If you're going to shoot your neighbor for kicking your dog, you have mental issues. And I can understand kicking his ass, but not shooting him. Now the way to combat your train of thought, lets reverse your dream. Lets say everybody is mandated to CARRY a gun. Now neighbor kicks dog, owner thinks... I could just kick his ass, or I could pull out my gun.. Oh wait he has a gun too, now I also chance losing my life and the life of my loved ones. I think I'll go have a talk with my neighbor about why its not good to kick dogs.
How is your dream situation working in Afghanistan, where even little kids carry?
The problem with Everyone owns a gun, and is always at the ready and willing to kill anyone who disagrees with them is that yes Virginia, there are nuts in this world, and yeah some of them are actually interested and looking forward to end other people's lives. And even more so, they intended to evade justice by killing themselves. This latest second amendment party is unusual in that the patriot didn't intend to kill himself after expressing his freedom.
If you are worried about your neighbor gut shooting you and watching you flop around or vice versa, and that is the only reason you co-exist, then you know one of you is going to fuck up and the other will demonstrate his right by making you dead and that's okay, right?
The problem is that firearms are a huge force amplifier. And if there is universal carry and implied "fuck with me and you're dead" approach. the nuts are still going to have and happily use them.
I enjoy, own and use firearms. But this setup we have now? It just isn't working.
But it is hard to say how this is going to turn out. At least the NRA has Russia on it's side.
Is this the same CIA that was telling us about Saddam's WMD, and the same CIA that was telling us it was not torturing people when it in fact did?
Whatabout whatabout whatabout. Your country has quite a list of interesting activities too. But Stalin's pogroms aren't related to your cativities today, so They aren't part of the argument.
You could always yak about how 'Murrica had slavery at one time.
Not sayin' just sayin'
No, go read the actual indictment. It's very clear that the charges indicate help for Donald Trump only.
You might try actually reading it yourself. Paragraph 43, part of Count One of the indictment, very clearly says they also supported Bernie:
Plausible deniability there Evgeny. And how was any information gleaned from those rallies? As usual, you and your comrades cherry pick one tiny part, and mount a propaganda campaign . But just like a moving a rudder on a now motionless ship, you can scream your words and not much will happen.
> They didn't care one wit about which candidate won
Sure they didn't. That's why they were talking with the Trump campaign and trying to get him to drop the Maginitsky act after being elected, and why Trump isn't enforcing the sanctions. I'm suuuure that Clinton would have acted exactly the same.
Both sides are equally bad, amirite?
But her emails! Pay no attention to the uncleared people handling classified data ( and for the Russian trolls here, a interim clearance is not an actual clearance)
It's not really that simple, and completely ignores the recent Obama administration that saw some of the largest deficits in U.S. history. Neither party is terribly fiscally responsible when it comes down to it and arguing about it is pointless since there are countless examples of both Democrats and Republicans overspending across the years.
OBama was the reason that the stock Market crash of 1929 happened. But those gaddammed liberals are always apologizing for how he single handedly destroyed Western Civilization.
I agree that both parties are complicit in the massive handout to banks but quit moving the goalposts and acting like you were right in your previous post when clearly you were wrong.
OBlama did not do one thing about the Cuban missile crisis either. Completely ignored it.
I bet the Military doesn't use the NWS. Neither do most news organizations.
You would lose that bet. Even if they have additional sources of data, and use their own people (more likely, their own computers) making predictions, both the military and most news organizations use NWS data.
Holy shit, Holy shit holyshit.
So whoever you replied to does not understand just exactly where the data comes from!!!
Reminds me of one fellow in my breakfast group whois a real Tea partier. He wants NOAA eliminated altogether, and everyone can get their weather info from The weather Channel or Accuweather, "just like the rest of us do."
When I stopped laughing, I asked him if he thought The weather Channels's Satellites gave better data.
Hopefully Google will vet the advertisements so that nothing gets through that is not hurtful of otherwise does not conform to Google's social re-ordering mission.
