FFS. The press release cited here is entitled "TuNur files for authorisation for 4.5GW solar export project". The very first line of the release states that the authorisation being sought would be granted by the Tunisian Ministry of Energy, Mines and Renewable Energy. The land is owned by El Ghrib Collective Lands Management Board and is being leased by TuNur, not owned.
Yes, this may be a resource curse, but it's not being set up as one.
For Europe to put itself at the mercy of vulnerable infrastructure transmitting energy across a volatile region would be crazy.
What do you think oil and gas supply is now, if not "vulnerable infrastructure transmitting energy across a volatile region"? This is a *diversification* and therefore a lowering of risk, in the European energy supply mix.
Not to mention the insane idea of criticising a solar power project for sourcing power in a desert country. Because *that's* never happened with fossil fuel power generation before.
Yeah, the company itself makes no grandiose claims about supplying much of Europe's needs. They are rather more fact-based: 2.5m homes. Not bad for 100sq km of desert. Plenty of room for expansion
Gone through them all you "fucking imbecile". None of them purports to demonstrate that "testosterone gives men an advantage in engineering"
You do know that testosterone is an actual hormone, right? A real thing in the world, and not merely a metaphor? Demonstrating a causal link between testosterone and differences in engineering abilities between men and women would be a spectacularly difficult thing to do.
I'm not sure how you think what you wrote is more precise than what I wrote. Your description focuses on different aspects of the events, it doesn't describe the same aspects with more precision.
I don't think I'd take it that *both* these parties did nothing wrong at all. He showed a spectacular lack of judgement that created a PR storm -- from Google's perspective, that is definitely doing something wrong. And Google pays his salary, so Google's opinion on right and wrong kinda matters here.
I have, but the content of the memo is irrelevant. Politeness, references etc -- all irrelevant. He took his employer to task on a hot-button issue in a memo that he could and should have predicted would go public and create a PR pain-in-the-ass. Virtually every employer would fire someone who does that.
Every employee is liable to be fired if they bring a shit-ton of bad PR on their employer. But you go right ahead telling yourself the problem was his gender and race, not his actions.
They want diversity of thought on things that matter to them as a business. Surprise, that does not include what he wrote about. It would include applying statistical tools developed in biology to an engineering problem. If he worked in marketing, it would for example include bringing insights into how girls perceive the world onto the development of products that include girls as a target market, rather than having only mens' guesses about how girls perceive the world.
He links to some Wiki articles about the relative distribution of personality traits among men and women, but does not provide any evidence at all that supports the conclusions he draws. For example: - Women more open to feelings and aesthetics and more interested in people than things cf men --> Wiki cited - These differences explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas --> no citation, either to support the assertion of a relative preference, or the much harder to prove assertion of a causal link.
This is post hoc rationalisation of a prior position on his part.
My assumption is that this guy... has sufficient brilliance to understand where the line is drawn
Demonstrably not the case. He stepped over the line which, had he been as brilliant as you describe, he really ought to have seen. So he was fired for demonstrable lack of brilliance. The meritocracy in action.
"Supporting free speech is the best option" For whom? Not for Google. Nor for virtually any other employer. That's why job contracts have all sorts of limits on how freely you can speak, ranging from "don't embarrass us in public" through to "don't tell our competitors our secrets".
It is precisely because population averages are not the same as an individual, that it makes no sense to treat all members of a sub-group as though they have the same needs and traits. The distribution curve is what matters.
Yet treating all members of a sub-group similarly is exactly what he advocates: "Since women like using their people skills at work, make it easy for them to use their people skills while programming". He doesn't allow for women who don't like using their people skills, or men who do. He doesn't acknowledge that such people may exist, and may even exist in almost the same numbers as women who like using their people skills and men who don't.
His bosses are under no obligation whatsoever to be "constructive" towards him. He publicly bit the hand that feeds him -- how else could this possibly have ended?
I beg your fucking pardon, but what a load of horse-shit.
First off, since when did conservatives start thinking that it was OK to be protected from *verbal* attack? *Verbal* attack is free speech.
