TFS is claiming that tests in the 60s and 70s ended because economists thought it was infeasible. The real story, assuming it's referring to the trials in the US, is that the day before Nixon was going to announce it, someone scared him away with an argument that was basically "OMG T3H COMMIES!"
Cry me a fucking river over spending money helping immigrants. We back 3/4 of the world's dictactors, we're bombing 8 countries (I think, I've lost count at this point). We spend more money on a military than many of the world's other major powers combined.
If it's about the money, we've got a lot more high priorities to cut.
If you want podcasts to be more "diverse," than you should probably avoid suggesting podcasts that fit in the same small bubble. Of course, it's generally more profitable for a service to tell you what you like to hear, as opposed to exposing your to uncomfortable worldviews.
You are operating under the assumption that it couldn't have been planted encrypted. That three layers of protection were breached would support that hypothesis.
The memo itself is a good example. He stated a lot of important points about diversity in the workplace, even if he did so in a way that was not all that considerate. Google's response was firing him, while my response is to apply the principle of charity and use his arguments to construct more effective methods of addressing these issues. Of course, I also have the advantage of being on the outside of the machine, so suggesting things like "pay executives less money" or "make managers less powerful" are things I can freely say.
I also take great joy in the potential of trolling both McFeminists and actual misogynists at the same time.
I'd like to hear an explanation of what exactly that means in practice, because the only examples I've seen mentioned are things that would clearly be unacceptable in almost any company.
Mostly, you just have to consider how you sell ideas. You can sell many of the same ideas to conservatives if you bother to speak their language. You can also do what I did here, and instead of outright rejecting their ideas, apply the principle of charity to some core statements they made, and argue them as supporting your ideas and views. People often cling more to identity than ideas, and react instinctively more than cognitively. The bonus is that the most effective method of doing so is understanding a group of people, what they want, and what they believe. In such a case, you can genuinely find what will feel like a victory for them, while still getting your agenda across.
The latter, but that's what Google is attempting to do.
AFAIK, they aren't even rethinking their overtime policies, likely because the way their business currently functions is very dependent on them. The overall hierarchy is fundamentally unchanged. And there's very little chance that stockholders would tolerate the kind of genuinely radical change needed. So, their efforts are restricted to more anemic methods. Even if those methods have some degree of efficacy, they are little more than a band-aid on a serious wound. This is all pretty obvious if you talk to people who are actually on the left, instead of the really watered down version of it you'll find in corporate environments like Google.
Yeah, that's basically it. Interesting that we said the same thing and you were modded "insightful" while I got "troll".
Perhaps because I said that his conclusions are still right for all practical purposes, he just focused too much on one factor as to why.
The authors of the studies he cited have publicly refuted his conclusions. That's bound to come up in court. He is going to have a hard time justifying his position as rational and science based when the scientists whose work he is relying on contradict him.
But he also opposes programmes with a proven track record of fixing those issues, because of reverse-sexism.
To my recollection, he mainly opposed efforts that simply brought in more diverse workers, without changing the job itself.
It really seems like he wrote that memo with little understanding of historic efforts to address these problems or of the decades of study done around them, which resulted in rather fundamental mistakes and him dragging up a lot of long debunked ideas that are now exclusively used by genuine sexists.
I would agree that his arguments do have an overlap with what sexists have to say. However, that's precisely why I prefer my interpretation. If you use arguments that sexists have made, they have a hard time arguing against those policies, because they've already bought into those arguments. Genuinely ask yourself which is more subversive to a male-dominated industry, token diversity outreach or completely rethinking the structure of power within an organization?
Even if Damore is a sexist asshole, turning his words into disruptive feminist rhetoric would do more damage than firing him, so he can be embraced and coddled by clear misogynists and racists, would make for better revenge.
Are you talking about claims he made or just ones that seem implicit? His main actual sin that I saw was that seemed to be leaning to heavy on claims of the difference between genders being biological, when we are much better able to measure the cocktail of nature and nurture.
Again, I feel a lot of the criticism tends to be not on what he said, but on what was implied by what he said. But drawing conclusions requires preconceptions to fill in the blanks, particularly the overall legitimacy of corporate structure and management.