It is a really good thing. Diverse viewpoints are normally a good thing also, and may conflict to some extent.
Yes they are. And yes, the different views are critical. There is nothing like a group of scientists hashing out a problem. It can blister your ears. I love it myself.
, when we're done, we go out for a beer.
Where I think the problem happens is the definition of diversity he is using. Or might be using. Some groups who used me as a member did so because of reputation - not necessarily my expertise, which is optics and computing systems. Weird mix. Anyhow, If including me in their group was considered diversity, then yes, that works. Even then, I'm a one-off case. There is also a use for a junior member or two, since people have to get experience somehow.
I'm just a little leery of the read, because it reads like the present day definition of diversity. Non-job related factors that might look good on an HR chart, but might be difficult to implement because once the path is set, everyone has a task. I've seen the non-science folk I've worked with get pretty pissy and difficult at times if they felt their ideas were not used.
Look at sports teams. Baseball can hire the best people at each position, and there isn't much teamwork involved compared to football or basketball. Football with a salary cap means you can't just hire the best at each position, but shoot there's enough evidence that prima donnas don't work together very well in both football and basketball.
Sports really isn't all that creative? I think you are using the wrong comparison anyhow. Professional athletes are truly freaks of nature. A person who is playing at that level is so far beyond the normal that even the worst of them is by far the best. For your analogy to work, you would need someone who wasn't considered particularly good, or at least not good enough to play at the top. Bring them on a top flight team, and see if they improve performance.
It does seem like a mathematician could use Moneyball-style stats to prove his rant.
Seems like a team could be assembled for a critical project according to the strictures of this guys story, and we could have the answers very quickly.
The best people are well trained, they have been there and done that, the problem with this is that they already have preconceived notions of how to solve a problem. You do not get true innovation unless you have people that have not been there, and have not done that. These are the people that may have a different idea for achieving a solution, and that is where true innovation comes about.
They're the ones making the news, like "rags to riches" stories. It's true that many people have strong preconceptions about what can be done, how it should be done and the tools/methods/technology to deliver it. But there's there's also quite many professionals who have worked the ins and outs of a system, figured out there has to be a better way and made huge, innovative improvements.
An insightful statement like that and you are at 1? Moderators - this is ground truth! Get it to 5.
We have a strange thing going on in society - possibly always have. But so many people look at someone, say Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, and think that I've been told I can be anything I want if I only try hard enough! Or that "I'm just a frustrated Millionaire - so I'd better vote in a way that will benefit me when I am a millionaire!" Same for people thinking their retirement plan is hitting the lottery. Lots of fame and fortune scenariaos
It just doesn't happen for all but a very very few. To the point where it appears that luck is the largest component of their success.
But so very few projects can be based on a bedrock of luck.
Sometimes the old way really is the best way. But you don't know that for sure without investing some time and money to explore other options. It all comes down to business risk, and how much of a gamble an organization is willing to take at any given time.
That still assumes that the people doing it "the old way" are somehow stuck in doing it the old way.
And that is ageist big time. I've seen the millennium kiddies come in and try to lecture me on problems I've solved years ago. Or that somehow I do not understand or know how to use the software we're using. I try to be kind, but you get into a bind when they try to solve a problem incorrectly, and you know it wouldn't work. And the big problem I've found is that when they make a bollix out of something, it destroys their self esteem. When I was young and screwed something up, the old guys laughed at me, I was embarrassed, and resolved to myself to get better. So I did. A lot of our millennials quit and moved back home with mommy and daddy.
Anyhow, even if you disbelieve my experiences, give some thought to the fact that in technical matters, almost no one is doing anything the way they did 30 years ago. We've kept up. We know how to do it the old way, the middling way, and the brand new way as well.
It's a popular idea, but I've not seen any evidence that's actually true.
There's a reason for that. The fact that a lot of us get called back after we retire because the replacements fall on their face sort of argues that experience and knowing how to work is a really good thing.
