have we stepped into a time machine or something? I thought it was common scientific knowledge that men also had biological clocks in that with age sperm numbers diminish and they slow down which directly affects the chances of a successful fertilization. this has been known for decades
It isn't common scientific knowledge because it isn't true. The fertility rate for men does flatten as they age, but at ages 40-50 it's only slightly lower than at ages 20-30. Successful fertilisation is actually common with 50+ year old males, while next to impossible with 50+ year old females.
With few exceptions (outliers) females have a sell-by date that starts at 30 and completes roughly ten years later when they are completely infertile. Men have a sell-by date that starts when they're 50 and frequently doesn't complete until death ends it.
In no way is the biological clock for women relatable to the one for men. With very few exceptions, men would be fertile their entire life.
She's simply weeding out the losers to find her soulmate. She is not destroying the relationship, she's simply not settling for less than she deserves.
Neither are men. That's the reason she's single and complaining about it on tumblr.
Whiny MGTOW's are checking out for sure, but honestly, everyone else is glad about that.
I also like how you invent bits of feminist ideology to be angry at.
Out of interest, are you one of the men who has checked out?
The shaming language stopped working. If it still worked younger men wouldn't be checking out. You can continue using it, it makes no difference as the shaming language is being ignored.
You throw histrionics while they are ignoring you and playing video games. Continue clutching pearls, they'll continue playing MMOs.
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
It's a narrative being sold because men are checking out. The odds are so slightly higher than they are almost insignificant.
The "story" being sold is due wholly to reality not matching feminist ideology, and almost all of these stories about how men have a biological clock are hyped to get men to play the game again.
The people like these researchers see young men not as people, but merely as tools that exist to serve their ends.
Society see's men this way - all through history in all civilisations ever recorded men are motivated to provide for the good of society using females as a reward. In recent times this has changed, hence male behaviour has changed.
Thus the researchers see any time young men spend on things that interest them rather than "being productive" as time being "stolen" from the society that owns them.
Because it is, in fact, theft from society. Males have always been a net contributor to society. It's only recently that this has changed. Expect the change to accelerate as it is un-PC to give consideration to men the way it is given to women.
I believe women (and the productive males) can pick up the slack and keep society going while providing an existence-only lifestyle for the rest of the males.
the one thing I do that I currently cannot really do on Linux or virtualized Windows is gaming.
1) We must live on different planets, because on the planet I live on, Linux has more games than I can possibly make time to play, and they work great.
If I could automate the production of software I'd have the worlds first actual AI.
I'm guessing you're in a dev-ops kinda position - you can automate just about everything there. Unfortunately I'm not in that position - I write software. I change existing software to behave the way the customer wants it to. I track down bugs based on ambiguous bug reports, then I fix them.
You clearly aren't doing any of that. Your job involves repetitive stuff, hence it can be automated. Good for you. My job, since the start of my career almost, involves producing new software. Sometimes from nothing other than project charter, sometimes by modifying existing software.
If you could write a script to decipher bug reports and feature requests, and then have the script write the software to implement those requests/fix those bugs, you'd put all the developers in the world out of business and make yourself richer than anyone else on the planet.
You haven't done this yet, so I'm guessing it's not possible for you, either;-)
So the UK has generations of staff who know of a Windows GUI, how to use some Windows productive apps and played computer games on Windows or early consoles.
So, the staff can handle the change from Windows classic interface to Windows 10, but they can't handle the change from Windows classic interface to KDE? Nor Gnome?
I'm afraid that the "trained in Windows UI" argument is well and truly lost - the smartphone take-up demonstrated without a doubt that people can easily pick up a new interface and use it.
How about using free software to begin with, the manpower argument is nil because you're spending more on keeping this old crap running.
Came here looking for this comment. Was not disappointed.
You know, all through the years a bunch of us pointed out that anything your office worker is doing on Windows can be done on a Linux desktop. We had little effect on those whining "But, but, but... training!!!!"