Now, it's quite possible that he's just a sexist jerk. But the memo is still quite readable if one operates under the assumption that traditional management and business structure is garbage that is heavily biased in favor of "rugged invididualism"-type affluent men. The jobs in question make up some of the main exceptions to overtime laws, and one biological difference between men and women is the women generally need more hours of sleep to not have impairments. Women are socially expected to be the one that takes care of a child, and these positions have horrible work-life balance. The traditions of promotion encourage aggressive behavior, which men are inculcated to engage in while women are inculcated to avoid. It's not hard to see how a lot of higher positions are deeply antagonistic towards women by design. And the obvious solution would not be to throw more women into the pool of candidates, but to alter the environment so that it's not hostile. And I believe that those changes would result in a HUGE improvement for diversity and productivity that dwarfs their current initiative.
Like I said, it's possible that Damore didn't intend for this kind of interpretation, but this makes for a far more interesting discussion than the conventional read on it.
Have you tried reading the post you reply to? The point is that Google has mostly high-stress, high-pay jobs where you are expected to work all of the time. That's a formula for single white dudes, given our current social values
Yeah, that's the mental gymnastics of having actually read the memo, instead of regurgitating a third-hand report of how someone on Jezebel was offended.
I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on this that received a great deal of attention...
The funniest thing is that despite not being adept at office and internet politics, Damore was actually pretty empathetic. He pointed out that the job description and environment were optimized towards what white men want.
SJWs responded by assuming that the only rational way to interpret it was that women weren't fit for the job, ignoring the possibility that the job wasn't fit for women.
So, it looks like Damore was right and insightful, even if he's already been converted to full Nazi. I don't really blame him in that scenario, given that his views were rejected by SJWs, and embraced by racist and sexist assholes. People are often going to associate with people that don't treat them as shitty as other people do.
What you've argued is that someone will probably never do something that they have no internal motivation to do without an external material reward.
What parent was questioning was the claim that someone will always do something they have no internal motivation to do, so long as they receive a reward for doing it.
And paying the bills doesn't make you serene. I'm not saying that there is no incentive, I'm saying that an incentive doesn't provide meaning in and of itself, and that's why this is an appropriate way to test the efficacy of meditation.
I'm going to laugh my ass off if the reason for the decline turns out to be inbreeding. As an American, I find the hysteria over the tiny amount of immigrants to be hilarious. We've gone through that game at least a dozen times in this country, and the Chicken Little act is getting old.
Slashdot Mirror
TFS is claiming that tests in the 60s and 70s ended because economists thought it was infeasible. The real story, assuming it's referring to the trials in the US, is that the day before Nixon was going to announce it, someone scared him away with an argument that was basically "OMG T3H COMMIES!"
You answered your own question when you said "Comcast."
Oh please, I'd rather send the "job creators" to those camps and let the Mexicans in. They are mostly honest, hard working people.
No, we should legalize at least the most used drugs, thus undermining the high profits of contraband.
Cry me a fucking river over spending money helping immigrants. We back 3/4 of the world's dictactors, we're bombing 8 countries (I think, I've lost count at this point). We spend more money on a military than many of the world's other major powers combined.
If it's about the money, we've got a lot more high priorities to cut.
This would be closer to having a list of SS officers.
I have a counteroffer: 5 Patrick Stewart shows. 1 could be Star Trek.
Having something to hide is WHY people go to hotels in the first place.
If you want podcasts to be more "diverse," than you should probably avoid suggesting podcasts that fit in the same small bubble. Of course, it's generally more profitable for a service to tell you what you like to hear, as opposed to exposing your to uncomfortable worldviews.
Or, even simpler, they planted it there in the first place, and already knew the passwords.
You are operating under the assumption that it couldn't have been planted encrypted. That three layers of protection were breached would support that hypothesis.
The memo itself is a good example. He stated a lot of important points about diversity in the workplace, even if he did so in a way that was not all that considerate. Google's response was firing him, while my response is to apply the principle of charity and use his arguments to construct more effective methods of addressing these issues. Of course, I also have the advantage of being on the outside of the machine, so suggesting things like "pay executives less money" or "make managers less powerful" are things I can freely say.
I also take great joy in the potential of trolling both McFeminists and actual misogynists at the same time.
Mostly, you just have to consider how you sell ideas. You can sell many of the same ideas to conservatives if you bother to speak their language. You can also do what I did here, and instead of outright rejecting their ideas, apply the principle of charity to some core statements they made, and argue them as supporting your ideas and views. People often cling more to identity than ideas, and react instinctively more than cognitively. The bonus is that the most effective method of doing so is understanding a group of people, what they want, and what they believe. In such a case, you can genuinely find what will feel like a victory for them, while still getting your agenda across.