It is not about not hiring the best people, it is more about hiring people that are smart but perhaps not as experienced with what you want to achieve.
The best people are well trained, they have been there and done that, the problem with this is that they already have preconceived notions of how to solve a problem. You do not get true innovation unless you have people that have not been there, and have not done that. These are the people that may have a different idea for achieving a solution, and that is where true innovation comes about.
I see. I've worked on a lot of projects over 30 plus years, with a lot of top flight people. I don't know if you are projecting, but every project we do is different, and we come up with wildly different solutions. And most work - sometimes you get assignments that are known very likely to fail, and you end up with a "the technology is not quite there yet as materials fall short of need.
This idea that experienced people don't have the ideas and are stuck in their ways, and inexperienced people are what make things happen is just plain wrong.
Most of what we get from the inexperienced people is a demand to take a mental health day off.
You do realize that graph theory is a branch of mathematics that long predates computers, right? Euler published the first paper on the topic on 1736, on the bridges of Konigsberg, and humorously the first textbook was published in 1936 by a mathematician named Konig.
I enjoyed the movie about him - "Ferris Euler's Day Off"
For example, the conclusion to his paper in PNAS (found in the search above) begins:
"The main result of this paper provides conditions under which, in the limit, a random group of intelligent problem solvers will outperform a group of the best problem solvers.
I would like to see a "Random group" of say Artists - and yes, many are very intelligent problem solvers, and obviously creative - outperform a group of top notch chemists, computational fluid dynamic and mechanical engineers. The same goes for any group that is diverse in opposition to performance
His postmodern rant seems to assume that top flight people are excluded from creativity. Annnnnnnddd Bullshit!
Having worked with teams of top notch engineers and scientists my whole career, there are many creatives.
This isn't to say that creativity and a slightly different thought process isn't good on a team. I was included in many teams simply because I'm not a yes man, and have the nads to call bullshit or mistaken paths, but I also added value through my regular tasks - one of which includes artistic creativity and form following function. But a whole team of me types isn't going to fix the technical problems. Usually one who the suits will listen to is enough.
TL;DR is 'it is hard to work out who is best, so instead, let hire piles of diverse people, and call that best! for no measurable reason! winz!'
Translation is 'I am pretty useless, but if I can convince everyone that competence is bad, then I winz!'
Sad, really.
Doesnt even pass the basic bullshit-o-meter.
You should be a +5, AC.
I can see the ads now.......
NASA is looking to assemble a team for the next Mars mission. The successful candidate will be a woman, an underrepresented minority, and LGBT entities will receive extra consideration. No skill is necessary, only self reported creativity, and people who have had success in similar activities in the past need not apply.
Indeed. TFA is pure conjecture. It provides no actual evidence that hiring worse people leads to better or more creative results.
It sounds like something generated electronically from a pseudo post-modernism perspective.
But the ease with which this could be tested is tempting, if a group was willing to risk the money.
Have several teams assembled to perform a similar project. A couple would be staffed by members considered among the most competent in their fields, and several different teams where diversity was rated higher than competence. Of course, since this diversity is in itself a nebulous term, several different interest groups would decide what diversity encompasses.
I've worked on a lot of teams, and having a person that can think differently is important - that was my job by the way - but beyond that, I had to be very competent as well.
Which is why I suspect that the article is postmodernist piece, assuming that creativity and competence cannot coexist in people, and as such - utter bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to shoot your neighbor for kicking your dog, you have mental issues. And I can understand kicking his ass, but not shooting him. Now the way to combat your train of thought, lets reverse your dream. Lets say everybody is mandated to CARRY a gun. Now neighbor kicks dog, owner thinks... I could just kick his ass, or I could pull out my gun.. Oh wait he has a gun too, now I also chance losing my life and the life of my loved ones. I think I'll go have a talk with my neighbor about why its not good to kick dogs.
How is your dream situation working in Afghanistan, where even little kids carry?