Well, the jump from Win7, to Win8, to Win10 is a lot greater than the jump from WinXP to KDE and guess what - your users managed to do just fine.
So now, to mitigate the security nightmare of literally unsupportable software you want to change to... temporarily supportable software? You know that this game will play itself out, again, in a few years, right?
At some point in the future you'll be sitting with security nightmare boxes all running Win10, and moaning about how you need more money to move off an unsupportable Win10 to the new temporarily supportable WinSwissCheese.
Move to Linux. "Unsupportable" software becomes "support it ourselves if need be". You can't do that now, with MS, and you cannot do that in the future, with MS.
Or, don't move - I'll still be around to say "I told you so", so at least I'll get to be all smug and stuff.
(NOTE: "Unsupportable" is different from "unsupported". The former is literally "Impossible to support" while the latter is "Vendor doesn't support it, but we can hire people to support it if need be")
Over the land they HAD? I mean I sympathize with them, and wish they never had to live these traumatic and racist events but please don't forget the historical perspective....
Historical perspective? White-owed farms in Zimbabwe were purchased from Robert Mugabes black government. You want to call all trades ever performed null and void?
Didn't you know? If driverless cars can't work 100% perfectly now, how will they ever do so in the future?
I mean, that is proper actual logic, that.
No. The "proper actual logic" (which, in a fit of irony, you appear to miss) is that it's premature to crow about the future existence of SDCs when computational power running SDCs was increased a thousandfold over two decades for a measly 1% increase in performance.
The only people who believe that SDCs are right around the corner are those who are not aware of all the SDC successes of the 90s. The current state of SDCs have them possessing less obstacle avoidance abilities than a cockroach.
For five years people like yourself have been whining that SDCs are only five years away. All the evidence says that the incremental improvements being made have already reached the point of diminishing returns - the extra expenditure of effort has not yet resulted in similar progress.
That's what I was wondering. Almost all the apps I use are free (only one I ever purchased was Monopoly), and I never upgrade to the paid pro edition that many advertize. Usually, whatever limitations they build into the free ones, I live w/.
Same here. The only app I have ever paid for was Words with Friends. I don't even remember how much it was, TBH, but it was low enough that I did not feel like I have to put up with advertising.
Why is it that it seems the most prolific GoFundMes I see on the local news or shared on Facebook are for Medical Care. Shared by people that are firmly against the Government helping do exactly what they're wanting.
In the same breath the see no Irony in saying: "You libs just want to steal my money to pay for people that need it, but please sponsor Grandma's cancer treaments!!!!"
You must be really stupid to consider that irony - you basically say that "those people" don't want to force others to contribute, they're asking for voluntary contributions. There is no inconsistency in that stance, and in fact it's the morally superior position: They are against forcing you to contribute to their welfare, instead they are asking nicely (and if that doesn't work they aren't proposing to force you to hand your money over).
You have to be a special kind of stupid to consider that wrong.
NOw...let's see if anyone will hire her now, after all of this....
She brought down a 'toxic' CEO, ok....but now, is she a bit 'toxic' too?
Depends, if a company with integrity is looking for an honest worker or a company then she'll have no trouble. If its a shoddy company with a corrupt culture, she should look elsewhere.
You make it sound like those are the only two options - the third type of company is far more numerous: a company that doesn't want problem employees. Most companies would rather have the victim resign and work elsewhere. A victim who fights back doesn't get employed at most companies.
This is still the case even if you own a house. Property taxes make it so that you will die in the street if you can no longer bribe the government to let you stay at your place.
I'd rather bribe the government than bribe a landlord who uses a fraction of that bribe to bribe the government. Even when you are renting, you're still paying the government because your landlord rolled it into the rental price.
The only time renting comes out cheaper is when you move every four years or less. If you're moving every five years or more, it's cheaper to buy.
