So do all countries. That's because poorer people tend to commit more crimes.
True.
Unfortunately the United States incarcerate people 8 times more than Europe for example.
Unfortunately
the United States "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid"
Unfortunately
in 2008 the USA had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners
In fact, in 2008 the US
incarceration rate exceeded the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system
So, yeah, singling out the US for unjustly jailing people is not random and perfectly justified by facts, if we don't cherry pick, and as you said, these are very disproportionately poor because they tend to commit more crime and because they can't afford good lawyers and because they can't afford good education.
I did not say that capitalist society is divided in classes like proletariat and bourgeoisie, but that's the basis of Marxism
I said that capitalism will lead smoothly towards an economy of abundance, whereas Marxism clearly states that an actual revolution is needed to achieve a transitional state towards the utopian classless society it describes.
Marxism wants collective ownership of the means of production, I never said that's useful or needed. In fact I fully think there's a lot of good in capitalism (but that's not pure capitalism)
No, I am not describing Marxism. In fact, every time I discuss this with a Marxist they disagree deeply with me...
A society where basic and (former) luxury needs are given out for free will find new and still scarce luxuries
We are way into the long tail of diminishing returns there.
One thing is saying "i want a coat made of better luxury material because it insulates better and it's more comfy, instead of the basic free version which is crappy and itchy". Another is "I want the megagizmo superinflatable coat instead of the luxury material one".
Not only the second example shows drastically less objective improvements, it also hints to how advertisement is needed to inflate demand for high-priced crap which is not objectively better at all. Remove the ads, this kind of demand collapses.
There are two objective problems with pure capitalism:
Morality and redistribution of wealth. Any economics philosophy should aim at maximizing well being. Capitalism favors the accumulation of capital, or, basically, draining resources from society. Remember servitude, aristocracy and the middle ages? Yeah, that's the end game of pure capitalism.
The assumption that a free market solves all the problems. First of all, it doesn't work at all. In fact a purely free market leads to monopolies, which break its rules. So a free market needs a strong government to keep it free. Secondly, not all social problems are best solved through a free market. Things which are strategic to society might not be profitable to be run at best. In fact, in general infrastructure is best when not run by the free market because it needs to be neutral. Think of health, defense, basic transportation... they are naturally loss-leading, and not amenable to free market logic. You want free market defense? You get an industry that creates wars to increase their shareholder value... not morally acceptable at all.
Furthermore, pure capitalism is leading to its own death because progress is undermining some of the basics of capitalist economy, such as scarcity. Capitalism works because money is valuable. Money is valuable because you can buy stuff with it. Stuff is valuable because there's not enough to cover demand. In a society where basic needs are covered essentially for free, money accumulation becomes much less important. In a society where basic and luxury needs are given for essentially free, money accumulation is way less interesting or compelling to anyone.
This, in the short term, leads to a society with an inflated artificial demand. Did you not notice the amount of ads you are subjected to? Yeah, that's why. Of course this is only a temporary solution to a structural problem. Market forces will make sure ads are minimized, and this is something which has a marginal cost of zero, so it will eventually be free for all, which is exactly what is happening with adblockers, and adblocker-blocker blockers.
After that, demand will collapse and eventually we will move towards an economy of abundance, not of scarcity. I don't know what that will look like, but certainly it won't be capitalism or communism.
Let's not forget that google has no obligation to return search results which are neutral towards what's actually out there. Actually, Google does return customized results!
Don't you think that skews the result just as much as social networks could?
I don't doubt there's bias against women, nor I want to mansplain the results at all. However I care deeply about good science and reliable facts. This article is not very good at showing clearly that this bias exists. Here are a few major problems with it:
1. Are the samples of women and men who post on GitHub representative of all open source programmers? I would think that women tend to contribute publicly less than man, and tend to disclose their gender less than men, and this probably biases the sample. The article doesn't attempt to analyze this, it merely assumes their sample is adequate.
2. The article says that both men and women get less pull requests accepted when their gender is identifiable, although this affects more women than men. The article does not compare the two values explicitly (in fact, it does not give the value for men at all), and it doesn't attempt to explain this effect -- it could well be that there's a confounding factor they haven't considered other then gender bias
3. Both men and women can accept and deny pull requests. Surely the gender of who accepts or denies the pull request is a factor that needs to be analyzed before the conclusion can be "there is gender discrimination"?
If ads are served after the content, which must be true if they want to appear in Google results, then it follows that an appropriate extension will always be able to block the ad, and the adblocker blocker, and...
