Such studies can only objectively affirm that there appears to be some, perhaps even significant, correlative factor, but do *NOT* affirm that the causative factor that might relate them is in any way biological.
No, in the studies which you refer to, they may show there to be a distinct correlattive factor between gender and likelihood of inclination towards STEM, but there is no reason to conclude that it is actually caused by biology. As I said, if it were, the correlation would be dramatically stronger than what it has ever been observed to be.
There is no scientific study which is not fundamentally flawed that strongly supports the notion that there is some actual biological connection between being male or female and the likelihood of interest in STEM. At the very least, if that were true, any observed correlation would certainly be *dramatically* stronger than what it actually is observed to be.
No, it is in fact much more likely to be the consequences of societal pressures, whether they are unintentional or not, to conform to expected modes of behavior.
But that causative factor, is sociological, not biological.
I am suggesting that what you might be observing does not constitute any proof that any observed inclination towards or away from particular technical careers among women is biologically caused.
Even if this sort of correlation between sex and career were observed 100% of the time, it would not be proof of an actual biological cause when there are numerous other factors that could produce the same results.
The fact that how frequently any such correlation can even be readily observed is actually much less than 100% only further suggests that biology is unlikely to be such a causative factor.
Except that you aren't literally observing it happening. You may be observing people who are women who have less inclination than men towards certain roles, but because you cannot actually *see* what causes a person's inclination, you cannot reasonably assume that the inclination which might be perceived happens to be biologically induced.
In fact, it is far more likely that to the extent that it does occur, such a leaning is the result of possibly unfair pressures that are placed on us as children to conform to societal norms, rather than as a direct consequence of any biology.
You can be pretty lax on what sort of comments are allowed and still draw the line when someone makes a threat against a person's life without really worrying about trying to censor people's views.
... why a threat to kill someone, anyone, would not be a violation of their terms of service.
Honestly, if it isn't, I would have stopped using the service... and if my job depended on it, I would explain to my employer why I did so, or at the very least, require a raise on account of needing danger pay.
Cars of similar class to the model 3 cost about $10k less than what the model 3 is going for.
Given that most people spend, on average, about $1200 to $1500 per year on gasoline, it could take up to almost 9 years before you'd even *start* to see any return on that investment over and above what you would have spent on an ICE vehicle, and that's further assuming that your electricity usage with an EV is somehow negligibly impacted.
Oh, and that 9 years is complicated by the fact that you probably have to spend another $8k on a battery at around that time so you are looking at waiting another 6 or so years to see a positive return again. Sure, in the long run it will still be cheaper to own, but the sheer amount of time you have to continue to use it before it will actually have a lasting impact how much you spend for your chosen lifestyle is so long that for most people, it's simply not worth the bother.
Purchase prices need to come down to be competitive on a class-for-class basis before they can be taken seriously by people.
Originality depends, inherently, on individuality. Lose individuality, and all originality goes away with it. Nothing new will ever be done, ever again.
The problem with a collective is that, over time, it would tend to deteriorate towards the lowest common denominator - everyone would eventually be mediochre, and very little, if any, new accomplishments would be achieved from inside of it.
Like global thermonuclear war, the only way to win is not to play.
As to the first point, only if by brains you mean ego, as for the second and third points, one woman is plenty for me, thanks, and while I won't say I couldn't use more money than I currently have, I have more productive ways to spend my time than being in envy of those who might be financially better off than I am.
Individuals or persons not counting themselves among the number of those who refer to themselves as "the Sith", would be hard-pressed to make a statement as utterly categorical, and not admitting, upon mature reflection, of views which, at the end of the day, would have to be said to be more balanced (in an, of course, non-epistemological fashion) and, frankly, more sophisticated.
I wish I could take credit for it... but it's not mine.
Every human being experiences the passage of time. Knowing exactly what your vehicle emissions are, however, is not possible unless you have specialized equipment for measuring it.
