For people who frequently post text add linguistic fingerprinting and coincidence detection (ie. you discuss the same subjects in different places in the same contexts/timeframe).
AI won't be able to drive a car any time soon, but associating the identity of a frequent forum poster across multiple forums is pretty easy for them.
No, I'm saying that companies discriminate above and beyond that for the very rational reason that people from under-represented protected classes represent a risk to the company come firing time. At will employment laws don't really help in that regard, since the civil rights act pre-empts it.
"In fact, on average, damages are probably relatively low in hiring cases, reinforcing incentives to avoid hiring protected-class members and to risk lawsuits from applicants rather than employees"
Of course none of this is official policy, ever said out loud, or even admitted to themselves by people in these companies a lot of the time. We in the west are very good at maintaining culpable deniability at all times. That's why the only way to really get a given statistical distribution you think is fair is to punish companies based purely on statistical evidence, as happens with companies fulfilling federal contracts as the book points out. Do you really want this level of central planning for the economy in general though?
All companies virtue signal. Most successful IT companies hire young White and Asian men because IQ matters, they are easy to mould and abuse and you generally don't get much shit if you have to fire them.
The cost of statistically indicated discrimination at the moment is lower than the alternative. Brian Reid being a case in point. Civil lawsuits are a lottery fought on feelings as much as facts and the media shapes the feelings to presuppose discrimination when there is no equality of outcome. So when reality forces inequality of outcome the odds are stacked against. Better to not employ them in the first place and avoid the risk.
There are two obvious ways to fundamentally change this. Force companies to have an racial/age/gender profile within some deviation of a government mandated one or repeal the civil rights act and make discrimination by private industry legal. Or we can just muddle on and have companies virtue signal while Bayesian optimizing around all this shit as best they can. They all have unpalatable consequences, reality sucks.
That is actually a valid concern, a company which handles their internal communications through VOIP and a PBX are now reliant on Apple. I trust in avarice though, the risk of harming their brand represents far more money than the peanuts they could pick up with fucking around with the metadata. They make their money selling hardware, not their customers.
By getting all the push messages into the same paging cycle of the mobile data network you can save a bit of energy and they can track apps which are programmed by morons and push too much shit. That's almost certainly the reason they are doing it.
I don't really see the problem with Apple (and Google too) forcing developers to use their push framework to be able to wake up on demand from network traffic.
That said, if they simply use a blocking call on a socket the OS can go to sleep just as deeply as it can when it's all routed through the single push service.
Libertarians have no political power, why would he donate?
He's libertarian in that he believes in feudalism with him on top, with feudalism obviously being the only time in history when libertarianism was practiced that makes him a libertarian.
I see you shilling. Anything except off block chain payments is fucking around in the margins, it's the only thing which can have a big impact.
Pushing increased block size forward is just a silly distraction, that was going to happen eventually any way. This is all about ASIC miners protecting their investment.
They can always go to the law regardless, this is for when they don't but want to get their pound of flesh in PR damage to the company.
He said she said cases are hard to prove after all. Especially for the company, since if they decide to punish someone based on thin air they are liable, their due diligence has a higher burden of evidence than a civil jury trial... a jury has no liability at all, they can perpetrate injustice with impunity. Going after the women for slander when they say the company does nothing about sexual harassment in unprovable cases is bad for PR though... this is an an alternative.
The labor is more valuable because it's more productive, but that increased productivity per worker is incompatible with full employment if consumption doesn't grow 1:1 with it. Peak consumption due to natural resource limits presents a problem.
There are good odds that government will make a huge shift to the left, Bernie got close to presidency and Zuckerberg is pushing universal income. If that ever came to pass your paper wealth would be reduced massively, yet the equation production = consumption(+storage+spoilage) remains a simple fact.
There is a qualitative difference between bookkeeping and facts of economic reality.
When you say "cost" you are book keeping. You might see the rents on your financial capital and real estate as a moral absolute, but what paper gives, the state can take away with the stroke of a pen. Someone can always be found to declare that absolutely moral too.
Unlike the amount of rent you are due untaxed in the future, the equation production = consumption(+storage+spoilage) is simply a fact.
They are a first world country, the level of consumption is already orders of magnitude more than most of the world. Having to dedicate more GDP to elderly care rather than consuming so much luxury is hardly a problem. It will not make them poor compared to most of the world, just less obscenely rich.