Stories like this contain at least part of the answer.
Only if stories like these happen in the science and technology fields and not elsewhere. It seems banal enough, albeit tragic, that it could have happened in any field.
A person in senior position trying to get their subordinates to bed? Shocking! I would never have imagined such a thing!</sarcasm>
You are completely misrepresenting science. Science works for continuous refinements. New discoveries and theories refine previous ones, and our understanding of nature improves without nullifying the previous knowledge. Nothing is overturned.
Thus it's blatantly false that science gives temporary answers. It certainly only provides an approximative model of reality, but generally a sane and useful one. Newton's law of gravity is still widely used to send people in space, even though it has been refined by Einstein and others. No one cares about "truth", besides religious people.
Religion, one the other hand, is blatantly made up stuff that is believed into in the face of tons of contrary evidence. It is not unrelated to science, in fact it makes tons of claims about the physical world. So far, any religious/magical claim that has been studied has turned out to be either blatantly false or...not magic. Yet, people believe anyways. People go to Lourdes, even though it's statistically bad for them. People pray, even though it has no effect at all. At least in science, hypothesis are discarded once they are disproven.
You are completely misrepresenting science. Science works for continuous refinements. New discoveries and theories refine previous ones, and our understanding of nature improves without nullifying the previous knowledge.
Thus it's blatantly false that science gives temporary answers. It certainly only provides an approximation, but generally a sane and useful one. Newton's law of gravity is still widely used to send people in space, even though it has been refined by Einstein and others,
Religion, one the other hand, is blatantly made up stuff that is believed into in the face of tons of contrary evidence.
That would still qualify as indirect discrimination: a measure which is applied equally to everyone but affects people of different ages differently. Unless Google can prove in court that overworking is a proportional and justifiable necessity, they are liable for age discrimination.
For many years, he hasn't worked or been an active environmentalist. In fact he works for a marketing company whose blog you can read here: http://greenspiritstrategies.c... and contains many articles in which he openly espouses anti-environmentalist positions such as:
Green godfather says pipeline must be built
Furthermore, the article is published by the Heartland institute, which is notoriously a lobbyist for many not-so-great corporations such as the fossil fuel, tobacco or walmart.
I work for Joel Spolsky and we have a single estimate: 6-8 weeks.
Estimation is basically useless because it has the unspoken assumption of "perfect design", which is an invalid one: software development is not a repeated exercise, it does not have consistency.
Having a single estimate does this to your projects: much smaller things, just do them; much bigger things, they are too big so don't do them, things vaguely in that scale, do them iteratively but define what you are trying to achieve in writing so you know when to stop.
No project managers, product managers work at a way higher scale (decide which are the projects worth working on).
Consider Christian charities that give without quid pro quo. There are Islamic charities that do similar work. There are Jewish and Buddhist and Hindu charities which similarly give help merely because helping others is good.
Consider non-religious charities that give without quid pro quo. They similarly give help merely because helping others is good.
If you are going to damn every religion because of fanatics, you can choose to damn every human endeavor, no matter how good, for those who would pervert it. You have no depth of perception, and in fact, are no better than the those who you would damn.
I do not damn Christianity because of pedophile priest. I damn it because of their active cover-up of such individuals. I do not damn Muslims because of the Taliban — on the other hand, I am not aware of an active interest in condemning such practices by a large part of Muslim authorities, and actually they seem at least tolerated, and in some Muslims environment, supported if not sponsored.
Saying that religion is "bad" for humanity is an overall kind of argument, i.e. the bad is more than the good. If it were all bad, there would be no religions.
This world is here for a reason. You are here for a reason. You are not an accident. The implication: Your life has a point. There is something you, and no other, are meant to do. Find it, and live up to it.
Erm, it does not say that, not even by a long shot. The hypothesis that the universe has been created does not imply that it has a purpose. Also, if God created the universe who created God? From this you deduce that we all have a fate or a point? Sorry, but I think you are deluded. It's called wishful thinking.
Could this simple message, only casually hidden, have helped people you've known in your life?
No, because delusions don't help them. The truth does.
As I side note: what do I think is the truth? I don't know, however — I think it's probably better not to assume that there is a predefined purpose unless there is some firm evidence of the contrary. I am quite happy thinking and defining my own purpose. It's called philosophy.
I have never ever met an atheist that stated that they didn't believe in god as an act of faith. I am not sure what atheists you have met, but this sounds more like a theist's crap straw man rendition of an atheist than the real life people i know.
