Mostly the test of the user of "enhanced experience" against the discomfort of having to move his ass. Any change is first met with resistance. It could be the best, most intuitive UI in the history of UIs and the user will first meet it with hostility. It's different, it ain't what he is used to and most of all using it without having to use half a brain cell, i.e. what he was used to if it was a tool he used every day for hours, is no longer an option. He has to learn again. People do not like that.
So whenever you do something like this, you HAVE TO give the user something he really, really, REALLY wants to compensate and overcome that reluctance. It needn't even be anything great. Not even anything useful. Any kind of convenience goodie may well do the trick.
You MUST NOT use computers for voting purposes. Even if every bit used is open source, even if you open source hardware, software and everything can be audited and everyone can verify that the hash of the binary is the same that a binary you compiled from the source is the same, even if you do EVERYTHING to make sure that anyone is able to audit it, it's a VERY VERY BAD idea.
Not because it can be manipulated. But because you cannot silence the ones claiming it's still fraud and that all the computer savvy people cooperate to overthrow democracy and humanity altogether. Because they can't audit it, because you need to know how computers work and how to audit computers to actually perform one.
Paper and pencil have one key advantage: EVERYONE can audit it. It takes the ability to see and the ability to count. Even reading is entirely optional because all the ballot slips are identical and you can simply go and count the ones with the cross at the same position. Every party can send whoever they want to supervise the election, no special education or skill needed.
It's less about actual election fraud. It's more that nobody can sensibly claim there had been one. We live in a time of fake news and creative reporting. Is it that far fetched that any party who loses an election would start rumors about rigged voting machines that could of course be audited, but only be a select few (aka "the elite")?
With paper and ballot, it's trivial to debunk anything like this. They could have sent literally ANYONE to supervise the election process. They could send ANYONE to recount the ballots. Any claim to fraud would instantly fizzle.
Actually, when I'm hiring I cannot ask that question because I don't get to see any information about sex, age, race, place of origin or other information that could REMOTELY be used to construct some kind of bias. I see credentials and prior jobs. And bluntly, that's all I care about when it comes to applicants.
So far you haven't pointed out why I would care whether more women enter the STEM fields, though. I don't care about the gender, race or anything else of the people I work with. What I care about is that they can do the job.
I cannot force non-white, non-males into STEM fields. I neither can, nor would I want to be able to because I think everyone should have the right to choose their job according to their abilities and their preferences. Saying that you only hire from 31% of the population isn't quite justified when there simply are way fewer people other than white males entering this job area.
I think you ask the wrong question. The question is not primarily "why do only get white males hired" but "why do only white males enter this job segment".
And you can't make food that appeals to 100% of the population. You won't make a vegetarian eat meat, you won't make someone with substance intolerance enjoy something that contains something he's allergic to and you won't convince someone to eat something their religion forbids. Likewise there is no way you can "make" people study something. I also cannot think of any way to make STEM more appealing to non-white non-males.
Unless you want to tell me that there IS an inherent difference between genders or people of different skin colors, there is also no way you could possibly make it more "appealing" to certain groups. If anything, we must stop as parents to tell our kids what they can/should and cannot/shouldn't do based on their gender or other traits and instead take a look at what the kids gravitate to and nourish this.
Oh, so gender isn't sex? You might be able to explain the nuanced difference, unfortunately, not being a native speaker, the finer details of the differences in the English language escape me. Care to elaborate?
We prefer to have a government that does its job. We understand that there are certain requirements for this to be possible. That means that taxes have to be paid to fund what they're supposed to do, and we also need to give them the ability to do it. It's pretty much the same that I'd expect to get at work. If I'm supposed to do a project, I need funding and I need the ability to command people to do what I need them to do to make the project work out. If I get neither money nor power, well, I will not be able to do my project, will I?
Oddly it seems that in the US, the government is supposed to not do anything. At least when listening to people claiming that taxation is theft and that the police shouldn't have any kind of power. How the hell are they supposed to do their job if that's what you expect from them? So in return, they try to force this onto you, to take by force what's not given, so they can do what they perceive as their job. And they overdo it by quite a margin.
Maybe that's the main difference. We try for cooperation, in the US, confrontation seems to be rather the norm.
That's the difference between the US and Europe. In Europe, governments harass corporations trying to abuse the law, in the US, the governments conspires with corporations to abuse the law to harass the people...
You see, our judges tend to be quite level headed and sensible. It usually takes a LOT of convincing to have them write warrants, except for one thing: If they feel you're trying to bullshit them, they can get VERY creative.
Judges in Europe also tend to have a LOT more leeway when it comes to interpreting the law than in the US. Anything short of simply ignoring the law is pretty much fair game.
Separation of power is all fine and nice, but at the end of the day, pretty much all the power rests in the hands of our judges. Should they ever get corrupted, we're FUBAR for good.
Write-offs mean jack shit when you already pay no tax. And write-offs only reduce your profit and hence your taxes, they aren't magically money you needn't pay.
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly the test of the user of "enhanced experience" against the discomfort of having to move his ass. Any change is first met with resistance. It could be the best, most intuitive UI in the history of UIs and the user will first meet it with hostility. It's different, it ain't what he is used to and most of all using it without having to use half a brain cell, i.e. what he was used to if it was a tool he used every day for hours, is no longer an option. He has to learn again. People do not like that.
So whenever you do something like this, you HAVE TO give the user something he really, really, REALLY wants to compensate and overcome that reluctance. It needn't even be anything great. Not even anything useful. Any kind of convenience goodie may well do the trick.
Without, your UI is doomed.
I used to think like you.
Then I discovered browser plugins, ad blockers, privacy protectors and other things that made loading webpages fast again.
Or maybe a paperweight.
