Except torrents ARE legal content, and you can't trivially separate infringing torrents from non-infringing torrents. It's a moot point, because if you try to ban torrents, your head will be fucking caved in.
I'm used to seeing the magazine with capital letters and the program with lower case. Also, the magazine tends to be in more/. articles. Not because it's nerdier, but because its newsier. fortune is largely static.
Largely true (compulsory licensing is a HUGE exception), but again, the whole point of STOCK music is that the contract is very liberal, to the point that it's about as close as you are going to get to licensing that resembles physical goods.
We can have a philosophical/semantics debate about how to classify a bug that was not known or prevalent before a certain time, but it's easier to accept reality and just stop assuming that bugs can only be created or closed by changes to the code.
"Doesn't work on a smartphone browser" was a "bug" that popped up for many sites when smartphones became mainstream, despite the sites themselves remaining unchanged (in fact, that was the bug).
By contrast, a bug that causes problems with a particular processor is "fixed" by the processor's end of life.
The whole point of stock music and photos is so they can basically be used as a neutral commodity. Same goes for fonts. Nazis (or whatever you fear) might use your fonts, too.
No, autism would tend to be asocial or socially neutral. Anti-social is when you actually harm society, and that's less prevalent in autistics than the general population (even moreso when you account for the degree of bullying autistics are recipients of).
It's certainly the simpler option. Also, it tends to be the more logical option. The problem that autistics face is that they are a tiny majority, and neurological "compatability" is more useful than simplicity or logic.
Most people act like dicks towards the autistic, especially if they express any desires or ideas outside of what NTs deem acceptable and normal. Plus, NTs have this tendency towards non-literal usage of language, which tends to be unintuitive outside of the cultural or subcultural context. That's why we are so bad at handling immigrants, or relations with people who are in any way different from us.
Yes, learning how to avoid pissing off others is one of the most important skills for autistics to succeed in an NT-dominated world, but it's easier said than done.
I don't believe it's been tried on anything at the scale of Google, but co-ops would tend towards that, and profit-sharing many companies have adopted in recent years would represent that dynamic a bit. You might get a bit of that from unions and thus union jobs, but they can tend to eventually fall into hierarchy or orthodoxy as well.
Google, and many other tech companies, already tend towards providing strong benefits and greater worker empowerment, but these are largely in existence as part of a greater ecosystem of encouraging workaholics to stay on campus. For better or worse, a lot of the SV culture was built around the habits of highly dedicated autistics, like rms, who would put 80 hours a week in for months on their personal projects. Unfortunately, a lot of that very specific context for a very specific accomplishment in a very specific environment has been lost, particularly the degree of dedication and personal interest in the project, and that's been used to justify tendencies for a horrible work-life balance within the industry.
The workplace of the tech industry is largely based on a PHBs' rudimentary understanding of autistic hacker culture, and that's a complete train wreck for everyone. Fixing that train wreck, so that the job isn't a form of cruel and unusual punishment for employees, is going to do more for getting a diverse workforce than any outreach or recruitment program. Until then, it's a hostile job that's highly compensated, and for a variety of reasons with cultural and biological factors, those kinds of jobs are often where you find the highest concentration of men.
Basically, if you make the power structure of Google less like patriarchal capitalism (likely tending more towards a social democrat mindset), it will not display the biases of patriarchal capitalism as much, and that will do far more for diversity than any program Google or others are currently implementing or considering. That is, of course, assuming that shareholders and board members don't revolt at such a change.
Basically, the shift needs to be far less management, and a more supportive style of management, as opposed to a more controlling one. The actual ideas are a lot more complex, but there needs to be a less steep hierarchy, and basically a complete death of Theory X management, replaced by Theory Y management. C*Os and upper level management should have radically less power, and be compensated WAY less. They should be treated as the glorified babysitters they are, and the excesses of their salaries should be used to ensure a healthy set of benefits for the rest of the employees.
