home caring for babies while the men made tools and hunted, both experiencing different evolutionary pressures, is not borne out by the available archeological and fossil evidence."
That was from a an Anthropologist PHD and may be subject to over-specification to reach that conclusion (what does "different evolutionary pressures" mean in context?). The recorded history is definitive, regardless. While it's not 100% true across space and time (http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/05/where-women-rule-the-world-matriarchal-communities-from-albania-to-china-3525234/), statistically, it's a near-certainty that any civilization in recorded time was divided into roughly these sexually differentiated groups, which was a result of AND reinforced the evolutionary roles (shape of the penis head being a particularly obvious one, mirrored to a grotesque degree in ducks).
I don't find this compelling, overall. Admittedly, Dr. Fine's work definitely has some issues worth testing out. YMMV
i.e. If I were in charge, the world would be perfect fallacy.
Intolerance dressed up in victimhood of some theoretical "peace treaty" you have imagined, is infant totalitarianism. Limited as it may be in your mind right now. Most telling is the "and more" addition, betraying your underlying derangement.
> Googles place of employment is NOT an open discussion platform.
Open and Honest Discussion is a heading of a section of the Google Handbook.
By gathering your employees to discuss topics out in the open, everyone is held accountable for their actions. This can be tough because it has the potential to put people in an awkward position, but this isn’t such a bad thing.
You are correct that it [Google as a company] is not a platform with that specific goal. That's why the memo was internally published. These happen ALL the time and are encouraged. You have a fuckton of people with advanced degrees who want to talk about topics and address all manner of issues (Google as a concept, is a cultural icon that has been codified into our language, for now).
I have to wonder if you understand what happens in the world at all.
Someone at the company pushed that out and is really getting away with serious damage to the company and american culture.
> Fossil fuel vehicles are phased out in three years worldwide, no matter where you go
What do you mean by phased out? How much do you want to bet that fossil fuel vehicles will not only still be produced, but used more than electric in 3 years worldwide? I will be happy to escrow a few thousand dollars on my prediction (that's all I can spare and I will use the winnings for financing an electric vehicle). We can use active US car registrations as a measure, if you really want to go forward.
How many US families (from a very wealthy nation) do you think have the economic capacity to buy new electric vehicles, much less 2 year depreciated ones? How many of those will there be? Where's the infrastructure to power these vehicles? I know where many electric stations are from San Diego, CA to the Oregon border but you drive right by a Tesla facility who made that happen. In the rest of the northwest US, not so much. India? Hah.
I don't think your statement is well considered. Perhaps you have a skewed idea of what humans will tolerate to maintain an illusion of normalcy (spoiler: almost anything short-term to avoid committing to change).
That's not settled in the slightest. It's an important question to ask, but assuming it without evidence is a leap of faith. What one might consider "common sense courtesy" is not sufficient to ignore the evidentiary reality. Certainly not the basis to claim the evidence doesn't exist.
> That's obviously not what he means > some of whom are hurting
So how are some people "hurting"? Someone had to have caused it, even if it was an unintentional causal chain of events. If I say something that brings up a concern or painful memory, that causes you [mental] anguish, am I at fault? Are the words I used at fault? Does there have to be someone at fault? Can you explain what you think was meant?
A memory can't hurt you. It's functionally you hurting yourself. Is offensive speech any different?
> men as thinking with the dicks.
Man, this is why I still read/. I really appreciate you pointing out such an excellent example. Culturally, we recognize the cliche as a component of the male psyche, but the topic doesn't manage to dominate every conversation as a causal issue. How do you imagine a female-neuroticism stereotype would be treated any different? Are these assertions overwhelmingly offensive, in context?
> How would you like someone to say this about your wife or gf? Wouldn't you be offended?
Said what? That women aren't as good at some things or men aren't as good at some things? Because that's the core of the contention, leading to the secondary issue of cultural corruption (using irrationality to attack rationality), which bothers me. Let's say I got offended at whatever. So what? We're both fine, thx for asking. I might ask her to quit and we would consider it. We might take a moment before eventually disregarding some words by a single human. They aren't useful and we move on, forgetting about it after a short time. Maybe we would look into the topics raised, then take a moment to disregard the evidence, which is not useful, and move on. We live in a world that's not just rational, but one that's primarily survival oriented. Things either help you, they are in your way, or they don't matter.
