I was just thinking I bought a 6lb pack of 90/10 ground beef at Sams for less than $3.30 a pound, so I fail to see the value in these incredible savings.
I do. Not all ground beef is the same. Criticize Whole Foods prices if you like but it's hard to argue that the quality of their meat (and most other) products isn't also better than Sam's in most cases. Whether it is worth the price difference is a different question but you aren't comparing identical products. It is unlikely your package of Sam's ground beef was organic nor is it likely to be of the highest quality. I've bought plenty of meat from Sam's in years gone by and it's fine but it's not as good a product as I can get at Whole Foods either. Whether that matters to you or not is of course a decision unique to you.
I understand that Amazon hasn't been profitable for a while. Why would a company with such an ugly statistic slash prices this much? I do not get it!
Because Amazon doesn't chase quarterly profits they can actually do things that benefit the company in the long run. They manage expectations of shareholders and have since they went public. Amazon "isn't profitable" because they reinvest in the company to grow rather than trying to maximize quarterly profits for shareholders who don't give a crap about 10 years from now. They can slash prices because they don't have to feed the earnings monster and can do things to grow Whole Foods in the long term. In reality Amazon could be highly profitable tomorrow if they wanted to be but that probably wouldn't be smart.
That's the siren song of growing monopolies - economies of scale let them lower prices significantly below the competition... at least until the competition crumbles.
Amazon is not and probably never will be a monopoly anymore than Walmart is currently. They might be able to set prices in some markets that others follow but they'll (probably) never have so much pricing power that they can drive all competition out of the market. Even Walmart has never been able to drive Target and many others out of business. Not everyone competes on price. Nobody shops at Nordstroms because they are bargain hunting. I'm sure Amazon will drive some marginal competitors out but I don't see any scenario where they drive the strongest competitors out.
I mean, maybe I'm just naive, but don't most people just assume that your phones/apps are leaky and not rely on them to say that they're protecting your privacy?
No, most people don't give the matter a second thought.
If you don't want to pay taxes go live in somewhere where you don't use any of the benefits of paying taxes. No rule of law, no police or other first responders, no roads, no military, no contract enforcement, no judicial system, limited health care, no public education, no science research, no parks, no vaccines, no space program, no internet, no food safety, no drug safety, etc. If you want to live in a civilized society shut up and pay your taxes and stop selfishly whining about it. You benefit from the results too. Taxes are only theft in the minds of stupid and selfish people.
To be brutally honest, the types of transactions that most people make with Bitcoin (drug buys, money laundering, etc) aren't exactly the ones you want to report to the government. If they were dumb enough to report those to the IRS, they'll have problems worse than tax evasion to worry about.
I wouldn't bet on that. Tax evasion is how they put Al Capone in prison. If you look on line 21 of the standard 1040 form you will see it says "Other income. List type and amount". It may as well say "report earnings from illegal drugs and other crimes here". This is where they get drug dealers because ANY income has to be reported by law, whether or not it was legally obtained. So if you don't report the earnings from drug deals (or any other crime) they bust you for tax evasion even if you manage to avoid prosecution for the crime itself.
Being a buyer doesn't really save you either. Use taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and more can all apply depending on what state you live in.
There are some interesting fifth amendment constitutional law issues regarding mechanisms used to collect taxes on illegal drugs. In some cases reporting drug earnings can violate your rights against self incrimination depending on how it is done.
The snack stand is going to be the demise of the theater.
See that's what you don't understand. The snack stand is where the theater makes all their profit. They don't make any money on the movies themselves. The studio keeps most of the gross profits from the movie. Movie theaters really are just concession stands that use movies to get you in the door. I'm sympathetic if you consider it overpriced but if they didn't charge you an arm and a leg for refreshments they wouldn't be in business for long.
My theater is independent and doesn't show ads.
Then in all likelihood they won't be around for long.
I blame the liberals. Seriously. They raised entire generations that overreact to everything.
Really? Peanut allergies are political now? I find it amazing that so many conservatives seem to find a way to blame liberalism for anything that annoys them. That is called scapegoating and it says more about you than it does about them. I coach a high school sports team and I can assure you that conservative parents are just as obnoxious and over-reaction prone as liberal ones. I deal with both routinely and it has NOTHING to do with their political bent.