An intelligent person will have a good idea what the courts will think of most proposals. Said person won't be right all the time, and won't be able to make a good guess on a few things, but will do a pretty good job of prediction.
And an intelligent person would predict that the court would, most of the time, uphold the law as it is written. That they did not do so in this particular case makes an argument *for* Trump, not against him.
That's nonsensical. At what arbitrary 'length of time' does something become an autopilot, then? 1 hour? 2 hours? 30 minutes? Depending on that, based on your own definition, one CAN say Tesla has an auto-pilot, and one CAN even say even on airplanes there is no autopilot.
No, the REAL issue here, was whether Tesla should call its system 'autopilot' seen the fact a driver who didn't respond at all at the warnings and apparently wasn't paying any attention and did nothing, crashed.
Well, use THAT analogy, then. An airline pilot doesn't respond at all anymore and ignores all warnings. How will the airplane, with it's 'autopilot' fare? No better than the Tesla car. you know it, and I know it. That it may take a while longer for the airplane to crash changes nothing. If the Tesla car had taken double as long to crash, you'd still be complaining and whining.
The one autopilot can go for 30 minutes to over an hour with human intervention, and is widely regarded as the definition of the word "autopilot". The other one cannot go for more than a few seconds before a warning is emitted. There is no basis to call the latter "autopilot".
Well, he would've been hired on as a tech lead, not just some random programmer. Understanding the problem space is probably hard, but not intractable for someone like him. He DOES have a PhD, after all. He might not be an expert in AI specifically, but he would've understood exactly how little he knew about the topic before he went in.
AI is intractable. Doesn't matter how good an engineer someone is if the problem is unsolvable.
It's also an economic fact that prices are constrained by costs
Only on the bottom end. On the top end it's constrained by what the market will bear. If the industry has a large margin then moving the labour won't make any difference to the price - they will still be set to what the market is prepared to pay.
And, like you pointed out, the relationship is more complex than that - moving the labour to the US might actually mean increased profits over the economy as a whole if the move lowers the unemployment and/or reduces the number of people receiving welfare.
Overall, though, moving the workforce to the US is going to be better than *not* moving the workforce to the US.
You can actually walk away from the autopilot in an aircraft for large periods of time.
Walk away permanently. The discussion is what happens if you become unconscious.
No - the discussion was "what does autopilot mean". And it means that you can leave it alone for large amounts of time. It means something different when Tesla uses that word, though. It means "fancy cruise-control with lane-assist".
Tesla should stop calling it autopilot if it cannot actually do what autopilots do.
Why would Trump promise things that would be difficult to pass in the courts? He was the one that was supposed to anticipate these issues, and it's not the court's fault.
If it was possible to tell what a court would decide before it decides it, why bother having courts? You look like a fool for suggesting that the outcome of a court decision is known in advance.
Because it named its feature "Autopilot", which means it's supposed to be able to pilot itself.
I'll make you a wager. You get on any airplane and turn on auto pilot and walk away.
You'll lose that bet. You can actually walk away from the autopilot in an aircraft for large periods of time.
Come talk to me after the plane lands itself when it's low on fuel and collect a million dollars.
Well, the Tesla can't automatically pull off the highway and drive to your house. It seems you want to redefine the word "autopilot" to mean "exactly what the Tesla does", rather than its current meaning of "What most aircraft autopilots can do".
Why would you think people would accept your new definition?
Followed immediately by pointing out that men over 45 are virtually guaranteed to have autistic children.
This narrative being sold is not currently supported by evidence. Certainly, men over a certain age have a higher probability to sire problem-children[1], but compared to women over a certain age the probability is so small it's a damn rounding error. You can safely ignore the probability.
[1] Meaning "Children with medical problems", obviously.
Slashdot Mirror
have we stepped into a time machine or something? I thought it was common scientific knowledge that men also had biological clocks in that with age sperm numbers diminish and they slow down which directly affects the chances of a successful fertilization. this has been known for decades
It isn't common scientific knowledge because it isn't true. The fertility rate for men does flatten as they age, but at ages 40-50 it's only slightly lower than at ages 20-30. Successful fertilisation is actually common with 50+ year old males, while next to impossible with 50+ year old females.