> You get paid to shut your mouth and give up liberteries 8 hours a day in exchange for a paycheck.
That is specifically incorrect and you know it. Liberties are not given up. Not even conceptually. That assertion, in the context of this discussion is particularly ironic. I'm not going to try to repurpose your own words, but I would advise that at least try to speak your own truth, without dressing it up in untruth.
I didn't mention the firing, since I am only concerned about the ideas, so this is really a nonsequitor anyway. Here I go. I think it's obvious he was fired to keep him from contribute to his articulated ideas. Google's administration doesn't (publicly) subscribe to them, but even allowing an employee that presented these idea to remain, might make him appear to be an agent of Google. *shrug* Basically fear and disgust. None of that changes the reality of the ideas in question.
> Telling 1/3 of your colleagues that they are not as biologically suited to working at your workplace as you are isn't violent, but it is hostile.
That's not what was said. It was proposed that biological factors (which give rise to psychological and social factors) would contribute or even explain a gender ratio imbalance. Please look into Finland, where the equality of opportunity has been achieved in a surprisingly progressive manner. The gender ratios in labor have grown farther apart, rather than lessened, in many industries that the opportunities were meant to correct.
> It's also contrary to the evidence
Please cite this evidence so I can tease out the nature of the hypothesis. I cannot fathom what you think you read. This fragment...which you go on to call irrational and stupid, is amusingly redundant. If the evidence existed, wouldn't it be rational to act on it? Even if the appropriate action was simply to articulate a descriptive narrative in a memo as possible causal factor to some perceived cultural problem?
Color me interested. Open dialog about sensitive topics is a tool that I'm grateful we have here, unlike those within Google.
> The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender.
This is particularly disturbing. EVERYONE is judged based on everything, down to subconscious eye movement. Words do not equate to violence and being offended is not something to avoid at the cost of others. What shockingly ignorant, backward thinking set of concepts.
Thanks for trying to regress the culture. No less, from a company founded on the monetizing the populist search for knowledge.
> should we ask if they could have survived w/o the handout?
No need to ask. They would not. Neither would the rest of the country. The dollar would have collapsed and the outcome, while uncertain, would not have been positive for most people across the US and many abroad.
The inevitable dollar crash was only postponed, again, by the visible hand of the federal reserve. Neither congressmen nor POTUS were directly involved in the decision, beyond choosing to publicly support it to maintain the status quo.
> That's what the author said, but I don't think there's much truth to it.
Not much truth to what? What do you base this "consideration" on?
> Yes, a lot of us are socialized to want competition, but is it really what we want
Yes, it is. It's a biological trait baked into every mammal (at the very least).
The fact you opted out at 30 is also something Peterson talks about (this applies to humanity at large, but focuses on females) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> Considering the modern scholars have pointed out that the "Southern Strategy" was a Democrat talking point,
Maybe you have confused the events. The Southern Strategy, did occur. The "The End of Southern Exceptionalism" argued it was ineffective (to an important degree), but not that it didn't exist, nor that it was totally ineffective.
You might want to listen to Lee Atwater's interview, who is more compelling than you or me or Johnson/Shafer.
> 1) are the TG folk mentally fit enough ? > 2) are the TG folk physically fit enough?
and...
3) Is acceptance of a non-bimodal gender scheme more costly (or complicated) than non-acceptance?
If you have an enlisted who changes gender based on a (legal or other determination) definition, what effect does that have in an operation? What accommodations have to be made for genders and how does that effect provisioning and existing materials? If you have to worry about composition of troops based on the % of transgender, how does that effect deployment? etc.
> there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law.
That's a philosophical determination, not a factual claim. When talking about "the good", it's important to set a standard so that it might be measured and some sort of determination can be made. The common good in terms of retaining or growing economic power for the average individual of a population? or what? In practice, the concentration of wealth has shown to have a negative impact on all strata of economic systems for many definitions of common good. Even when redistribution occurs, it's usually applied in a regressive manner, so it's hard to say what the proper remedy would even look like.
There is commensurate political power that comes with economic power, as with every economic system in history. This will never go anywhere for the political reason, not because politicians will come to their senses about some quasi-morality like "it's ok for the super-powerful super-wealthy organizations to be super wealthy".