The problem with Everyone owns a gun, and is always at the ready and willing to kill anyone who disagrees with them is that yes Virginia, there are nuts in this world, and yeah some of them are actually interested and looking forward to end other people's lives. And even more so, they intended to evade justice by killing themselves. This latest second amendment party is unusual in that the patriot didn't intend to kill himself after expressing his freedom.
If you are worried about your neighbor gut shooting you and watching you flop around or vice versa, and that is the only reason you co-exist, then you know one of you is going to fuck up and the other will demonstrate his right by making you dead and that's okay, right?
The problem is that firearms are a huge force amplifier. And if there is universal carry and implied "fuck with me and you're dead" approach. the nuts are still going to have and happily use them.
I enjoy, own and use firearms. But this setup we have now? It just isn't working.
But it is hard to say how this is going to turn out. At least the NRA has Russia on it's side.
Putin can't have witnesses. I'm betting we're about to see some dead Russians.
They are checking the polonium reserves right now.
Is this the same CIA that was telling us about Saddam's WMD, and the same CIA that was telling us it was not torturing people when it in fact did?
Whatabout whatabout whatabout. Your country has quite a list of interesting activities too. But Stalin's pogroms aren't related to your cativities today, so They aren't part of the argument.
You could always yak about how 'Murrica had slavery at one time. Not sayin' just sayin'
No, go read the actual indictment. It's very clear that the charges indicate help for Donald Trump only.
You might try actually reading it yourself. Paragraph 43, part of Count One of the indictment, very clearly says they also supported Bernie:
Plausible deniability there Evgeny. And how was any information gleaned from those rallies? As usual, you and your comrades cherry pick one tiny part, and mount a propaganda campaign . But just like a moving a rudder on a now motionless ship, you can scream your words and not much will happen.
Don't try to flatter me.
Pope, you have received the honor of being called the worst liar ever by a Russian troll! I bow to you sir.
> They didn't care one wit about which candidate won
Sure they didn't. That's why they were talking with the Trump campaign and trying to get him to drop the Maginitsky act after being elected, and why Trump isn't enforcing the sanctions. I'm suuuure that Clinton would have acted exactly the same.
Both sides are equally bad, amirite?
But her emails! Pay no attention to the uncleared people handling classified data ( and for the Russian trolls here, a interim clearance is not an actual clearance)
Getting Hillary to do anything you want is just one donation to the Clinton Foundation away.
Well now, President Hellery Clinton should be held responsible for that tovarish.
I'd be careful with your conclusions here..
Second time the not so thinly veiled threat has been levied at those who dare to disagree with the Russian's position there Ivan.
It could be a cultural thing, but in America, that statement means exactly a threat. Perhaps not so much in Moscow.
God I hope we hit peak cryptocurrency soon and I can stop seeing these goddamned fucking stories about how broken it is.
We need to pick a new alternative subject:
Cryptocurrency and systemd
How to get more women involved in cryptocurrency.
The FCC and Cryptocurrency
How the Russians interfered with cryptocurrency.
It's not really that simple, and completely ignores the recent Obama administration that saw some of the largest deficits in U.S. history. Neither party is terribly fiscally responsible when it comes down to it and arguing about it is pointless since there are countless examples of both Democrats and Republicans overspending across the years.
OBama was the reason that the stock Market crash of 1929 happened. But those gaddammed liberals are always apologizing for how he single handedly destroyed Western Civilization.
I agree that both parties are complicit in the massive handout to banks but quit moving the goalposts and acting like you were right in your previous post when clearly you were wrong.
OBlama did not do one thing about the Cuban missile crisis either. Completely ignored it.
Here's
We need to cut food stamps That will take care of the entire deficit in a minute.
You would lose that bet. Even if they have additional sources of data, and use their own people (more likely, their own computers) making predictions, both the military and most news organizations use NWS data.
Holy shit, Holy shit holyshit.
So whoever you replied to does not understand just exactly where the data comes from!!!
