In what conversational context does "nothing" mean "the absolute absence?"
"That swindling lawyer! He took all my money, and now I have nothing!" "Kids these days don't understand hard work, I didn't get handouts, I built myself up from nothing!" "What a good-for-nothing" "I whispered sweet nothings in his ear" "There was nothing you could have done"
"Nothing" almost never means nothing. It almost always means "very little."
As an aside, the phrase "precision in language" always makes me think of The Giver, in which they repeatedly hit a 3-year-old kid for messing up his words:
The precision of language was one of the most important tasks of small children. Asher had asked for a smack.
The discipline wand, in the hand of the Childcare worker, whistled as it came down across Asher's hands. Asher whimpered, cringed and corrected himself instantly. "Snack," he whispered.
But the next morning he had done it again. And again the following week. He couldn't seem to stop, though for each lapse, the discipline wand came again, escalating to a series of painful lashes that left marks on Asher's legs. Eventually, for a period of time, Asher stopped talking altogether, when he was a Three
Basically, get over it, people use words differently than you'd like.
Fair enough. I think anarcho-socialists go in the bottom-left of this chart, and an-caps in the bottom right. (Your chart basically sounds like a vertically-flipped version of this chart, to me.)
I think there's probably a lot of axes you could look at these sorts of things on.
Looking at the whole field there, Obama & Romney were pretty darn close to each other. Certainly the wider parties include more diverse viewpoints, but the overall ideological narrative of each party are pretty similar, all things considered.
(For what it's worth, I threw my vote away for Jill Stein.)
Yeah, I'd argue it doesn't need to be 50/50. Surely, assuming we could make enough vaccine for it, a 80/20 study would give us enough statistical significance, with less than half the number of needless deaths.
The TSA can use more detailed information about line delays in order to shorten the lines. I don't know that they *will,* but it's easy to see that it could help.
Nobody has the time to thoroughly investigate all of a person's achievements, and especially in the open source community, prestige and reputation is earned by word-of-mouth. "Bill did a great job on this new system" or "Suzy has some really cool ideas in her project."
And yeah, people literally do dismiss reports of bias with "It's a meritocracy, therefore if we don't hire them it's because they were bad, so we can't be biased."
How many black women's tech blogs do you, personally, follow? How many white men's?
Like, it's not any individual white dude's fault that he's influential. But the overall culture is defined by people that represent one narrow group of the world's population - generally well-paid white men. White men care about tech things that white men care about; which is clearly not uniform, but on average will be significantly different than what tech things black women care about.
"The way we should address this, is by destroying the notion that men are inherently more suited for these "tough jobs" because of their manly stubble."
That's my solution to make coal-miners less male. If you want to ensure that women die instead of men, that's what you should do. If you want to reduce male coal miner deaths, it's likely more effective to strengthen coal-mining safety regulations.
This is not an either/or proposition; we can and should do both.
Male coal-workers don't die because they're male, they die because they're coal-miners. If you're concerned that certain normally-male industries are terrible (A point I'll agree with), then you should argue that protections for coal-miners are insufficient. The solution to "too many men are killed" isn't "kill women instead," unless you're a misogynist.
Female coders are discouraged from entering software development because they're female, not because they're coders. So yeah, if you want to address the disparity, you need to address issues of sexism.
If we found that, among coal miners, the men are particularly likely to die, then yes, we need to address that. Perhaps their equipment is not properly designed for a male body, the tunnels are too small for their larger frames, or they are unproportionately selected for the most dangerous tasks, or they take too many dumb risks. But again, the GP framed the issue as "how can we kill more women." If you care about men dying as coal miners, *address coal mining*. If you only care about scoring points against feminists, then carry on.
And while you're assuming that this difference is entirely biological, I (along with the article we're talking about) acknowledge that cultural factors play a role.
The majority of men that try to get custody of their children in court succeed. The myth that women are unfairly given custody in the court system needs to go away.
"Inversely, where is all the screaming and yelling from the nursing or day-care industry that is traditionally dominated by women?" You've never run a day-care, have you?
Every time a company *does* start an initiative to get more women in tech, Slashdot has the exact same outrage that they do here. Seriously, go click on any of the articles, and you'll see people complaining:
"No it's just the ~natural~ way of things" "women are stupid and bad at coding! " "but now men are being discriminated against:("
Slashdot Mirror
In what conversational context does "nothing" mean "the absolute absence?"
"That swindling lawyer! He took all my money, and now I have nothing!"
"Kids these days don't understand hard work, I didn't get handouts, I built myself up from nothing!"
"What a good-for-nothing"
"I whispered sweet nothings in his ear"
"There was nothing you could have done"
"Nothing" almost never means nothing. It almost always means "very little."