> the culture here wants to believe there is some huge advantage to switching jobs every 30 months or so.
It's not just the culture, unless that culture is capitalism in information industries. Experience with skills are equated to proficiency in software usage/development everywhere. Now you have specific industry knowledge (of a potential competitor), shown a beneficial behavior (ability to stay employed), and proficiency. It's a huge salary advantage to jump every two or three years, which is why developers do it consistently. In other countries and localities this is just as commonplace (for the industries I'm familiar with overseas). The position hasn't usually changed, but the worker has. In addition to the marketable improvements to the individual, the company still needs someone to man the post for the original costing and it's common for the employees get complacent (reduced or limited efficiency without innovation). The Bay Area isn't special in what's typical human nature.
Those 122 compounds were over-representing publicly available products (over-the-counter), as opposed to medically regulated compounds. You would need more rigor for a study where the compound efficacy actually mattered. This doesn't make a general finding, across all classes of drugs so it feels a lot like misinformation. 25% difference in a beta blocker, glycerine, or blood thinner is a fatal change. These drugs are monitored with physical symptoms (metroprolol) and/or regular blood testing (sodium warfarin/heparin/lovenox). I know from experience that after a couple months the inert warfarin is unaffected, but the metroprolol is noticeably less effective.
One of the paradoxically interesting flameouts. The observation that nobody is attacking the EU, when the US would be vilified, is rather insightful on the surface.
Criticism is usually funneled to a US political body or a Corporation on slashdot. I can see how it might be a disturbing pattern to non-US readers. This is probably because the EU (as a whole) is too unfamiliar and fragmented to make casual connections, for the majority of readers. When talking about the US or US Corporations (although you sometimes see a random Monsanto or Alibaba, etc), there are existing insiders, an accessible history, and strong pre-existing viewpoints. Visitors want to read about and discuss topics they are able to relate to and reason about.
Beyond the blame, I think there's obvious self-injected bias of the poster. The focus on bigotry/pro-white? male-centric views is apt, if you analyze posts in a cursory way. Every/. reader, I know IRL, fits that stereotype so our views will often be framed from that perspective. From the first time I visited/. the bias toward a specific sexuality (specifically straight), was something that was refreshingly absent. I feel like that's just something the poster wants to be true.
Nothing is wrong with being frustrated by the state of/. I don't think there's anything to gain from trying to SJW the site into some equity of content. You're free to leave and find a subreddit you like better.
PHP5+ has been faster than any given version of Python. Ruby is the worst performer, consistently. I still find people who haven't benchmarked file processing or heavy business logic. It doesn't take much time to reveal performance gaps.
Slashdot Mirror
> Any person acting as an official representative of the US government has many laws covering his communication with the public.
While I'm very sure this is not true, there's a distinct possibility that I'm just wrong. I would like finding any juris prudence (stare deceisis or statutory) that applies to all federal civil servants, in regards to communication (or just the POTUS, would be very cool). That would be handy in my discussions about civil discourse and would have wide-ranging ramifications, of which I am currently ignorant.
> They are alleging that the presidents twitter account is being used for official communications
I think the reasonableness of the assumption is rather obvious. It would not be advised to make effective communication equate to official communication, without potentially dire consequences (eg liability for misinterpretation/equivocation).
> As such, blocking Americans from it is probably not allowed.
Why? Exactly what right exists (in the US) that remotely implies this? What can be interpreted that any given member of any branch of the government has to see/read/listen to anything sent to them? I'm interested in this idea. Does every US postman, as a possible representative of the US gov also have to? The POTUS isn't a special man. He's in a unique position, which is not the same thing. Treating him as something more than he is, because of his civil position, is dangerous ground.
I'm interested in scientific studies that refute or at least clarify specific claims, in regards to neurobiology.
However that article is full of links to books (see below) and makes the claim that because only testosterone is mentioned, it's the only biological factor that has deterministic merit. The structural and functional differences found between male and female brains, seems to be something Dr. Fuentes is unaware of? This is a questionable source, when cherry picking for a (nearly) unsubstantiated narrative.
Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA by Richard Lewontin, PHD
"How is it that this book, indeed any science book, could earn such a title? The chief reason is that Lewontin recognises what few scientists do"
This is code for "he doesn't have the science to back him up, but his theories suggest..." That being said, I subscribe to his view that neo-Darwinism is not sufficient to explain differentiation results, so I'm a little disheartened to see his views used to support a supposed sex-differentiation ideology discussion...in which neither side is an ideology (insofar as any or no answer, is idyllic).
Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World by Anne Fausto-Sterling, PHD
Dr. Fausto seems to be an actual biologist, but has produced no science and lots of opinions on the issue of underlying biological sex differences. She tends to expand the 1-2% of intersex overlap into a general theory to apply to the rest of the population. She published a number of good papers on genetic components in-vitro, but as early as 1986 was publishing such opinionated gems as Good Science = Feminist Science, which characterize the entirety of her contributions toward the issues.
Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences by Cordelia Fine, PHD
Dr. Fine has been revising and reworking her assertions for years, dutifully. This review of her work (as of 2010 - https://www.researchgate.net/p...) is quite detailed and she's made some excellent points.
She also has no actual science, but has seen it sufficient to say what "might be true" as a critique to all the published science so far. None of her critiques constitute evidence, but are ideas worth exploring that might narrow the existing findings...assuming that researchers and reviewers have made some pretty serious oversights it should be a cursory exercise. I expect to see some of these ideas tested.
From the article, by Agustin Fuentes, PHD - "An evolutionary history clearly divided into women staying home caring for babies while the men made tools and hunted, both experiencing different evolutionary pressures, is not borne out by the available archeological and fossil evidence."
That was from a an Anthropologist PHD and may be subject to over-specification to reach that conclusion (what does "different evolutionary pressures" mean in context?). The recorded history is definitive, regardless. While it's not 100% true across space and time (http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/05/where-women-rule-the-world-matriarchal-communities-from-albania-to-china-3525234/), statistically, it's a near-certainty that any civilization in recorded time was divided into roughly these sexually differentiated groups, which was a result of AND reinforced the evolutionary roles (shape of the penis head being a particularly obvious one, mirrored to a grotesque degree in ducks).
I don't find this compelling, overall. Admittedly, Dr. Fine's work definitely has some issues worth testing out. YMMV
> Nazis deserved to be silenced, and more
i.e. If I were in charge, the world would be perfect fallacy.
Intolerance dressed up in victimhood of some theoretical "peace treaty" you have imagined, is infant totalitarianism. Limited as it may be in your mind right now. Most telling is the "and more" addition, betraying your underlying derangement.
TY for pointing that out. Makes a lot more sense.
I think you meant 30. In that timeframe, I am not confident that the world will be able to avoid change.
> Googles place of employment is NOT an open discussion platform.
Open and Honest Discussion is a heading of a section of the Google Handbook.
You are correct that it [Google as a company] is not a platform with that specific goal. That's why the memo was internally published. These happen ALL the time and are encouraged. You have a fuckton of people with advanced degrees who want to talk about topics and address all manner of issues (Google as a concept, is a cultural icon that has been codified into our language, for now).
I have to wonder if you understand what happens in the world at all.
Someone at the company pushed that out and is really getting away with serious damage to the company and american culture.
> Fossil fuel vehicles are phased out in three years worldwide, no matter where you go
What do you mean by phased out? How much do you want to bet that fossil fuel vehicles will not only still be produced, but used more than electric in 3 years worldwide? I will be happy to escrow a few thousand dollars on my prediction (that's all I can spare and I will use the winnings for financing an electric vehicle). We can use active US car registrations as a measure, if you really want to go forward.
How many US families (from a very wealthy nation) do you think have the economic capacity to buy new electric vehicles, much less 2 year depreciated ones? How many of those will there be? Where's the infrastructure to power these vehicles? I know where many electric stations are from San Diego, CA to the Oregon border but you drive right by a Tesla facility who made that happen. In the rest of the northwest US, not so much. India? Hah.
I don't think your statement is well considered. Perhaps you have a skewed idea of what humans will tolerate to maintain an illusion of normalcy (spoiler: almost anything short-term to avoid committing to change).
> It's comparable in cause, but not in effect.
That's not settled in the slightest. It's an important question to ask, but assuming it without evidence is a leap of faith. What one might consider "common sense courtesy" is not sufficient to ignore the evidentiary reality. Certainly not the basis to claim the evidence doesn't exist.
> That's obviously not what he means
> some of whom are hurting
So how are some people "hurting"?