With few exceptions (outliers) females have a sell-by date that starts at 30 and completes roughly ten years later when they are completely infertile. Men have a sell-by date that starts when they're 50 and frequently doesn't complete until death ends it.
In no way is the biological clock for women relatable to the one for men. With very few exceptions, men would be fertile their entire life.
She's simply weeding out the losers to find her soulmate. She is not destroying the relationship, she's simply not settling for less than she deserves.
Neither are men. That's the reason she's single and complaining about it on tumblr.
Whiny MGTOW's are checking out for sure, but honestly, everyone else is glad about that.
I also like how you invent bits of feminist ideology to be angry at.
Out of interest, are you one of the men who has checked out?
The shaming language stopped working. If it still worked younger men wouldn't be checking out. You can continue using it, it makes no difference as the shaming language is being ignored.
You throw histrionics while they are ignoring you and playing video games. Continue clutching pearls, they'll continue playing MMOs.
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
It's a narrative being sold because men are checking out. The odds are so slightly higher than they are almost insignificant.
The "story" being sold is due wholly to reality not matching feminist ideology, and almost all of these stories about how men have a biological clock are hyped to get men to play the game again.
The people like these researchers see young men not as people, but merely as tools that exist to serve their ends.
Society see's men this way - all through history in all civilisations ever recorded men are motivated to provide for the good of society using females as a reward. In recent times this has changed, hence male behaviour has changed.
Thus the researchers see any time young men spend on things that interest them rather than "being productive" as time being "stolen" from the society that owns them.
Because it is, in fact, theft from society. Males have always been a net contributor to society. It's only recently that this has changed. Expect the change to accelerate as it is un-PC to give consideration to men the way it is given to women.
I believe women (and the productive males) can pick up the slack and keep society going while providing an existence-only lifestyle for the rest of the males.
Waah snowflake. You have no idea how lucky you are.
Yeah, and that's why men are checking out. They say "the deck is stacked against us" and society replies with shaming language. Then, they check out.
Working longer and harder is a choice, and yet here you are trying to shame them into fitting your expectations. Good luck with that.
the one thing I do that I currently cannot really do on Linux or virtualized Windows is gaming.
1) We must live on different planets, because on the planet I live on, Linux has more games than I can possibly make time to play, and they work great.
I don't care about your gaming faves, I care about mine. Sorry.
You're a software developer - automate your shit.
If I could automate the production of software I'd have the worlds first actual AI.
I'm guessing you're in a dev-ops kinda position - you can automate just about everything there. Unfortunately I'm not in that position - I write software. I change existing software to behave the way the customer wants it to. I track down bugs based on ambiguous bug reports, then I fix them.
You clearly aren't doing any of that. Your job involves repetitive stuff, hence it can be automated. Good for you. My job, since the start of my career almost, involves producing new software. Sometimes from nothing other than project charter, sometimes by modifying existing software.
If you could write a script to decipher bug reports and feature requests, and then have the script write the software to implement those requests/fix those bugs, you'd put all the developers in the world out of business and make yourself richer than anyone else on the planet.
You haven't done this yet, so I'm guessing it's not possible for you, either ;-)
So the UK has generations of staff who know of a Windows GUI, how to use some Windows productive apps and played computer games on Windows or early consoles.
So, the staff can handle the change from Windows classic interface to Windows 10, but they can't handle the change from Windows classic interface to KDE? Nor Gnome?
I'm afraid that the "trained in Windows UI" argument is well and truly lost - the smartphone take-up demonstrated without a doubt that people can easily pick up a new interface and use it.
How about using free software to begin with, the manpower argument is nil because you're spending more on keeping this old crap running.
Came here looking for this comment. Was not disappointed.