Secondly, since when did conservatives think it was OK for people to be protected from legal responses to their actions, *including economic responses*? If an employer wants to fire someone because of what they said, conservatives are supposed to think that is absolutely fine: it's one of the reasons so many states have at-will legislation. Taking personal responsibility and accepting the consequences of your actions is supposed to be at the heart of conservatism. If I eat junk food, it makes me fat, I get ill, I might die, my fault, etc. If I say stuff my employer doesn't want me to say, they fire me, I start up my own company where I can say stuff freely, etc.
Thirdly, people ask for safe spaces for all sorts of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate. A group of people who have been victims of abuse may want to be able to talk about the abuse they've been subjected to without having to be subject to further attack, for example. Racists may want to talk about their plans to start a race war. But only one group spend their days scorning the idea of "safe spaces" and then ask for such a space themselves.
For the past three years, I have seen nothing but contempt from conservatives for the very *idea* of a safe space, with the label snowflake being attached to people who have asked for one. It would really be nice if people on the right would stop being such insufferable fucking hypocrites and have some degree of self-awareness. But then, Trump.
No shit, Sherlock. And I don't need to use a gas station if I just walk everywhere. But a car can do things my legs can't that matter to me, and a smartphone can do things a feature phone can't that matter to me. And that is true for most people.
Everyone is focusing on the 'real people' statement, but the true idiocy is what she said just before: "I know some will argue that it's impossible to have both - that if a system is end-to-end encrypted then it's impossible ever to access the communication. That might be true in theory. But the reality is different."
She appears to be asserting that there is some bizarre version of reality in which it is possible to have a system with end-to-end encryption and yet still be able to access the communication. How the *fuck* does that work? She is either stupid or disingenuous. Or both.
Slashdot Mirror
FFS. The press release cited here is entitled "TuNur files for authorisation for 4.5GW solar export project". The very first line of the release states that the authorisation being sought would be granted by the Tunisian Ministry of Energy, Mines and Renewable Energy. The land is owned by El Ghrib Collective Lands Management Board and is being leased by TuNur, not owned.
Yes, this may be a resource curse, but it's not being set up as one.
For Europe to put itself at the mercy of vulnerable infrastructure transmitting energy across a volatile region would be crazy.
What do you think oil and gas supply is now, if not "vulnerable infrastructure transmitting energy across a volatile region"? This is a *diversification* and therefore a lowering of risk, in the European energy supply mix.
Gosh, if only they had some engineers who'd been thinking about all that.
They quote 5% transmission loss per 1000km.
"many residents of the desert"
ha ha ha ha ha
Not to mention the insane idea of criticising a solar power project for sourcing power in a desert country. Because *that's* never happened with fossil fuel power generation before.
Yeah, the company itself makes no grandiose claims about supplying much of Europe's needs. They are rather more fact-based: 2.5m homes. Not bad for 100sq km of desert. Plenty of room for expansion
Gone through them all you "fucking imbecile". None of them purports to demonstrate that "testosterone gives men an advantage in engineering"
You do know that testosterone is an actual hormone, right? A real thing in the world, and not merely a metaphor? Demonstrating a causal link between testosterone and differences in engineering abilities between men and women would be a spectacularly difficult thing to do.
I'm not sure how you think what you wrote is more precise than what I wrote. Your description focuses on different aspects of the events, it doesn't describe the same aspects with more precision.
I don't think I'd take it that *both* these parties did nothing wrong at all. He showed a spectacular lack of judgement that created a PR storm -- from Google's perspective, that is definitely doing something wrong. And Google pays his salary, so Google's opinion on right and wrong kinda matters here.
I have, but the content of the memo is irrelevant. Politeness, references etc -- all irrelevant. He took his employer to task on a hot-button issue in a memo that he could and should have predicted would go public and create a PR pain-in-the-ass. Virtually every employer would fire someone who does that.
Every employee is liable to be fired if they bring a shit-ton of bad PR on their employer. But you go right ahead telling yourself the problem was his gender and race, not his actions.