Someone had to have caused it, even if it was an unintentional causal chain of events.
If I say something that brings up a concern or painful memory, that causes you [mental] anguish, am I at fault? Are the words I used at fault?
Does there have to be someone at fault?
Can you explain what you think was meant?
A memory can't hurt you. It's functionally you hurting yourself.
Is offensive speech any different?
> men as thinking with the dicks.
Man, this is why I still read /. I really appreciate you pointing out such an excellent example. Culturally, we recognize the cliche as a component of the male psyche, but the topic doesn't manage to dominate every conversation as a causal issue. How do you imagine a female-neuroticism stereotype would be treated any different? Are these assertions overwhelmingly offensive, in context?
> How would you like someone to say this about your wife or gf? Wouldn't you be offended?
Said what? That women aren't as good at some things or men aren't as good at some things? Because that's the core of the contention, leading to the secondary issue of cultural corruption (using irrationality to attack rationality), which bothers me.
Let's say I got offended at whatever. So what? We're both fine, thx for asking. I might ask her to quit and we would consider it.
We might take a moment before eventually disregarding some words by a single human. They aren't useful and we move on, forgetting about it after a short time.
Maybe we would look into the topics raised, then take a moment to disregard the evidence, which is not useful, and move on.
We live in a world that's not just rational, but one that's primarily survival oriented. Things either help you, they are in your way, or they don't matter.
> You get paid to shut your mouth and give up liberteries 8 hours a day in exchange for a paycheck.
That is specifically incorrect and you know it. Liberties are not given up. Not even conceptually. That assertion, in the context of this discussion is particularly ironic. I'm not going to try to repurpose your own words, but I would advise that at least try to speak your own truth, without dressing it up in untruth.
I didn't mention the firing, since I am only concerned about the ideas, so this is really a nonsequitor anyway. Here I go. I think it's obvious he was fired to keep him from contribute to his articulated ideas. Google's administration doesn't (publicly) subscribe to them, but even allowing an employee that presented these idea to remain, might make him appear to be an agent of Google. *shrug* Basically fear and disgust. None of that changes the reality of the ideas in question.
> Telling 1/3 of your colleagues that they are not as biologically suited to working at your workplace as you are isn't violent, but it is hostile.
That's not what was said. It was proposed that biological factors (which give rise to psychological and social factors) would contribute or even explain a gender ratio imbalance. Please look into Finland, where the equality of opportunity has been achieved in a surprisingly progressive manner. The gender ratios in labor have grown farther apart, rather than lessened, in many industries that the opportunities were meant to correct.
> It's also contrary to the evidence
Please cite this evidence so I can tease out the nature of the hypothesis. I cannot fathom what you think you read. This fragment...which you go on to call irrational and stupid, is amusingly redundant. If the evidence existed, wouldn't it be rational to act on it? Even if the appropriate action was simply to articulate a descriptive narrative in a memo as possible causal factor to some perceived cultural problem?
Color me interested. Open dialog about sensitive topics is a tool that I'm grateful we have here, unlike those within Google.
> The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender.
This is particularly disturbing. EVERYONE is judged based on everything, down to subconscious eye movement.
Words do not equate to violence and being offended is not something to avoid at the cost of others.
What shockingly ignorant, backward thinking set of concepts.
Thanks for trying to regress the culture. No less, from a company founded on the monetizing the populist search for knowledge.
> should we ask if they could have survived w/o the handout?
No need to ask. They would not. Neither would the rest of the country. The dollar would have collapsed and the outcome, while uncertain, would not have been positive for most people across the US and many abroad.
The inevitable dollar crash was only postponed, again, by the visible hand of the federal reserve. Neither congressmen nor POTUS were directly involved in the decision, beyond choosing to publicly support it to maintain the status quo.
> That's what the author said, but I don't think there's much truth to it.
Not much truth to what? What do you base this "consideration" on?
> Yes, a lot of us are socialized to want competition, but is it really what we want
Yes, it is. It's a biological trait baked into every mammal (at the very least).
The fact you opted out at 30 is also something Peterson talks about (this applies to humanity at large, but focuses on females) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> Considering the modern scholars have pointed out that the "Southern Strategy" was a Democrat talking point,
Maybe you have confused the events. The Southern Strategy, did occur. The "The End of Southern Exceptionalism" argued it was ineffective (to an important degree), but not that it didn't exist, nor that it was totally ineffective.