You know, all through the years a bunch of us pointed out that anything your office worker is doing on Windows can be done on a Linux desktop. We had little effect on those whining "But, but, but ... training!!!!"
Well, the jump from Win7, to Win8, to Win10 is a lot greater than the jump from WinXP to KDE and guess what - your users managed to do just fine.
So now, to mitigate the security nightmare of literally unsupportable software you want to change to ... temporarily supportable software? You know that this game will play itself out, again, in a few years, right?
At some point in the future you'll be sitting with security nightmare boxes all running Win10, and moaning about how you need more money to move off an unsupportable Win10 to the new temporarily supportable WinSwissCheese.
Move to Linux. "Unsupportable" software becomes "support it ourselves if need be". You can't do that now, with MS, and you cannot do that in the future, with MS.
Or, don't move - I'll still be around to say "I told you so", so at least I'll get to be all smug and stuff.
(NOTE: "Unsupportable" is different from "unsupported". The former is literally "Impossible to support" while the latter is "Vendor doesn't support it, but we can hire people to support it if need be")
Over the land they HAD? I mean I sympathize with them, and wish they never had to live these traumatic and racist events but please don't forget the historical perspective....
Historical perspective? White-owed farms in Zimbabwe were purchased from Robert Mugabes black government. You want to call all trades ever performed null and void?
Didn't you know? If driverless cars can't work 100% perfectly now, how will they ever do so in the future?
I mean, that is proper actual logic, that.
No. The "proper actual logic" (which, in a fit of irony, you appear to miss) is that it's premature to crow about the future existence of SDCs when computational power running SDCs was increased a thousandfold over two decades for a measly 1% increase in performance.
The only people who believe that SDCs are right around the corner are those who are not aware of all the SDC successes of the 90s. The current state of SDCs have them possessing less obstacle avoidance abilities than a cockroach.
For five years people like yourself have been whining that SDCs are only five years away. All the evidence says that the incremental improvements being made have already reached the point of diminishing returns - the extra expenditure of effort has not yet resulted in similar progress.
That's what I was wondering. Almost all the apps I use are free (only one I ever purchased was Monopoly), and I never upgrade to the paid pro edition that many advertize. Usually, whatever limitations they build into the free ones, I live w/.
Same here. The only app I have ever paid for was Words with Friends. I don't even remember how much it was, TBH, but it was low enough that I did not feel like I have to put up with advertising.
I love pissing in the pool and will never stop doing it.
If you stop doing it from the diving board fewer people will complain.
Why is it that it seems the most prolific GoFundMes I see on the local news or shared on Facebook are for Medical Care. Shared by people that are firmly against the Government helping do exactly what they're wanting.
In the same breath the see no Irony in saying: "You libs just want to steal my money to pay for people that need it, but please sponsor Grandma's cancer treaments!!!!"
You must be really stupid to consider that irony - you basically say that "those people" don't want to force others to contribute, they're asking for voluntary contributions. There is no inconsistency in that stance, and in fact it's the morally superior position: They are against forcing you to contribute to their welfare, instead they are asking nicely (and if that doesn't work they aren't proposing to force you to hand your money over).
You have to be a special kind of stupid to consider that wrong.
NOw...let's see if anyone will hire her now, after all of this....
She brought down a 'toxic' CEO, ok....but now, is she a bit 'toxic' too?
Depends, if a company with integrity is looking for an honest worker or a company then she'll have no trouble. If its a shoddy company with a corrupt culture, she should look elsewhere.
You make it sound like those are the only two options - the third type of company is far more numerous: a company that doesn't want problem employees. Most companies would rather have the victim resign and work elsewhere. A victim who fights back doesn't get employed at most companies.
This is still the case even if you own a house. Property taxes make it so that you will die in the street if you can no longer bribe the government to let you stay at your place.
I'd rather bribe the government than bribe a landlord who uses a fraction of that bribe to bribe the government. Even when you are renting, you're still paying the government because your landlord rolled it into the rental price.