Not a dog parent, but I find it unbelievable that just feeding and bathrooming the dogs can be done in 20 minutes, nevermind everything else on top of that.
Unless your dog is extremely poorly trained it takes 5 minutes tops. Very few dogs take more than a minute or two to consume their meal and pottying them should take 2 minutes tops. I have three dogs and it just doesn't take long unless you live in a high rise or something. If you take 20 minutes to feed and potty your dogs you are just wasting time.
I get up at 4:30AM to catch the 6AM bus outside of my apartment complex. It takes me 90 minutes to get ready and out the door. Some of us had put our college days behind us and no longer roll out of bed wearing the work clothes from yesterday.
Are you getting ready for the prom or something? 90 minutes to get ready? Seriously? I can roll out of bed, shower, dress, feed and bathroom three dogs, grab my lunch and be on the road in under 20 minutes. If you are taking 90 minutes you are Doing It Wrong. And I haven't been an undergrad for over 20 years so don't give me the age excuse.
Having children is a choice, in most circumstances, and rearranging your life accordingly is one of the costs that should be accepted.
Being an inconsiderate jerk is a choice, in most circumstances too.
People have kids and that's a good thing. Refusing to acknowledge that reality is just you being a selfish inconsiderate jerk. Your parents made sacrifices for you just like everyone else's parents. Cut them some slack. Someday it might be your turn. But with an attitude like that hopefully not soon...
The actual evidence says otherwise. Movie ticket sales have been a good approximation of constant for the last decade including last year. Revenues are up substantially as they are charging more per ticket.
I personally don't understand the appeal of a drive-in, maybe its because I'm slightly tall @ 6'1" but cars aren't relaxing to sit in and the windshield doesn't provide great vertical visibility.
My car is more comfortable to sit in than most movie theater seats. Plus at a drive in you're less likely to be disturbed by your annoying neighbor and his noisy spawn. Vertical visibility doesn't matter unless you are sitting right under the screen. As long as you can see the entire screen who cares if you can't see above it?
That said, the same is true for the theatre, no leg room and rarely can you get one of the good seats in the middle of the theatre.
I don't consider being in the middle of the theater consequential to it being a good seat. I just want a seat which is comfy, has adequate leg room, where I don't feel crowded or disturbed by my neighbors, where the arm rests fold up, the floor isn't nasty and the sound is good. Being in the middle of the theater isn't inherently required for any of this.
In a blog post, Krzanich said that the decline in American manufacturing remains a serious issue, but said that "politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base. I resigned to call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues, including the serious need to address the decline of American manufacturing
Translation: "I'm too much of a coward to publicly denounce Nazis and white supremacists by name and Trump's support for them and only am resigning because of pressure from bad publicity to my company that is resulting from my slow exit from this useless advisory body."
"Politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base."
What a load of crap. America's manufacturing base is fine and certainly doesn't require rebuilding. America has a HUGE and thriving manufacturing base. By itself it is approximately the size of the GDP of the UK and twice the size of the GDP of Russia. It could be improved but Trump isn't going to be the guy to lead that charge and anyone who didn't realize that in the first 100 days of his administration is an idiot. Improving manufacturing in the US will require careful planning, good policy, and sensible strategy. We aren't going to get any of those as long as Trump sits in the oval office.
I know in my yard, the ONLY thing I use neonicotinoids on are my non-flowering ornamental bushes (which are trimmed enough to keep from flowering). Without it, unfortunately most would all be dead due to scale. Yes, I tried everything else and nothing worked until I applied Merit and that stuff is magic. Applied only once a year and the problem is gone.
Maybe the fact that they cannot survive without putting toxic chemicals on them is a hint you should take. How about planting something that doesn't require special toxins to survive. Native plants are usually a good start.
I don't think the casual use by homeowners seeking protection of some established ornamentals is much (if any) exposure to bees.
Based on what evidence? You "don't think" it is a problem why exactly? And we're not talking about one or two homeowners. We're talking about millions of them all across the country using quite a lot of the stuff. Furthermore the chemicals don't just stay were you spray them and they don't magically disappear.