As an aside, the phrase "precision in language" always makes me think of The Giver, in which they repeatedly hit a 3-year-old kid for messing up his words:
Basically, get over it, people use words differently than you'd like.
I think you missed a pretty obvious joke. Maybe you typed your comment out about 10x faster than you thought it?
Fair enough. I think anarcho-socialists go in the bottom-left of this chart, and an-caps in the bottom right. (Your chart basically sounds like a vertically-flipped version of this chart, to me.)
I think there's probably a lot of axes you could look at these sorts of things on.
Something like this? http://www.politicalcompass.or...
Looking at the whole field there, Obama & Romney were pretty darn close to each other. Certainly the wider parties include more diverse viewpoints, but the overall ideological narrative of each party are pretty similar, all things considered.
(For what it's worth, I threw my vote away for Jill Stein.)
They are absolutely not two extremes - they are two points clustered very tightly around the same extreme.
They're not mutually exclusive.
Yeah, but their study size is 12000, not 100.
Yeah, I'd argue it doesn't need to be 50/50. Surely, assuming we could make enough vaccine for it, a 80/20 study would give us enough statistical significance, with less than half the number of needless deaths.
It happens automatically and reliably.
The TSA can use more detailed information about line delays in order to shorten the lines. I don't know that they *will,* but it's easy to see that it could help.
Sure it is. Government exists (partly) to help secure our right to life, by protecting from threats both internal and external.
Nobody has the time to thoroughly investigate all of a person's achievements, and especially in the open source community, prestige and reputation is earned by word-of-mouth. "Bill did a great job on this new system" or "Suzy has some really cool ideas in her project."
And yeah, people literally do dismiss reports of bias with "It's a meritocracy, therefore if we don't hire them it's because they were bad, so we can't be biased."
How many black women's tech blogs do you, personally, follow? How many white men's?
Like, it's not any individual white dude's fault that he's influential. But the overall culture is defined by people that represent one narrow group of the world's population - generally well-paid white men. White men care about tech things that white men care about; which is clearly not uniform, but on average will be significantly different than what tech things black women care about.
"The way we should address this, is by destroying the notion that men are inherently more suited for these "tough jobs" because of their manly stubble."
That's my solution to make coal-miners less male. If you want to ensure that women die instead of men, that's what you should do. If you want to reduce male coal miner deaths, it's likely more effective to strengthen coal-mining safety regulations.
This is not an either/or proposition; we can and should do both.
Male coal-workers don't die because they're male, they die because they're coal-miners. If you're concerned that certain normally-male industries are terrible (A point I'll agree with), then you should argue that protections for coal-miners are insufficient. The solution to "too many men are killed" isn't "kill women instead," unless you're a misogynist.
Female coders are discouraged from entering software development because they're female, not because they're coders. So yeah, if you want to address the disparity, you need to address issues of sexism.
If we found that, among coal miners, the men are particularly likely to die, then yes, we need to address that. Perhaps their equipment is not properly designed for a male body, the tunnels are too small for their larger frames, or they are unproportionately selected for the most dangerous tasks, or they take too many dumb risks. But again, the GP framed the issue as "how can we kill more women." If you care about men dying as coal miners, *address coal mining*. If you only care about scoring points against feminists, then carry on.
And while you're assuming that this difference is entirely biological, I (along with the article we're talking about) acknowledge that cultural factors play a role.
"Tech is a meritocracy" = white men decide who has merit, and pass themselves off as "objective."
Yeah, no. You don't actually know any feminists in real life, do you?
52% of fashion is women (what a horrendous imbalance!)
2/3 of the top fashion jobs are held by men.
It's harder to succeed in almost *any* career as a woman.
Thank you.
The majority of men that try to get custody of their children in court succeed. The myth that women are unfairly given custody in the court system needs to go away.
And guess what? There's still four times as many men who graduate CS than women.
Improvement != Solved.
It's pretty telling how you frame this as "more women should die" instead of "less men should die."
The way we should address this, is by destroying the notion that men are inherently more suited for these "tough jobs" because of their manly stubble.
We could also, you know, lobby for increased protections for coal-miners, but I'm willing to bet that's not something you're personally working on.
"Inversely, where is all the screaming and yelling from the nursing or day-care industry that is traditionally dominated by women?"
You've never run a day-care, have you?
Every time a company *does* start an initiative to get more women in tech, Slashdot has the exact same outrage that they do here. Seriously, go click on any of the articles, and you'll see people complaining:
"No it's just the ~natural~ way of things" :("
"women are stupid and bad at coding! "
"but now men are being discriminated against
You think that the gender ratio of elementary school teachers and nurses is "uncontrolled" and unaffected by cultural stereotypes?
You might wanna be sitting down for this one.