And at least generally speaking, one only ever lies about something that they have a reason to think the lie will be believed.
If one can obviously and very readily disprove a claim, it is unlikely that they would make the claim in the first place.
Facing imminent *potential* death on the other hand leaves you facing the very large problem of "not being killed"
Not really... your choice in the matter is wholly illusionary. The choice to kill or not is theirs, and any impression that you have an influence on their decision simply by doing what they ask is nothing but a coincidence. I will not pretend to be responsible for a decision that someone else has imposed upon themselves just because they've somehow put themselves in a corner of feeling like they need to somehow carry out their threat if I don't happen to do what they want. If I refuse and die, it's not my problem... if I refuse and live, then it's still not my problem. If I accept and die, then it's not my problem, but an injustice has occurred, and the criminal rewarded for his acts, while if I accept and live, I may continue to enjoy life, but there is still a loss to my estate, and I still have to live with the consequences of that.
So only scenario in which I have to live with any negative consequences of my choice is if I choose to accept the offer... any option for some kind of net positive gain from this scenario is imaginary... the only way I can actually just break even is if I refuse and they don't kill me. "Continuing to live" is not a net positive gain, because one was already continuing to live before the scenario anyways.
The first option, I think.... I anticipate that there are going to be taxes thrown onto electric cars, regardless of where they are made, that are going to make them increasingly unattractive to would-be purchasers.
I'd have voted for the third option, but it makes an assumption that Trump has a brain.
The only thing protecting somebody in the case you describe for piracy isn't that one aren't doing anything wrong, it's that they are just very unlikely to ever get caught. But that's still a far cry from being practiced openly.
If you are using anonymizing services to "keep your IP safe", then by definition, you are not openly practicing whatever you are doing... you are making a deliberate and meticulous effort to conceal it from other people. There is no rightness or wrongness about that. The point remains that piracy cannot be practiced openly without raising the potential for litigation. The fact that it might be relatively simple to not be "open" is irrelevant, and would not make it any worse than anything we've already seen.
It's not necessarily a "trade secret" that company X was a client of your former company Y, but if you go to work for competitor Z and utilize the relationship you may have already had established with X to effectively steal that client from company Y, then you are clearly using knowledge you had from working for Y to deprive Y of income, even though you aren't disclosing any secrets. This is the sort of action that companies are worried about.
They might be worried about trade secrets too, but as you say, that is actionable whether there is a non-compete or not... and there's further not necessarily any reasonable time limit past which trade secrets can be safely divulged without being actionable, so a non-compete on those grounds is utterly pointless.
If you really want access to my phone just rob me, I'll tell you the PIN as it's not worth dying over.
That being the case, one also has to ask if it is worth killing over if one isn't going to get it in the first place?
If not, then it still makes no sense to divulge the PIN.
If so, then it gets a bit dicier. although I still wouldn't, personally
While I have no death wish specifically, if I'm dead, I don't have to live with the consequences of that, by definition, while conversely, a person who kills me might have to go on living with the consequences of committing murder, which may include jailtime if they are caught, plus they still won't have the PIN, so they haven't even gotten anything out of it, thereby negating any incentive they should otherwise have to bother to harm me in the first place.
If they are not acting rationally, then that is their problem, not mine. It's definitely not my problem if they should kill me (a person facing imminent death should anticipate no particular problems at all unless one also anticipates some kind of unpleasant afterlife experience), while being irrational would *STILL* be their problem if they chose to kill me without advantage to themselves. I do not pretend to be responsible for other people's choices, and attempting to allege that I might somehow be responsible for a choice that they might make when I did not impose that choice upon them in the first place is not going to fly with me.
Oh, and I'm quite aware that most people will think there's probably something wrong with me psychologically that I think this way....
Slashdot Mirror
Such studies can only objectively affirm that there appears to be some, perhaps even significant, correlative factor, but do *NOT* affirm that the causative factor that might relate them is in any way biological.