They want diversity of thought on things that matter to them as a business. Surprise, that does not include what he wrote about. It would include applying statistical tools developed in biology to an engineering problem. If he worked in marketing, it would for example include bringing insights into how girls perceive the world onto the development of products that include girls as a target market, rather than having only mens' guesses about how girls perceive the world.
Yes, he does. Yet that does not influence in any way his policy suggestions, which treat all women as a collective group.
He links to some Wiki articles about the relative distribution of personality traits among men and women, but does not provide any evidence at all that supports the conclusions he draws. For example:
- Women more open to feelings and aesthetics and more interested in people than things cf men --> Wiki cited
- These differences explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas --> no citation, either to support the assertion of a relative preference, or the much harder to prove assertion of a causal link.
This is post hoc rationalisation of a prior position on his part.
My assumption is that this guy ... has sufficient brilliance to understand where the line is drawn
Demonstrably not the case. He stepped over the line which, had he been as brilliant as you describe, he really ought to have seen. So he was fired for demonstrable lack of brilliance. The meritocracy in action.
"Supporting free speech is the best option"
For whom? Not for Google. Nor for virtually any other employer. That's why job contracts have all sorts of limits on how freely you can speak, ranging from "don't embarrass us in public" through to "don't tell our competitors our secrets".
It is precisely because population averages are not the same as an individual, that it makes no sense to treat all members of a sub-group as though they have the same needs and traits. The distribution curve is what matters.
Yet treating all members of a sub-group similarly is exactly what he advocates: "Since women like using their people skills at work, make it easy for them to use their people skills while programming". He doesn't allow for women who don't like using their people skills, or men who do. He doesn't acknowledge that such people may exist, and may even exist in almost the same numbers as women who like using their people skills and men who don't.
It isn't? Oooh, do share the peer reviewed articles in reputable journals that demonstrate this, please.
His bosses are under no obligation whatsoever to be "constructive" towards him. He publicly bit the hand that feeds him -- how else could this possibly have ended?
Spectacularly correct in every aspect.
Why ask me? It was the OP that first used the phrase.
I beg your fucking pardon, but what a load of horse-shit.
First off, since when did conservatives start thinking that it was OK to be protected from *verbal* attack? *Verbal* attack is free speech.
Secondly, since when did conservatives think it was OK for people to be protected from legal responses to their actions, *including economic responses*? If an employer wants to fire someone because of what they said, conservatives are supposed to think that is absolutely fine: it's one of the reasons so many states have at-will legislation. Taking personal responsibility and accepting the consequences of your actions is supposed to be at the heart of conservatism. If I eat junk food, it makes me fat, I get ill, I might die, my fault, etc. If I say stuff my employer doesn't want me to say, they fire me, I start up my own company where I can say stuff freely, etc.
Thirdly, people ask for safe spaces for all sorts of reasons, both legitimate and illegitimate. A group of people who have been victims of abuse may want to be able to talk about the abuse they've been subjected to without having to be subject to further attack, for example. Racists may want to talk about their plans to start a race war. But only one group spend their days scorning the idea of "safe spaces" and then ask for such a space themselves.
For the past three years, I have seen nothing but contempt from conservatives for the very *idea* of a safe space, with the label snowflake being attached to people who have asked for one. It would really be nice if people on the right would stop being such insufferable fucking hypocrites and have some degree of self-awareness. But then, Trump.
No shit, Sherlock. And I don't need to use a gas station if I just walk everywhere. But a car can do things my legs can't that matter to me, and a smartphone can do things a feature phone can't that matter to me. And that is true for most people.
Not only a non sequitur, but such an unspeakably stupid piece of rhetoric that people all over the world are laughing at you. Well done!
How does this solve the problem for people working outside, exactly? You know: farmers, construction workers, police officers etc.
Everyone is focusing on the 'real people' statement, but the true idiocy is what she said just before:
"I know some will argue that it's impossible to have both - that if a system is end-to-end encrypted then it's impossible ever to access the communication. That might be true in theory. But the reality is different."
She appears to be asserting that there is some bizarre version of reality in which it is possible to have a system with end-to-end encryption and yet still be able to access the communication. How the *fuck* does that work? She is either stupid or disingenuous. Or both.