You might want to listen to Lee Atwater's interview, who is more compelling than you or me or Johnson/Shafer.
> 1) are the TG folk mentally fit enough ?
> 2) are the TG folk physically fit enough?
and...
3) Is acceptance of a non-bimodal gender scheme more costly (or complicated) than non-acceptance?
If you have an enlisted who changes gender based on a (legal or other determination) definition, what effect does that have in an operation? What accommodations have to be made for genders and how does that effect provisioning and existing materials? If you have to worry about composition of troops based on the % of transgender, how does that effect deployment? etc.
> there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law.
That's a philosophical determination, not a factual claim. When talking about "the good", it's important to set a standard so that it might be measured and some sort of determination can be made. The common good in terms of retaining or growing economic power for the average individual of a population? or what? In practice, the concentration of wealth has shown to have a negative impact on all strata of economic systems for many definitions of common good. Even when redistribution occurs, it's usually applied in a regressive manner, so it's hard to say what the proper remedy would even look like.
There is commensurate political power that comes with economic power, as with every economic system in history. This will never go anywhere for the political reason, not because politicians will come to their senses about some quasi-morality like "it's ok for the super-powerful super-wealthy organizations to be super wealthy".
I wish I had +1 for you sir.
> the culture here wants to believe there is some huge advantage to switching jobs every 30 months or so.
It's not just the culture, unless that culture is capitalism in information industries. Experience with skills are equated to proficiency in software usage/development everywhere. Now you have specific industry knowledge (of a potential competitor), shown a beneficial behavior (ability to stay employed), and proficiency. It's a huge salary advantage to jump every two or three years, which is why developers do it consistently. In other countries and localities this is just as commonplace (for the industries I'm familiar with overseas). The position hasn't usually changed, but the worker has. In addition to the marketable improvements to the individual, the company still needs someone to man the post for the original costing and it's common for the employees get complacent (reduced or limited efficiency without innovation). The Bay Area isn't special in what's typical human nature.
Those 122 compounds were over-representing publicly available products (over-the-counter), as opposed to medically regulated compounds. You would need more rigor for a study where the compound efficacy actually mattered. This doesn't make a general finding, across all classes of drugs so it feels a lot like misinformation. 25% difference in a beta blocker, glycerine, or blood thinner is a fatal change. These drugs are monitored with physical symptoms (metroprolol) and/or regular blood testing (sodium warfarin/heparin/lovenox). I know from experience that after a couple months the inert warfarin is unaffected, but the metroprolol is noticeably less effective.
One of the paradoxically interesting flameouts. The observation that nobody is attacking the EU, when the US would be vilified, is rather insightful on the surface.
Criticism is usually funneled to a US political body or a Corporation on slashdot. I can see how it might be a disturbing pattern to non-US readers. This is probably because the EU (as a whole) is too unfamiliar and fragmented to make casual connections, for the majority of readers. When talking about the US or US Corporations (although you sometimes see a random Monsanto or Alibaba, etc), there are existing insiders, an accessible history, and strong pre-existing viewpoints. Visitors want to read about and discuss topics they are able to relate to and reason about.
Beyond the blame, I think there's obvious self-injected bias of the poster. The focus on bigotry/pro-white? male-centric views is apt, if you analyze posts in a cursory way. Every /. reader, I know IRL, fits that stereotype so our views will often be framed from that perspective. From the first time I visited /. the bias toward a specific sexuality (specifically straight), was something that was refreshingly absent. I feel like that's just something the poster wants to be true.
Nothing is wrong with being frustrated by the state of /.
I don't think there's anything to gain from trying to SJW the site into some equity of content.
You're free to leave and find a subreddit you like better.
That's just my .02
> a search engine log is thought by most to be simply an interface to find something out, instead of an ironclad Log Of Your Intentions
Thank you for the succinct insight.
> That might explain what happened to Detroit.
But it doesn't, because it didn't contribute meaningfully. This is a case of revisionist FUD modded as insightful.
PHP5+ has been faster than any given version of Python.
Ruby is the worst performer, consistently.
I still find people who haven't benchmarked file processing or heavy business logic.
It doesn't take much time to reveal performance gaps.