I would not be in favor of any type of across-the-board ban of neonicotinoids if it would mean taking it out of the hands of responsible use in ways that can't possibly be much danger.
Given that there appears to be substantial evidence of important negative effects on critical pollinators, exactly what is the basis of your argument? Because you think your are being "responsible" with them? Particularly in regards to plants that are purely ornamental. There is such a thing a responsible use in the food supply but no such thing exists for ornamental plants including lawn grass. If your lawn requires even occasional spraying then you are Doing It Wrong.
Copyright in the name of a corporation is good for 1 year, with infinite renewals at $100k per year (cumulitive), indexed to inflation. So, year one costs $100k. Year 10 of copyright costs $1M. Year 100 of copyright costs $10M.
Not expensive enough in my view though I think that's a fine fee schedule - much better than what we have now. I tend to favor starting the copyright cost at $100 (indexed for inflation) and then doubling the amount every year. Makes it fairly easy to keep a copyright for 10-15 years but after that it had better be worth a LOT of money. By year 25 you are into the billions. A few properties are worth that but not many. Your idea might be more likely to become reality than mine though...
Netflix started becoming close to an end to piracy.
Hah! That's adorable if you actually believe that. While I agree that services like Netflix are probably making a dent, piracy is NEVER going to go away.
Not that I watched Disney products but inevitably others are going to follow suit.
Really? You didn't want any Marvel Cinematic Universe movies? No Star Wars? No Pixar? Touchstone Pictures? The Muppets? You realize all those are Disney properties, right? You'll forgive me if I don't actually believe you when you claim you don't watch any Disney products.
I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content.
Agreed! I have zero interest in having twelve different subscriptions to various services just because they can't figure out how to divide up their pile of money.
I've just read his document. I must say, that was a very rational appeal to Google to bring more harmony and freedom into its culture.
An appeal maybe but not a terribly rational or well argued one. It was a stupid approach to a problem that he doesn't really appreciate and he very clearly does not understand the politics involved.
I must also say I see no hostility to anyone whatsoever. All he said was "Let's get away from this cult and be as productive (through enabling each and every Google employee to reach his full potential) as we can be".
No that is NOT all he said. And if that is all you took out of it then you are politically naive. It never occurred to you that people might try to couch their (unfortunate) ideas in terms that seem more palatable?
I must also say I see no hostility to anyone whatsoever. All he said was "Let's get away from this cult and be as productive (through enabling each and every Google employee to reach his full potential) as we can be".
It basically is an argument against what he perceives as so-called "political correctness" in pursuit of gender equity. He tries to be more clever than that but that's what he's saying. He claims to be a "classical liberal" but it's pretty clear that he is not based on his arguments. He makes population arguments and then assumes these must apply on the individual level.
And he was fired for it. And THAT is exactly where the hate for SJWs comes from.
If you hate someone because they are fighting for equal rights in the work place then that says more about you then it does about them. He was fired because he embarrassed the company and its public image with a poorly written and ill considered rant that can easily be interpreted as sexist. Even if his intentions were pure (and it's not clear they were) it was a stupid approach to the problem and his getting fired should surprise no one. Did he really think writing that paper was going to result in meaningful change or that it contained some special insight which had occurred to no one else?
His falsifiable claims were well supported by the science
Even if we concede that to be true (and I do not), that doesn't mean that his conclusions from that evidence are correct and his conclusions are anything but scientific.
By firing him, they've created a hostile work environment for empiricists.
This was not a dispassionate empirical argument. I've read the memo in its entirety. This was a rant against what he perceived as ideology that he did not agree with. He's entitle to that opinion but don't insult my intelligence by claiming it was some masterpiece of empiricism.
If you think that believing the science is sexist, then call me a sexist, but it's also a political statement to want to make decisions based on the science.
This wasn't a scientific paper. It was a political opinion piece which casually referenced some cherry picked "evidence" in an effort to seem more credible.
The media and regressive companies like Google love to pander to people of another color or gender.
As opposed to pandering to white males which your post seems to imply you would prefer? If you want to argue that there is a better way to help disadvantaged groups, by all means let's hear it. But to dismiss efforts to diminish the demonstrably negative impact of racism or sexism as "pandering" says more about you than it does about the problem. You are resorting to name calling which is kind of pathetic.