AFAIK, they aren't even rethinking their overtime policies, likely because the way their business currently functions is very dependent on them. The overall hierarchy is fundamentally unchanged. And there's very little chance that stockholders would tolerate the kind of genuinely radical change needed. So, their efforts are restricted to more anemic methods. Even if those methods have some degree of efficacy, they are little more than a band-aid on a serious wound. This is all pretty obvious if you talk to people who are actually on the left, instead of the really watered down version of it you'll find in corporate environments like Google.
Perhaps because I said that his conclusions are still right for all practical purposes, he just focused too much on one factor as to why. The authors of the studies he cited have publicly refuted his conclusions. That's bound to come up in court. He is going to have a hard time justifying his position as rational and science based when the scientists whose work he is relying on contradict him.
To my recollection, he mainly opposed efforts that simply brought in more diverse workers, without changing the job itself.
I would agree that his arguments do have an overlap with what sexists have to say. However, that's precisely why I prefer my interpretation. If you use arguments that sexists have made, they have a hard time arguing against those policies, because they've already bought into those arguments. Genuinely ask yourself which is more subversive to a male-dominated industry, token diversity outreach or completely rethinking the structure of power within an organization?
Even if Damore is a sexist asshole, turning his words into disruptive feminist rhetoric would do more damage than firing him, so he can be embraced and coddled by clear misogynists and racists, would make for better revenge.
Are you talking about claims he made or just ones that seem implicit? His main actual sin that I saw was that seemed to be leaning to heavy on claims of the difference between genders being biological, when we are much better able to measure the cocktail of nature and nurture.
Again, I feel a lot of the criticism tends to be not on what he said, but on what was implied by what he said. But drawing conclusions requires preconceptions to fill in the blanks, particularly the overall legitimacy of corporate structure and management.
Now, it's quite possible that he's just a sexist jerk. But the memo is still quite readable if one operates under the assumption that traditional management and business structure is garbage that is heavily biased in favor of "rugged invididualism"-type affluent men. The jobs in question make up some of the main exceptions to overtime laws, and one biological difference between men and women is the women generally need more hours of sleep to not have impairments. Women are socially expected to be the one that takes care of a child, and these positions have horrible work-life balance. The traditions of promotion encourage aggressive behavior, which men are inculcated to engage in while women are inculcated to avoid. It's not hard to see how a lot of higher positions are deeply antagonistic towards women by design. And the obvious solution would not be to throw more women into the pool of candidates, but to alter the environment so that it's not hostile. And I believe that those changes would result in a HUGE improvement for diversity and productivity that dwarfs their current initiative.
Like I said, it's possible that Damore didn't intend for this kind of interpretation, but this makes for a far more interesting discussion than the conventional read on it.
Not to an extent that would constitute serenity.
Have you tried reading the post you reply to? The point is that Google has mostly high-stress, high-pay jobs where you are expected to work all of the time. That's a formula for single white dudes, given our current social values
Yeah, that's the mental gymnastics of having actually read the memo, instead of regurgitating a third-hand report of how someone on Jezebel was offended.
I'm not admitting nothing. I just understand how people fall into such groups.
Maybe he's thinking of cosmetology and astrology.
I'm pretty sure there was a memo/manifesto on this that received a great deal of attention...
The funniest thing is that despite not being adept at office and internet politics, Damore was actually pretty empathetic. He pointed out that the job description and environment were optimized towards what white men want.
SJWs responded by assuming that the only rational way to interpret it was that women weren't fit for the job, ignoring the possibility that the job wasn't fit for women.
So, it looks like Damore was right and insightful, even if he's already been converted to full Nazi. I don't really blame him in that scenario, given that his views were rejected by SJWs, and embraced by racist and sexist assholes. People are often going to associate with people that don't treat them as shitty as other people do.
What you've argued is that someone will probably never do something that they have no internal motivation to do without an external material reward.
What parent was questioning was the claim that someone will always do something they have no internal motivation to do, so long as they receive a reward for doing it.
And paying the bills doesn't make you serene. I'm not saying that there is no incentive, I'm saying that an incentive doesn't provide meaning in and of itself, and that's why this is an appropriate way to test the efficacy of meditation.
This. Desire for jumping through meaningless hoops is not something meditation would be expected to aided by meditation.
I'm going to laugh my ass off if the reason for the decline turns out to be inbreeding. As an American, I find the hysteria over the tiny amount of immigrants to be hilarious. We've gone through that game at least a dozen times in this country, and the Chicken Little act is getting old.