Slashdot Mirror
So do all countries. That's because poorer people tend to commit more crimes.
True.
Unfortunately the United States incarcerate people 8 times more than Europe for example.
Unfortunately
the United States "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid"
Unfortunately
in 2008 the USA had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners
In fact, in 2008 the US
incarceration rate exceeded the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system
So, yeah, singling out the US for unjustly jailing people is not random and perfectly justified by facts, if we don't cherry pick, and as you said, these are very disproportionately poor because they tend to commit more crime and because they can't afford good lawyers and because they can't afford good education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's a well known fact that the United States very disproportionately put the poor in prison. They'd be better off as serfs than prisoners.
No, I am not describing Marxism. In fact, every time I discuss this with a Marxist they disagree deeply with me...
A society where basic and (former) luxury needs are given out for free will find new and still scarce luxuries
We are way into the long tail of diminishing returns there.
One thing is saying "i want a coat made of better luxury material because it insulates better and it's more comfy, instead of the basic free version which is crappy and itchy". Another is "I want the megagizmo superinflatable coat instead of the luxury material one". Not only the second example shows drastically less objective improvements, it also hints to how advertisement is needed to inflate demand for high-priced crap which is not objectively better at all. Remove the ads, this kind of demand collapses.
Furthermore, pure capitalism is leading to its own death because progress is undermining some of the basics of capitalist economy, such as scarcity. Capitalism works because money is valuable. Money is valuable because you can buy stuff with it. Stuff is valuable because there's not enough to cover demand. In a society where basic needs are covered essentially for free, money accumulation becomes much less important. In a society where basic and luxury needs are given for essentially free, money accumulation is way less interesting or compelling to anyone. This, in the short term, leads to a society with an inflated artificial demand. Did you not notice the amount of ads you are subjected to? Yeah, that's why. Of course this is only a temporary solution to a structural problem. Market forces will make sure ads are minimized, and this is something which has a marginal cost of zero, so it will eventually be free for all, which is exactly what is happening with adblockers, and adblocker-blocker blockers. After that, demand will collapse and eventually we will move towards an economy of abundance, not of scarcity. I don't know what that will look like, but certainly it won't be capitalism or communism.
Let's not forget that google has no obligation to return search results which are neutral towards what's actually out there. Actually, Google does return customized results!
Don't you think that skews the result just as much as social networks could?
All religions are obviously works of fiction, according to everyone not of that religion...
Take any religion, much more than 50% of living human beings think it's obviously fake.
So, tell me again: what is a "real" religion, objectively?
I don't doubt there's bias against women, nor I want to mansplain the results at all. However I care deeply about good science and reliable facts. This article is not very good at showing clearly that this bias exists. Here are a few major problems with it:
1. Are the samples of women and men who post on GitHub representative of all open source programmers? I would think that women tend to contribute publicly less than man, and tend to disclose their gender less than men, and this probably biases the sample. The article doesn't attempt to analyze this, it merely assumes their sample is adequate.
2. The article says that both men and women get less pull requests accepted when their gender is identifiable, although this affects more women than men. The article does not compare the two values explicitly (in fact, it does not give the value for men at all), and it doesn't attempt to explain this effect -- it could well be that there's a confounding factor they haven't considered other then gender bias
3. Both men and women can accept and deny pull requests. Surely the gender of who accepts or denies the pull request is a factor that needs to be analyzed before the conclusion can be "there is gender discrimination"?
If ads are served after the content, which must be true if they want to appear in Google results, then it follows that an appropriate extension will always be able to block the ad, and the adblocker blocker, and...
It's a strategy which can't win in the long run.
Stories like this contain at least part of the answer.
Only if stories like these happen in the science and technology fields and not elsewhere. It seems banal enough, albeit tragic, that it could have happened in any field.
A person in senior position trying to get their subordinates to bed? Shocking! I would never have imagined such a thing!</sarcasm>
I, for one, welcome our Stack Overflords.
PS: I, too, work for the beast^H^H^H^H^H Stack Overflow
> "I did some research and found how dangerous Wi-Fi could be"
No no no no no no...
You are completely misrepresenting science. Science works for continuous refinements. New discoveries and theories refine previous ones, and our understanding of nature improves without nullifying the previous knowledge. Nothing is overturned.