This guys document was well-written and scientifically based.
Well written does not equal correct. Just because we have freedom of speech does not mean that anything you say should be considered factual. And to call it "scientifically based" is to insult science. It was not a scientific paper nor was it based on scientific papers and it certainly did not use any scientific methods. This was an opinion piece which casually referenced some cherry picked "evidence". He's entitled to his opinions but don't insult our intelligence by claiming there was any scientific rigor to his rant in an attempt to justify his actions.
But the regressiveleft hates any facts that contradict their delusions, very similar to religion.
As does the political right. What exactly is your point?
Unlike aircraft, ships lack a back-up navigation system and if their GPS ceases to function, they risk running aground or colliding with other vessels.
Anyone who sails out of sight of shore without a backup navigation system (even a sextant) is a weapons grade idiot.
We already have humans for that. How about doing things humans cannot do?
There are a lot of humans that aren't very intelligent. Furthermore just because a human can do a task doesn't mean it cannot be done better/faster/cheaper with some mechanical assistance. Humans can do remarkable things but we have our limits. This includes both physical and knowledge tasks.
The economy doesn't pay people in a manner commensurate with their skills or work product. They are paid based on other humans' interpretation of the potential value of said person's skills or work product, a not subtle difference.
That's largely a distinction without a difference. Your market value is by definition what you can convince someone else to pay you. Perception is a part of that. In most cases there is no objective way to value a particular set of skills.
Holy fuck you Musk cocksuckers are unbelievable. If someone isn't "changing the world" as Musk claims (but fails to do), then according to you, they cannot criticize him at all.
Heaven forbid someone not be a cynical whiner like yourself who wants nothing more than to find some tiny flaw in others so they can tear them down. Musk IS changing the world and doing so in ways that appear ethically sound as a general proposition. If you don't appreciate that fact then that is your problem. He's working hard to solve serious problems and making real headway in doing so. Go ahead and criticize him if you like but don't be surprised when we tell you that your opinion isn't persuasive.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just thinking I bought a 6lb pack of 90/10 ground beef at Sams for less than $3.30 a pound, so I fail to see the value in these incredible savings.
I do. Not all ground beef is the same. Criticize Whole Foods prices if you like but it's hard to argue that the quality of their meat (and most other) products isn't also better than Sam's in most cases. Whether it is worth the price difference is a different question but you aren't comparing identical products. It is unlikely your package of Sam's ground beef was organic nor is it likely to be of the highest quality. I've bought plenty of meat from Sam's in years gone by and it's fine but it's not as good a product as I can get at Whole Foods either. Whether that matters to you or not is of course a decision unique to you.
I understand that Amazon hasn't been profitable for a while. Why would a company with such an ugly statistic slash prices this much? I do not get it!
Because Amazon doesn't chase quarterly profits they can actually do things that benefit the company in the long run. They manage expectations of shareholders and have since they went public. Amazon "isn't profitable" because they reinvest in the company to grow rather than trying to maximize quarterly profits for shareholders who don't give a crap about 10 years from now. They can slash prices because they don't have to feed the earnings monster and can do things to grow Whole Foods in the long term. In reality Amazon could be highly profitable tomorrow if they wanted to be but that probably wouldn't be smart.
That's the siren song of growing monopolies - economies of scale let them lower prices significantly below the competition... at least until the competition crumbles.
Amazon is not and probably never will be a monopoly anymore than Walmart is currently. They might be able to set prices in some markets that others follow but they'll (probably) never have so much pricing power that they can drive all competition out of the market. Even Walmart has never been able to drive Target and many others out of business. Not everyone competes on price. Nobody shops at Nordstroms because they are bargain hunting. I'm sure Amazon will drive some marginal competitors out but I don't see any scenario where they drive the strongest competitors out.
I mean, maybe I'm just naive, but don't most people just assume that your phones/apps are leaky and not rely on them to say that they're protecting your privacy?
No, most people don't give the matter a second thought.
Hey Mr CEO, you've still got a little egg on your face. Right there on your chin.
I don't think that's egg. It's a little more like... ewwwww
Fuck you. Taxation is theft.