Unlike say Europe they are also less in competition for their best and brightest with foreign countries.
I disagree, I see labour shortage due to the black death and the subsequent rise in political power of the lower classes which they never relinquished again as the end of feudalism.
The value of most labour is dropping into the mud again, putting all the power back with the property owners. Democracy could in theory balance that, but the owners have some strategies to combat that. On the one hand multiculturalism and mass immigration, to make the masses an internally divided mess easily manipulated by the media they own. On the other locking down their power with international foreign investment protection treaties (aka trade treatues) and with foreign investor protection courts (aka ISDS).
Until they can build their robot armies and dispense with all that cloak and dagger staff.
Races, religions and cultures which are secure in their identity don't need or want to be coddled. They find that shit cringeworthy at best or misguided at worst.
Western liberal society makes fun of the Amish nearly non stop, doesn't make them terrorists. IS members by and large don't give a shit about whether you praise Islam either, they want your total submission.
Your tokenism does nothing except confuse the issue and cloud your vision to the reality of the current ME and the fact that it's the opposite of everything you want for society, yet somehow importing more people from there will improve matters if you just cuddle them more. Liberal insanity.
If you feel you have to treat them like children to keep them from terrorism you should worry less about making them feel good and more about keeping them far away.
Actually I retract that statement, you aren't really bad at googling. You just refused to follow up the information in the Telegraph article, which would have easily led you to the Al Jazeera interview, to find out he was factually correct. Instead you took the relatively few number of times the truth leaked out in the mainstream media as a proxy to disprove it.
Any government or big company should just hand out secure locked down devices for intranet only use (no web browsing, no USB, no nothing) with hardware VPN.
Small cost compared to the shit caused by even a low impact hack.
Slashdot Mirror
They are entitled to a refund.
They won't get it, but they are entitled.
For people who frequently post text add linguistic fingerprinting and coincidence detection (ie. you discuss the same subjects in different places in the same contexts/timeframe).
AI won't be able to drive a car any time soon, but associating the identity of a frequent forum poster across multiple forums is pretty easy for them.
Even when they are not happy their ability their ability to organize democratically is destroyed through multiculturalism.
When the bread and circuses fail, they've got neighbours to fight before foreign interests.
No, I'm saying that companies discriminate above and beyond that for the very rational reason that people from under-represented protected classes represent a risk to the company come firing time. At will employment laws don't really help in that regard, since the civil rights act pre-empts it.
"In fact, on average, damages are probably relatively low in hiring cases, reinforcing incentives to avoid hiring protected-class members and to risk lawsuits from applicants rather than employees"
https://books.google.com/books...
Of course none of this is official policy, ever said out loud, or even admitted to themselves by people in these companies a lot of the time. We in the west are very good at maintaining culpable deniability at all times. That's why the only way to really get a given statistical distribution you think is fair is to punish companies based purely on statistical evidence, as happens with companies fulfilling federal contracts as the book points out. Do you really want this level of central planning for the economy in general though?
All companies virtue signal. Most successful IT companies hire young White and Asian men because IQ matters, they are easy to mould and abuse and you generally don't get much shit if you have to fire them.
The cost of statistically indicated discrimination at the moment is lower than the alternative. Brian Reid being a case in point. Civil lawsuits are a lottery fought on feelings as much as facts and the media shapes the feelings to presuppose discrimination when there is no equality of outcome. So when reality forces inequality of outcome the odds are stacked against. Better to not employ them in the first place and avoid the risk.
There are two obvious ways to fundamentally change this. Force companies to have an racial/age/gender profile within some deviation of a government mandated one or repeal the civil rights act and make discrimination by private industry legal. Or we can just muddle on and have companies virtue signal while Bayesian optimizing around all this shit as best they can. They all have unpalatable consequences, reality sucks.
That is actually a valid concern, a company which handles their internal communications through VOIP and a PBX are now reliant on Apple. I trust in avarice though, the risk of harming their brand represents far more money than the peanuts they could pick up with fucking around with the metadata. They make their money selling hardware, not their customers.
By getting all the push messages into the same paging cycle of the mobile data network you can save a bit of energy and they can track apps which are programmed by morons and push too much shit. That's almost certainly the reason they are doing it.
I don't really see the problem with Apple (and Google too) forcing developers to use their push framework to be able to wake up on demand from network traffic.