No, in the studies which you refer to, they may show there to be a distinct correlattive factor between gender and likelihood of inclination towards STEM, but there is no reason to conclude that it is actually caused by biology. As I said, if it were, the correlation would be dramatically stronger than what it has ever been observed to be.
There is no scientific study which is not fundamentally flawed that strongly supports the notion that there is some actual biological connection between being male or female and the likelihood of interest in STEM. At the very least, if that were true, any observed correlation would certainly be *dramatically* stronger than what it actually is observed to be.
No, it is in fact much more likely to be the consequences of societal pressures, whether they are unintentional or not, to conform to expected modes of behavior.
But that causative factor, is sociological, not biological.
I am suggesting that what you might be observing does not constitute any proof that any observed inclination towards or away from particular technical careers among women is biologically caused.
Even if this sort of correlation between sex and career were observed 100% of the time, it would not be proof of an actual biological cause when there are numerous other factors that could produce the same results.
The fact that how frequently any such correlation can even be readily observed is actually much less than 100% only further suggests that biology is unlikely to be such a causative factor.
Except that you aren't literally observing it happening. You may be observing people who are women who have less inclination than men towards certain roles, but because you cannot actually *see* what causes a person's inclination, you cannot reasonably assume that the inclination which might be perceived happens to be biologically induced.
In fact, it is far more likely that to the extent that it does occur, such a leaning is the result of possibly unfair pressures that are placed on us as children to conform to societal norms, rather than as a direct consequence of any biology.
Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the inclination is caused by biology, nor the degree of productivity.
Did you even bother to try and flag the comment?
You can be pretty lax on what sort of comments are allowed and still draw the line when someone makes a threat against a person's life without really worrying about trying to censor people's views.
Honestly, if it isn't, I would have stopped using the service... and if my job depended on it, I would explain to my employer why I did so, or at the very least, require a raise on account of needing danger pay.
Cars of similar class to the model 3 cost about $10k less than what the model 3 is going for.
Given that most people spend, on average, about $1200 to $1500 per year on gasoline, it could take up to almost 9 years before you'd even *start* to see any return on that investment over and above what you would have spent on an ICE vehicle, and that's further assuming that your electricity usage with an EV is somehow negligibly impacted.
Oh, and that 9 years is complicated by the fact that you probably have to spend another $8k on a battery at around that time so you are looking at waiting another 6 or so years to see a positive return again. Sure, in the long run it will still be cheaper to own, but the sheer amount of time you have to continue to use it before it will actually have a lasting impact how much you spend for your chosen lifestyle is so long that for most people, it's simply not worth the bother.
Purchase prices need to come down to be competitive on a class-for-class basis before they can be taken seriously by people.
Originality depends, inherently, on individuality. Lose individuality, and all originality goes away with it. Nothing new will ever be done, ever again.
This is, unfortunately, probably very true.
The problem with a collective is that, over time, it would tend to deteriorate towards the lowest common denominator - everyone would eventually be mediochre, and very little, if any, new accomplishments would be achieved from inside of it.
Like global thermonuclear war, the only way to win is not to play.
Corporations might be recognized as persons under the law but artificial tools, such as robots, are not.
But you can try and petition the government to change that, if you really want to.
You don't pay volunteer workers either, but you can still fire them.
And, as in any firing situation, it must be free of unlawful discrimination, just as would be required even if you were paying them.
You can't fire robots because robots are not recognized as persons.
As to the first point, only if by brains you mean ego, as for the second and third points, one woman is plenty for me, thanks, and while I won't say I couldn't use more money than I currently have, I have more productive ways to spend my time than being in envy of those who might be financially better off than I am.
Individuals or persons not counting themselves among the number of those who refer to themselves as "the Sith", would be hard-pressed to make a statement as utterly categorical, and not admitting, upon mature reflection, of views which, at the end of the day, would have to be said to be more balanced (in an, of course, non-epistemological fashion) and, frankly, more sophisticated.