If you don't want to pay taxes go live in somewhere where you don't use any of the benefits of paying taxes. No rule of law, no police or other first responders, no roads, no military, no contract enforcement, no judicial system, limited health care, no public education, no science research, no parks, no vaccines, no space program, no internet, no food safety, no drug safety, etc. If you want to live in a civilized society shut up and pay your taxes and stop selfishly whining about it. You benefit from the results too. Taxes are only theft in the minds of stupid and selfish people.
To be brutally honest, the types of transactions that most people make with Bitcoin (drug buys, money laundering, etc) aren't exactly the ones you want to report to the government. If they were dumb enough to report those to the IRS, they'll have problems worse than tax evasion to worry about.
I wouldn't bet on that. Tax evasion is how they put Al Capone in prison. If you look on line 21 of the standard 1040 form you will see it says "Other income. List type and amount". It may as well say "report earnings from illegal drugs and other crimes here". This is where they get drug dealers because ANY income has to be reported by law, whether or not it was legally obtained. So if you don't report the earnings from drug deals (or any other crime) they bust you for tax evasion even if you manage to avoid prosecution for the crime itself.
Being a buyer doesn't really save you either. Use taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and more can all apply depending on what state you live in.
There are some interesting fifth amendment constitutional law issues regarding mechanisms used to collect taxes on illegal drugs. In some cases reporting drug earnings can violate your rights against self incrimination depending on how it is done.
The snack stand is going to be the demise of the theater.
See that's what you don't understand. The snack stand is where the theater makes all their profit. They don't make any money on the movies themselves. The studio keeps most of the gross profits from the movie. Movie theaters really are just concession stands that use movies to get you in the door. I'm sympathetic if you consider it overpriced but if they didn't charge you an arm and a leg for refreshments they wouldn't be in business for long.
My theater is independent and doesn't show ads.
Then in all likelihood they won't be around for long.
I blame the liberals. Seriously. They raised entire generations that overreact to everything.
Really? Peanut allergies are political now? I find it amazing that so many conservatives seem to find a way to blame liberalism for anything that annoys them. That is called scapegoating and it says more about you than it does about them. I coach a high school sports team and I can assure you that conservative parents are just as obnoxious and over-reaction prone as liberal ones. I deal with both routinely and it has NOTHING to do with their political bent.
Not a dog parent, but I find it unbelievable that just feeding and bathrooming the dogs can be done in 20 minutes, nevermind everything else on top of that.
Unless your dog is extremely poorly trained it takes 5 minutes tops. Very few dogs take more than a minute or two to consume their meal and pottying them should take 2 minutes tops. I have three dogs and it just doesn't take long unless you live in a high rise or something. If you take 20 minutes to feed and potty your dogs you are just wasting time.
I get up at 4:30AM to catch the 6AM bus outside of my apartment complex. It takes me 90 minutes to get ready and out the door. Some of us had put our college days behind us and no longer roll out of bed wearing the work clothes from yesterday.
Are you getting ready for the prom or something? 90 minutes to get ready? Seriously? I can roll out of bed, shower, dress, feed and bathroom three dogs, grab my lunch and be on the road in under 20 minutes. If you are taking 90 minutes you are Doing It Wrong. And I haven't been an undergrad for over 20 years so don't give me the age excuse.
Having children is a choice, in most circumstances, and rearranging your life accordingly is one of the costs that should be accepted.
Being an inconsiderate jerk is a choice, in most circumstances too.
People have kids and that's a good thing. Refusing to acknowledge that reality is just you being a selfish inconsiderate jerk. Your parents made sacrifices for you just like everyone else's parents. Cut them some slack. Someday it might be your turn. But with an attitude like that hopefully not soon...
Tickets sales are WAAY down.
The actual evidence says otherwise. Movie ticket sales have been a good approximation of constant for the last decade including last year. Revenues are up substantially as they are charging more per ticket.
I personally don't understand the appeal of a drive-in, maybe its because I'm slightly tall @ 6'1" but cars aren't relaxing to sit in and the windshield doesn't provide great vertical visibility.
My car is more comfortable to sit in than most movie theater seats. Plus at a drive in you're less likely to be disturbed by your annoying neighbor and his noisy spawn. Vertical visibility doesn't matter unless you are sitting right under the screen. As long as you can see the entire screen who cares if you can't see above it?