Reminds me of one fellow in my breakfast group whois a real Tea partier. He wants NOAA eliminated altogether, and everyone can get their weather info from The weather Channel or Accuweather, "just like the rest of us do."
When I stopped laughing, I asked him if he thought The weather Channels's Satellites gave better data.
Hopefully Google will vet the advertisements so that nothing gets through that is not hurtful of otherwise does not conform to Google's social re-ordering mission.
It is a really good thing. Diverse viewpoints are normally a good thing also, and may conflict to some extent.
Yes they are. And yes, the different views are critical. There is nothing like a group of scientists hashing out a problem. It can blister your ears. I love it myself. , when we're done, we go out for a beer.
Where I think the problem happens is the definition of diversity he is using. Or might be using. Some groups who used me as a member did so because of reputation - not necessarily my expertise, which is optics and computing systems. Weird mix. Anyhow, If including me in their group was considered diversity, then yes, that works. Even then, I'm a one-off case. There is also a use for a junior member or two, since people have to get experience somehow.
I'm just a little leery of the read, because it reads like the present day definition of diversity. Non-job related factors that might look good on an HR chart, but might be difficult to implement because once the path is set, everyone has a task. I've seen the non-science folk I've worked with get pretty pissy and difficult at times if they felt their ideas were not used.
I think there's already data.
Look at sports teams. Baseball can hire the best people at each position, and there isn't much teamwork involved compared to football or basketball. Football with a salary cap means you can't just hire the best at each position, but shoot there's enough evidence that prima donnas don't work together very well in both football and basketball. Sports really isn't all that creative? I think you are using the wrong comparison anyhow. Professional athletes are truly freaks of nature. A person who is playing at that level is so far beyond the normal that even the worst of them is by far the best. For your analogy to work, you would need someone who wasn't considered particularly good, or at least not good enough to play at the top. Bring them on a top flight team, and see if they improve performance.
It does seem like a mathematician could use Moneyball-style stats to prove his rant.
Seems like a team could be assembled for a critical project according to the strictures of this guys story, and we could have the answers very quickly.
I trained myself to be creative and consequently to innovate.
Trained yourself to be creative - you don't say!
The best people are well trained, they have been there and done that, the problem with this is that they already have preconceived notions of how to solve a problem. You do not get true innovation unless you have people that have not been there, and have not done that. These are the people that may have a different idea for achieving a solution, and that is where true innovation comes about.
They're the ones making the news, like "rags to riches" stories. It's true that many people have strong preconceptions about what can be done, how it should be done and the tools/methods/technology to deliver it. But there's there's also quite many professionals who have worked the ins and outs of a system, figured out there has to be a better way and made huge, innovative improvements.
An insightful statement like that and you are at 1? Moderators - this is ground truth! Get it to 5.
We have a strange thing going on in society - possibly always have. But so many people look at someone, say Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, and think that I've been told I can be anything I want if I only try hard enough! Or that "I'm just a frustrated Millionaire - so I'd better vote in a way that will benefit me when I am a millionaire!" Same for people thinking their retirement plan is hitting the lottery. Lots of fame and fortune scenariaos
It just doesn't happen for all but a very very few. To the point where it appears that luck is the largest component of their success.
But so very few projects can be based on a bedrock of luck.
Sometimes the old way really is the best way. But you don't know that for sure without investing some time and money to explore other options. It all comes down to business risk, and how much of a gamble an organization is willing to take at any given time.
That still assumes that the people doing it "the old way" are somehow stuck in doing it the old way.
And that is ageist big time. I've seen the millennium kiddies come in and try to lecture me on problems I've solved years ago. Or that somehow I do not understand or know how to use the software we're using. I try to be kind, but you get into a bind when they try to solve a problem incorrectly, and you know it wouldn't work. And the big problem I've found is that when they make a bollix out of something, it destroys their self esteem. When I was young and screwed something up, the old guys laughed at me, I was embarrassed, and resolved to myself to get better. So I did. A lot of our millennials quit and moved back home with mommy and daddy.