That said, if they simply use a blocking call on a socket the OS can go to sleep just as deeply as it can when it's all routed through the single push service.
Libertarians have no political power, why would he donate?
He's libertarian in that he believes in feudalism with him on top, with feudalism obviously being the only time in history when libertarianism was practiced that makes him a libertarian.
That's cute, you think peons are people.
The VW clusterfuck cost the rich money, it came too sudden before they could spin most of it off on pension funds and without any bailouts to boot.
I see you shilling. Anything except off block chain payments is fucking around in the margins, it's the only thing which can have a big impact.
Pushing increased block size forward is just a silly distraction, that was going to happen eventually any way. This is all about ASIC miners protecting their investment.
They can always go to the law regardless, this is for when they don't but want to get their pound of flesh in PR damage to the company.
He said she said cases are hard to prove after all. Especially for the company, since if they decide to punish someone based on thin air they are liable, their due diligence has a higher burden of evidence than a civil jury trial ... a jury has no liability at all, they can perpetrate injustice with impunity. Going after the women for slander when they say the company does nothing about sexual harassment in unprovable cases is bad for PR though ... this is an an alternative.
The labor is more valuable because it's more productive, but that increased productivity per worker is incompatible with full employment if consumption doesn't grow 1:1 with it. Peak consumption due to natural resource limits presents a problem.
There are good odds that government will make a huge shift to the left, Bernie got close to presidency and Zuckerberg is pushing universal income. If that ever came to pass your paper wealth would be reduced massively, yet the equation production = consumption(+storage+spoilage) remains a simple fact.
There is a qualitative difference between bookkeeping and facts of economic reality.
When you say "cost" you are book keeping. You might see the rents on your financial capital and real estate as a moral absolute, but what paper gives, the state can take away with the stroke of a pen. Someone can always be found to declare that absolutely moral too.
Unlike the amount of rent you are due untaxed in the future, the equation production = consumption(+storage+spoilage) is simply a fact.
Having more paper doesn't create production out of thin air, the funding is still "just" book keeping.
They are a first world country, the level of consumption is already orders of magnitude more than most of the world. Having to dedicate more GDP to elderly care rather than consuming so much luxury is hardly a problem. It will not make them poor compared to most of the world, just less obscenely rich.
Unlike say Europe they are also less in competition for their best and brightest with foreign countries.
It won't make a dent in overpopulation and it will destroy them.
Just like in Europe.
They are around, at least over here in the Netherlands. Though they are around 4x as expensive with smaller range ... so not terribly popular.
I disagree, I see labour shortage due to the black death and the subsequent rise in political power of the lower classes which they never relinquished again as the end of feudalism.
The value of most labour is dropping into the mud again, putting all the power back with the property owners. Democracy could in theory balance that, but the owners have some strategies to combat that. On the one hand multiculturalism and mass immigration, to make the masses an internally divided mess easily manipulated by the media they own. On the other locking down their power with international foreign investment protection treaties (aka trade treatues) and with foreign investor protection courts (aka ISDS).
Until they can build their robot armies and dispense with all that cloak and dagger staff.
Races, religions and cultures which are secure in their identity don't need or want to be coddled. They find that shit cringeworthy at best or misguided at worst.
Western liberal society makes fun of the Amish nearly non stop, doesn't make them terrorists. IS members by and large don't give a shit about whether you praise Islam either, they want your total submission.
Your tokenism does nothing except confuse the issue and cloud your vision to the reality of the current ME and the fact that it's the opposite of everything you want for society, yet somehow importing more people from there will improve matters if you just cuddle them more. Liberal insanity.
If you feel you have to treat them like children to keep them from terrorism you should worry less about making them feel good and more about keeping them far away.
Actually I retract that statement, you aren't really bad at googling. You just refused to follow up the information in the Telegraph article, which would have easily led you to the Al Jazeera interview, to find out he was factually correct. Instead you took the relatively few number of times the truth leaked out in the mainstream media as a proxy to disprove it.
The result lists did indeed say a lot.
https://youtu.be/e857ZcuIfnI?t...
Any government or big company should just hand out secure locked down devices for intranet only use (no web browsing, no USB, no nothing) with hardware VPN.
Small cost compared to the shit caused by even a low impact hack.
It's possible to solve it at least as well as a human, obviously.