You MUST NOT use computers for voting purposes. Even if every bit used is open source, even if you open source hardware, software and everything can be audited and everyone can verify that the hash of the binary is the same that a binary you compiled from the source is the same, even if you do EVERYTHING to make sure that anyone is able to audit it, it's a VERY VERY BAD idea.
Not because it can be manipulated. But because you cannot silence the ones claiming it's still fraud and that all the computer savvy people cooperate to overthrow democracy and humanity altogether. Because they can't audit it, because you need to know how computers work and how to audit computers to actually perform one.
Paper and pencil have one key advantage: EVERYONE can audit it. It takes the ability to see and the ability to count. Even reading is entirely optional because all the ballot slips are identical and you can simply go and count the ones with the cross at the same position. Every party can send whoever they want to supervise the election, no special education or skill needed.
It's less about actual election fraud. It's more that nobody can sensibly claim there had been one. We live in a time of fake news and creative reporting. Is it that far fetched that any party who loses an election would start rumors about rigged voting machines that could of course be audited, but only be a select few (aka "the elite")?
With paper and ballot, it's trivial to debunk anything like this. They could have sent literally ANYONE to supervise the election process. They could send ANYONE to recount the ballots. Any claim to fraud would instantly fizzle.
The more you breed the more you vote?
Ok, why is it worth being mentioned?
You might have to elaborate more, they turn out to be translated to the same word in my language.
Actually, when I'm hiring I cannot ask that question because I don't get to see any information about sex, age, race, place of origin or other information that could REMOTELY be used to construct some kind of bias. I see credentials and prior jobs. And bluntly, that's all I care about when it comes to applicants.
So far you haven't pointed out why I would care whether more women enter the STEM fields, though. I don't care about the gender, race or anything else of the people I work with. What I care about is that they can do the job.
"Thank you" doesn't cost you a dime, there is absolutely no drawback at all whatsoever to say "thank you".
I fail to see the problem.
You win.
I cannot force non-white, non-males into STEM fields. I neither can, nor would I want to be able to because I think everyone should have the right to choose their job according to their abilities and their preferences. Saying that you only hire from 31% of the population isn't quite justified when there simply are way fewer people other than white males entering this job area.
I think you ask the wrong question. The question is not primarily "why do only get white males hired" but "why do only white males enter this job segment".
And you can't make food that appeals to 100% of the population. You won't make a vegetarian eat meat, you won't make someone with substance intolerance enjoy something that contains something he's allergic to and you won't convince someone to eat something their religion forbids. Likewise there is no way you can "make" people study something. I also cannot think of any way to make STEM more appealing to non-white non-males.
Unless you want to tell me that there IS an inherent difference between genders or people of different skin colors, there is also no way you could possibly make it more "appealing" to certain groups. If anything, we must stop as parents to tell our kids what they can/should and cannot/shouldn't do based on their gender or other traits and instead take a look at what the kids gravitate to and nourish this.
I don't really see any other sensible option.
Oh, so gender isn't sex? You might be able to explain the nuanced difference, unfortunately, not being a native speaker, the finer details of the differences in the English language escape me. Care to elaborate?
Did you know the human body is 60% water? *cocks gun* So please lie down the the bathtub first, I don't want to spill more than necessary...
Not even half as entertaining as the global warming threads are. There's even sometimes a meaningful posting on these threads here.
Sad.
Homophobe much?
Or anything but qualification for that matter.
Actually it is. Freedom of speech means exactly that: Freedom from consequences. At least freedom from consequences from the government.
It has never meant anything else.
Anything else is like the old joke:
Is there freedom of speech in the USSR?
In principle, yes. But there may not be much freedom after the speech.
Great, we get dictatorship of what you can say from the left and dictatorship of what you can do from the right.
Best of both worlds, I guess...
It's the damn feminists and SJWs and that they only make the male turtles identify as female.
Picking gold teeth from the bottom of ovens or having black slaves pick cotton for you, it's all good...
We prefer to have a government that does its job. We understand that there are certain requirements for this to be possible. That means that taxes have to be paid to fund what they're supposed to do, and we also need to give them the ability to do it. It's pretty much the same that I'd expect to get at work. If I'm supposed to do a project, I need funding and I need the ability to command people to do what I need them to do to make the project work out. If I get neither money nor power, well, I will not be able to do my project, will I?
Oddly it seems that in the US, the government is supposed to not do anything. At least when listening to people claiming that taxation is theft and that the police shouldn't have any kind of power. How the hell are they supposed to do their job if that's what you expect from them? So in return, they try to force this onto you, to take by force what's not given, so they can do what they perceive as their job. And they overdo it by quite a margin.
Maybe that's the main difference. We try for cooperation, in the US, confrontation seems to be rather the norm.
Odd. Hasn't happened over here.
Maybe because you first of all would need to corrupt our judges. Which isn't as easy as in the US due to the way judges get appointed.
Takes a bit of creative warrant writing, I give you that, but our judges generally know how to word it that you'll never see your computers again.
That's the difference between the US and Europe. In Europe, governments harass corporations trying to abuse the law, in the US, the governments conspires with corporations to abuse the law to harass the people...
You see, our judges tend to be quite level headed and sensible. It usually takes a LOT of convincing to have them write warrants, except for one thing: If they feel you're trying to bullshit them, they can get VERY creative.
Judges in Europe also tend to have a LOT more leeway when it comes to interpreting the law than in the US. Anything short of simply ignoring the law is pretty much fair game.
Separation of power is all fine and nice, but at the end of the day, pretty much all the power rests in the hands of our judges. Should they ever get corrupted, we're FUBAR for good.
Write-offs mean jack shit when you already pay no tax. And write-offs only reduce your profit and hence your taxes, they aren't magically money you needn't pay.