I wish I could take credit for it... but it's not mine.
Lack of any atmosphere, perhaps?
Oh, and is it just me, or did this article headline remind anyone of the series 1 premiere of The Orville?
Every human being experiences the passage of time. Knowing exactly what your vehicle emissions are, however, is not possible unless you have specialized equipment for measuring it.
And at least generally speaking, one only ever lies about something that they have a reason to think the lie will be believed.
If one can obviously and very readily disprove a claim, it is unlikely that they would make the claim in the first place.
Not really... your choice in the matter is wholly illusionary. The choice to kill or not is theirs, and any impression that you have an influence on their decision simply by doing what they ask is nothing but a coincidence. I will not pretend to be responsible for a decision that someone else has imposed upon themselves just because they've somehow put themselves in a corner of feeling like they need to somehow carry out their threat if I don't happen to do what they want. If I refuse and die, it's not my problem... if I refuse and live, then it's still not my problem. If I accept and die, then it's not my problem, but an injustice has occurred, and the criminal rewarded for his acts, while if I accept and live, I may continue to enjoy life, but there is still a loss to my estate, and I still have to live with the consequences of that.
So only scenario in which I have to live with any negative consequences of my choice is if I choose to accept the offer... any option for some kind of net positive gain from this scenario is imaginary... the only way I can actually just break even is if I refuse and they don't kill me. "Continuing to live" is not a net positive gain, because one was already continuing to live before the scenario anyways.
The first option, I think.... I anticipate that there are going to be taxes thrown onto electric cars, regardless of where they are made, that are going to make them increasingly unattractive to would-be purchasers.
I'd have voted for the third option, but it makes an assumption that Trump has a brain.
The only thing protecting somebody in the case you describe for piracy isn't that one aren't doing anything wrong, it's that they are just very unlikely to ever get caught. But that's still a far cry from being practiced openly.
If you are using anonymizing services to "keep your IP safe", then by definition, you are not openly practicing whatever you are doing... you are making a deliberate and meticulous effort to conceal it from other people. There is no rightness or wrongness about that. The point remains that piracy cannot be practiced openly without raising the potential for litigation. The fact that it might be relatively simple to not be "open" is irrelevant, and would not make it any worse than anything we've already seen.
It's not necessarily a "trade secret" that company X was a client of your former company Y, but if you go to work for competitor Z and utilize the relationship you may have already had established with X to effectively steal that client from company Y, then you are clearly using knowledge you had from working for Y to deprive Y of income, even though you aren't disclosing any secrets. This is the sort of action that companies are worried about.
They might be worried about trade secrets too, but as you say, that is actionable whether there is a non-compete or not... and there's further not necessarily any reasonable time limit past which trade secrets can be safely divulged without being actionable, so a non-compete on those grounds is utterly pointless.
That being the case, one also has to ask if it is worth killing over if one isn't going to get it in the first place?
If not, then it still makes no sense to divulge the PIN.
If so, then it gets a bit dicier. although I still wouldn't, personally
While I have no death wish specifically, if I'm dead, I don't have to live with the consequences of that, by definition, while conversely, a person who kills me might have to go on living with the consequences of committing murder, which may include jailtime if they are caught, plus they still won't have the PIN, so they haven't even gotten anything out of it, thereby negating any incentive they should otherwise have to bother to harm me in the first place.
If they are not acting rationally, then that is their problem, not mine. It's definitely not my problem if they should kill me (a person facing imminent death should anticipate no particular problems at all unless one also anticipates some kind of unpleasant afterlife experience), while being irrational would *STILL* be their problem if they chose to kill me without advantage to themselves. I do not pretend to be responsible for other people's choices, and attempting to allege that I might somehow be responsible for a choice that they might make when I did not impose that choice upon them in the first place is not going to fly with me.
Oh, and I'm quite aware that most people will think there's probably something wrong with me psychologically that I think this way....
Typo - doh! I meant "astronomical".... wow, I just noticed that error.