That said, the same is true for the theatre, no leg room and rarely can you get one of the good seats in the middle of the theatre.
I don't consider being in the middle of the theater consequential to it being a good seat. I just want a seat which is comfy, has adequate leg room, where I don't feel crowded or disturbed by my neighbors, where the arm rests fold up, the floor isn't nasty and the sound is good. Being in the middle of the theater isn't inherently required for any of this.
In a blog post, Krzanich said that the decline in American manufacturing remains a serious issue, but said that "politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base. I resigned to call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues, including the serious need to address the decline of American manufacturing
Translation: "I'm too much of a coward to publicly denounce Nazis and white supremacists by name and Trump's support for them and only am resigning because of pressure from bad publicity to my company that is resulting from my slow exit from this useless advisory body."
"Politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base."
What a load of crap. America's manufacturing base is fine and certainly doesn't require rebuilding. America has a HUGE and thriving manufacturing base. By itself it is approximately the size of the GDP of the UK and twice the size of the GDP of Russia. It could be improved but Trump isn't going to be the guy to lead that charge and anyone who didn't realize that in the first 100 days of his administration is an idiot. Improving manufacturing in the US will require careful planning, good policy, and sensible strategy. We aren't going to get any of those as long as Trump sits in the oval office.
I know in my yard, the ONLY thing I use neonicotinoids on are my non-flowering ornamental bushes (which are trimmed enough to keep from flowering). Without it, unfortunately most would all be dead due to scale. Yes, I tried everything else and nothing worked until I applied Merit and that stuff is magic. Applied only once a year and the problem is gone.
Maybe the fact that they cannot survive without putting toxic chemicals on them is a hint you should take. How about planting something that doesn't require special toxins to survive. Native plants are usually a good start.
I don't think the casual use by homeowners seeking protection of some established ornamentals is much (if any) exposure to bees.
Based on what evidence? You "don't think" it is a problem why exactly? And we're not talking about one or two homeowners. We're talking about millions of them all across the country using quite a lot of the stuff. Furthermore the chemicals don't just stay were you spray them and they don't magically disappear.
I would not be in favor of any type of across-the-board ban of neonicotinoids if it would mean taking it out of the hands of responsible use in ways that can't possibly be much danger.
Given that there appears to be substantial evidence of important negative effects on critical pollinators, exactly what is the basis of your argument? Because you think your are being "responsible" with them? Particularly in regards to plants that are purely ornamental. There is such a thing a responsible use in the food supply but no such thing exists for ornamental plants including lawn grass. If your lawn requires even occasional spraying then you are Doing It Wrong.
Copyright in the name of a corporation is good for 1 year, with infinite renewals at $100k per year (cumulitive), indexed to inflation. So, year one costs $100k. Year 10 of copyright costs $1M. Year 100 of copyright costs $10M.
Not expensive enough in my view though I think that's a fine fee schedule - much better than what we have now. I tend to favor starting the copyright cost at $100 (indexed for inflation) and then doubling the amount every year. Makes it fairly easy to keep a copyright for 10-15 years but after that it had better be worth a LOT of money. By year 25 you are into the billions. A few properties are worth that but not many. Your idea might be more likely to become reality than mine though...
Netflix started becoming close to an end to piracy.
Hah! That's adorable if you actually believe that. While I agree that services like Netflix are probably making a dent, piracy is NEVER going to go away.
Not that I watched Disney products but inevitably others are going to follow suit.
Really? You didn't want any Marvel Cinematic Universe movies? No Star Wars? No Pixar? Touchstone Pictures? The Muppets? You realize all those are Disney properties, right? You'll forgive me if I don't actually believe you when you claim you don't watch any Disney products.
I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content.
Agreed! I have zero interest in having twelve different subscriptions to various services just because they can't figure out how to divide up their pile of money.
I've just read his document. I must say, that was a very rational appeal to Google to bring more harmony and freedom into its culture.
An appeal maybe but not a terribly rational or well argued one. It was a stupid approach to a problem that he doesn't really appreciate and he very clearly does not understand the politics involved.