Anyhow, even if you disbelieve my experiences, give some thought to the fact that in technical matters, almost no one is doing anything the way they did 30 years ago. We've kept up. We know how to do it the old way, the middling way, and the brand new way as well.
It's a popular idea, but I've not seen any evidence that's actually true.
There's a reason for that. The fact that a lot of us get called back after we retire because the replacements fall on their face sort of argues that experience and knowing how to work is a really good thing.
It is not about not hiring the best people, it is more about hiring people that are smart but perhaps not as experienced with what you want to achieve.
The best people are well trained, they have been there and done that, the problem with this is that they already have preconceived notions of how to solve a problem. You do not get true innovation unless you have people that have not been there, and have not done that. These are the people that may have a different idea for achieving a solution, and that is where true innovation comes about.
I see. I've worked on a lot of projects over 30 plus years, with a lot of top flight people. I don't know if you are projecting, but every project we do is different, and we come up with wildly different solutions. And most work - sometimes you get assignments that are known very likely to fail, and you end up with a "the technology is not quite there yet as materials fall short of need.
This idea that experienced people don't have the ideas and are stuck in their ways, and inexperienced people are what make things happen is just plain wrong.
Most of what we get from the inexperienced people is a demand to take a mental health day off.
You do realize that graph theory is a branch of mathematics that long predates computers, right? Euler published the first paper on the topic on 1736, on the bridges of Konigsberg, and humorously the first textbook was published in 1936 by a mathematician named Konig.
I enjoyed the movie about him - "Ferris Euler's Day Off"
For example, the conclusion to his paper in PNAS (found in the search above) begins:
"The main result of this paper provides conditions under which, in the limit, a random group of intelligent problem solvers will outperform a group of the best problem solvers.
I would like to see a "Random group" of say Artists - and yes, many are very intelligent problem solvers, and obviously creative - outperform a group of top notch chemists, computational fluid dynamic and mechanical engineers. The same goes for any group that is diverse in opposition to performance
His postmodern rant seems to assume that top flight people are excluded from creativity. Annnnnnnddd Bullshit!
Having worked with teams of top notch engineers and scientists my whole career, there are many creatives.
This isn't to say that creativity and a slightly different thought process isn't good on a team. I was included in many teams simply because I'm not a yes man, and have the nads to call bullshit or mistaken paths, but I also added value through my regular tasks - one of which includes artistic creativity and form following function. But a whole team of me types isn't going to fix the technical problems. Usually one who the suits will listen to is enough.
Ah, but the signaling is SO strong...
TL;DR is 'it is hard to work out who is best, so instead, let hire piles of diverse people, and call that best! for no measurable reason! winz!' Translation is 'I am pretty useless, but if I can convince everyone that competence is bad, then I winz!'
Sad, really. Doesnt even pass the basic bullshit-o-meter.
You should be a +5, AC.
I can see the ads now. ......
NASA is looking to assemble a team for the next Mars mission. The successful candidate will be a woman, an underrepresented minority, and LGBT entities will receive extra consideration. No skill is necessary, only self reported creativity, and people who have had success in similar activities in the past need not apply.
Indeed. TFA is pure conjecture. It provides no actual evidence that hiring worse people leads to better or more creative results.
It sounds like something generated electronically from a pseudo post-modernism perspective.
But the ease with which this could be tested is tempting, if a group was willing to risk the money.
Have several teams assembled to perform a similar project. A couple would be staffed by members considered among the most competent in their fields, and several different teams where diversity was rated higher than competence. Of course, since this diversity is in itself a nebulous term, several different interest groups would decide what diversity encompasses.
I've worked on a lot of teams, and having a person that can think differently is important - that was my job by the way - but beyond that, I had to be very competent as well.
Which is why I suspect that the article is postmodernist piece, assuming that creativity and competence cannot coexist in people, and as such - utter bullshit.