Thus it's blatantly false that science gives temporary answers. It certainly only provides an approximative model of reality, but generally a sane and useful one. Newton's law of gravity is still widely used to send people in space, even though it has been refined by Einstein and others. No one cares about "truth", besides religious people.
Religion, one the other hand, is blatantly made up stuff that is believed into in the face of tons of contrary evidence. It is not unrelated to science, in fact it makes tons of claims about the physical world. So far, any religious/magical claim that has been studied has turned out to be either blatantly false or ...not magic. Yet, people believe anyways. People go to Lourdes, even though it's statistically bad for them. People pray, even though it has no effect at all. At least in science, hypothesis are discarded once they are disproven.
You are completely misrepresenting science. Science works for continuous refinements. New discoveries and theories refine previous ones, and our understanding of nature improves without nullifying the previous knowledge.
Thus it's blatantly false that science gives temporary answers. It certainly only provides an approximation, but generally a sane and useful one. Newton's law of gravity is still widely used to send people in space, even though it has been refined by Einstein and others,
Religion, one the other hand, is blatantly made up stuff that is believed into in the face of tons of contrary evidence.
They could, but of course Google could say that pay correlates to experience and market prices for that.
That would still qualify as indirect discrimination: a measure which is applied equally to everyone but affects people of different ages differently. Unless Google can prove in court that overworking is a proportional and justifiable necessity, they are liable for age discrimination.
For many years, he hasn't worked or been an active environmentalist. In fact he works for a marketing company whose blog you can read here: http://greenspiritstrategies.c... and contains many articles in which he openly espouses anti-environmentalist positions such as:
Furthermore, the article is published by the Heartland institute, which is notoriously a lobbyist for many not-so-great corporations such as the fossil fuel, tobacco or walmart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
It's part of fogbugz. We use trello.
I work for Joel Spolsky and we have a single estimate: 6-8 weeks.
Estimation is basically useless because it has the unspoken assumption of "perfect design", which is an invalid one: software development is not a repeated exercise, it does not have consistency.
Having a single estimate does this to your projects: much smaller things, just do them; much bigger things, they are too big so don't do them, things vaguely in that scale, do them iteratively but define what you are trying to achieve in writing so you know when to stop.
No project managers, product managers work at a way higher scale (decide which are the projects worth working on).
Because, you know, open sourcing by the devil has to be evil! :-)
In all seriousness though, does this make .NET more open than Java? In other words, RMS-acceptable?
I'm 43. After having been sucked in management in two occasions, two years ago I've joined the core team at Stack Overflow as a full stack developer.
I've never been happier.
Age was useful because it gave me more time to enrich my knowledge and experience.
Consider Christian charities that give without quid pro quo. There are Islamic charities that do similar work. There are Jewish and Buddhist and Hindu charities which similarly give help merely because helping others is good.
Consider non-religious charities that give without quid pro quo. They similarly give help merely because helping others is good.
If you are going to damn every religion because of fanatics, you can choose to damn every human endeavor, no matter how good, for those who would pervert it. You have no depth of perception, and in fact, are no better than the those who you would damn.
I do not damn Christianity because of pedophile priest. I damn it because of their active cover-up of such individuals. I do not damn Muslims because of the Taliban — on the other hand, I am not aware of an active interest in condemning such practices by a large part of Muslim authorities, and actually they seem at least tolerated, and in some Muslims environment, supported if not sponsored.
Saying that religion is "bad" for humanity is an overall kind of argument, i.e. the bad is more than the good. If it were all bad, there would be no religions.
This world is here for a reason. You are here for a reason. You are not an accident. The implication: Your life has a point. There is something you, and no other, are meant to do. Find it, and live up to it.
Erm, it does not say that, not even by a long shot. The hypothesis that the universe has been created does not imply that it has a purpose. Also, if God created the universe who created God?
From this you deduce that we all have a fate or a point? Sorry, but I think you are deluded. It's called wishful thinking.
Could this simple message, only casually hidden, have helped people you've known in your life?
No, because delusions don't help them. The truth does.
As I side note: what do I think is the truth? I don't know, however — I think it's probably better not to assume that there is a predefined purpose unless there is some firm evidence of the contrary. I am quite happy thinking and defining my own purpose. It's called philosophy.
I have never ever met an atheist that stated that they didn't believe in god as an act of faith. I am not sure what atheists you have met, but this sounds more like a theist's crap straw man rendition of an atheist than the real life people i know.
You are totally off track. I use Santa because I feel exactly the same way with God -- a childish, superstitious belief.