I must also say I see no hostility to anyone whatsoever. All he said was "Let's get away from this cult and be as productive (through enabling each and every Google employee to reach his full potential) as we can be".
No that is NOT all he said. And if that is all you took out of it then you are politically naive. It never occurred to you that people might try to couch their (unfortunate) ideas in terms that seem more palatable?
I must also say I see no hostility to anyone whatsoever. All he said was "Let's get away from this cult and be as productive (through enabling each and every Google employee to reach his full potential) as we can be".
It basically is an argument against what he perceives as so-called "political correctness" in pursuit of gender equity. He tries to be more clever than that but that's what he's saying. He claims to be a "classical liberal" but it's pretty clear that he is not based on his arguments. He makes population arguments and then assumes these must apply on the individual level.
And he was fired for it. And THAT is exactly where the hate for SJWs comes from.
If you hate someone because they are fighting for equal rights in the work place then that says more about you then it does about them. He was fired because he embarrassed the company and its public image with a poorly written and ill considered rant that can easily be interpreted as sexist. Even if his intentions were pure (and it's not clear they were) it was a stupid approach to the problem and his getting fired should surprise no one. Did he really think writing that paper was going to result in meaningful change or that it contained some special insight which had occurred to no one else?
His falsifiable claims were well supported by the science
Even if we concede that to be true (and I do not), that doesn't mean that his conclusions from that evidence are correct and his conclusions are anything but scientific.
By firing him, they've created a hostile work environment for empiricists.
This was not a dispassionate empirical argument. I've read the memo in its entirety. This was a rant against what he perceived as ideology that he did not agree with. He's entitle to that opinion but don't insult my intelligence by claiming it was some masterpiece of empiricism.
If you think that believing the science is sexist, then call me a sexist, but it's also a political statement to want to make decisions based on the science.
This wasn't a scientific paper. It was a political opinion piece which casually referenced some cherry picked "evidence" in an effort to seem more credible.
The media and regressive companies like Google love to pander to people of another color or gender.
As opposed to pandering to white males which your post seems to imply you would prefer? If you want to argue that there is a better way to help disadvantaged groups, by all means let's hear it. But to dismiss efforts to diminish the demonstrably negative impact of racism or sexism as "pandering" says more about you than it does about the problem. You are resorting to name calling which is kind of pathetic.
This guys document was well-written and scientifically based.
Well written does not equal correct. Just because we have freedom of speech does not mean that anything you say should be considered factual. And to call it "scientifically based" is to insult science. It was not a scientific paper nor was it based on scientific papers and it certainly did not use any scientific methods. This was an opinion piece which casually referenced some cherry picked "evidence". He's entitled to his opinions but don't insult our intelligence by claiming there was any scientific rigor to his rant in an attempt to justify his actions.
But the regressiveleft hates any facts that contradict their delusions, very similar to religion.
As does the political right. What exactly is your point?
Unlike aircraft, ships lack a back-up navigation system and if their GPS ceases to function, they risk running aground or colliding with other vessels.
Anyone who sails out of sight of shore without a backup navigation system (even a sextant) is a weapons grade idiot.
We already have humans for that. How about doing things humans cannot do?
There are a lot of humans that aren't very intelligent. Furthermore just because a human can do a task doesn't mean it cannot be done better/faster/cheaper with some mechanical assistance. Humans can do remarkable things but we have our limits. This includes both physical and knowledge tasks.
The economy doesn't pay people in a manner commensurate with their skills or work product. They are paid based on other humans' interpretation of the potential value of said person's skills or work product, a not subtle difference.
That's largely a distinction without a difference. Your market value is by definition what you can convince someone else to pay you. Perception is a part of that. In most cases there is no objective way to value a particular set of skills.
Holy fuck you Musk cocksuckers are unbelievable. If someone isn't "changing the world" as Musk claims (but fails to do), then according to you, they cannot criticize him at all.
Heaven forbid someone not be a cynical whiner like yourself who wants nothing more than to find some tiny flaw in others so they can tear them down. Musk IS changing the world and doing so in ways that appear ethically sound as a general proposition. If you don't appreciate that fact then that is your problem. He's working hard to solve serious problems and making real headway in doing so. Go ahead and criticize him if you like but don't be surprised when we tell you that your opinion isn't persuasive.