The only time renting comes out cheaper is when you move every four years or less. If you're moving every five years or more, it's cheaper to buy.
An intelligent person will have a good idea what the courts will think of most proposals. Said person won't be right all the time, and won't be able to make a good guess on a few things, but will do a pretty good job of prediction.
And an intelligent person would predict that the court would, most of the time, uphold the law as it is written. That they did not do so in this particular case makes an argument *for* Trump, not against him.
That's nonsensical. At what arbitrary 'length of time' does something become an autopilot, then? 1 hour? 2 hours? 30 minutes? Depending on that, based on your own definition, one CAN say Tesla has an auto-pilot, and one CAN even say even on airplanes there is no autopilot.
No, the REAL issue here, was whether Tesla should call its system 'autopilot' seen the fact a driver who didn't respond at all at the warnings and apparently wasn't paying any attention and did nothing, crashed.
Well, use THAT analogy, then. An airline pilot doesn't respond at all anymore and ignores all warnings. How will the airplane, with it's 'autopilot' fare? No better than the Tesla car. you know it, and I know it. That it may take a while longer for the airplane to crash changes nothing. If the Tesla car had taken double as long to crash, you'd still be complaining and whining.
The one autopilot can go for 30 minutes to over an hour with human intervention, and is widely regarded as the definition of the word "autopilot". The other one cannot go for more than a few seconds before a warning is emitted. There is no basis to call the latter "autopilot".
Well, he would've been hired on as a tech lead, not just some random programmer. Understanding the problem space is probably hard, but not intractable for someone like him. He DOES have a PhD, after all. He might not be an expert in AI specifically, but he would've understood exactly how little he knew about the topic before he went in.
AI is intractable. Doesn't matter how good an engineer someone is if the problem is unsolvable.
It's also an economic fact that prices are constrained by costs
Only on the bottom end. On the top end it's constrained by what the market will bear. If the industry has a large margin then moving the labour won't make any difference to the price - they will still be set to what the market is prepared to pay.
And, like you pointed out, the relationship is more complex than that - moving the labour to the US might actually mean increased profits over the economy as a whole if the move lowers the unemployment and/or reduces the number of people receiving welfare.
Overall, though, moving the workforce to the US is going to be better than *not* moving the workforce to the US.
You can actually walk away from the autopilot in an aircraft for large periods of time.
Walk away permanently. The discussion is what happens if you become unconscious.
No - the discussion was "what does autopilot mean". And it means that you can leave it alone for large amounts of time. It means something different when Tesla uses that word, though. It means "fancy cruise-control with lane-assist".
Tesla should stop calling it autopilot if it cannot actually do what autopilots do.
Why would Trump promise things that would be difficult to pass in the courts? He was the one that was supposed to anticipate these issues, and it's not the court's fault.
If it was possible to tell what a court would decide before it decides it, why bother having courts? You look like a fool for suggesting that the outcome of a court decision is known in advance.
Because it named its feature "Autopilot", which means it's supposed to be able to pilot itself.
I'll make you a wager. You get on any airplane and turn on auto pilot and walk away.
You'll lose that bet. You can actually walk away from the autopilot in an aircraft for large periods of time.
Come talk to me after the plane lands itself when it's low on fuel and collect a million dollars.
Well, the Tesla can't automatically pull off the highway and drive to your house. It seems you want to redefine the word "autopilot" to mean "exactly what the Tesla does", rather than its current meaning of "What most aircraft autopilots can do".
Why would you think people would accept your new definition?
Followed immediately by pointing out that men over 45 are virtually guaranteed to have autistic children.
This narrative being sold is not currently supported by evidence. Certainly, men over a certain age have a higher probability to sire problem-children[1], but compared to women over a certain age the probability is so small it's a damn rounding error. You can safely ignore the probability.
[1] Meaning "Children with medical problems", obviously.