And my "rant" is pro-left, and pro-feminism, but is critical of "halfway" measures that, by their compromised nature, are very much ideologically inconsistent. The problem with Damore's memo is not that it doesn't have a ready conclusion that constructively solves the problem, it's that the ready conclusion (kill the PHBs) is unacceptable to a billion-dollar corporation, so the memo is analyzed under the assumption that all of the PHB/corporate conclusions are valid. That, along with a lipservice adherence to cherry-picked principles of the "left," means that he's called a misogynist instead of a commie.
How is normal, by definition, not defective? The only way to not be defective in some way is to be perfect, and I've never seen an NT walk on water. Normative language tends to have positive connotations for obvious reasons, but if you replace 'normies' with 'plebians,' you end up with the opposite connotation.
Yes, the dispute is over the nature of the change. The nature of the change should be that realizing that our current style of corporate management is total bullshit (in a way that particularly excludes women), with an abundance of supporting data. But PHBs don't like being told that PHBs are useless and should be chucked off a cliff, so that option isn't weighed.
The problem is that this is only analyzed in the context of the corporate left, the McFeminists who only want a more diverse oligopoly. For the revolutionary left, the conclusions about management falling into systematic patriarchy are taken as a given.
It's hard to accept he is naive because he seemed able to research the biology well enough, yet completely ignored everything else. It's like discussing painting as a branch of chemistry. Chemistry is important, the availability of pigments and types of paint influenced the art, but it would be a very unusual individual who was completely unaware of the other aspects.
That sounds like exactly the kind of mixture of expertise and ignorance that autism, and hyperfocus in general, tend towards. It's an "unusual" blend of knowledge and lack thereof, so we, as a society, tend to be skeptical and dismissive. I can agree that this tendency is common, and that there may be rational reasons for it, but that's pretty much a paint-by-numbers example of how we suck at accepting neurological diversity.
So in that light the suggestion that women need special low stress jobs is both patronising and suggests that they are the problem.
Let's take things a little bit further. Let's say that promotion in the workplace was based on the ability to withstand multiple upper body blows. This would bias career advancement for men, likely to a much larger extent than we had now, and it is very deeply rooted in the most well documented differences between sexes.
The problem is that this environment is not suited for women (as they biologically and culturally exist at present). The solutions are to 1) change the environment, to 2) change women, or to 3) accept it. The rational argument is clearly 1), because that is a fucking stupid way to handle management. The current way of handling management is roughly as stupid, but various incentives and cognitive biases make that option unthinkable, so those people only see 2) and 3), both of which are horrible options.
So, you're saying that people won't accept someone's actions as being naive because they are "showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment?" You may be correct in that assessment, but that would represent more of a societal bias on how we accept naivety than whatever it is exactly that you are trying to accuse Damore of.
Right. The most reflective method of virtue signaling of the new authorian left is done with correctly chosen words. A "mental condition" you say? That is a new one I haven't heard before. I think the correct term was (in the beginning of the year, at least) "mental disorder." Your interest in policing language gives you immedeately away as a follower of authoritarian left.
I will grant you that this is an awkward difference that misses actually stating the important point of neurological diversity being a good thing.
Ignoring for a moment the final decision on the memo's intent and interpretation, let's say that Damore really is speaking truth to power in a "The Emperor's New Clothes" kind of way. Is it reasonable to guess that people who don't already fit in would be more likely to point out the emperor's nudity?
Yes. In fact, in the original short story, it was a child who pointed this out, because, as a child, he was not yet indoctrinated with the strongly held societal beliefs. He was an outsider, and did not now the "right" things to do or say. Similarly, autistics (or anyone neurologically different) tend to be outsiders in a similar way, and they are going to tend towards a lot of "childish" honesty.
The usage of "The Rock" is clearly because he would possibly kick your ass if you dismissed or harassed him, reversing the typical power dynamic. The power dynamic is an essential part of this test. Otherwise, it would be the "Billy Crystal test" or "Chris Rock test."
p.That doesn't mean that the idea of this test is castration, but rather, an empathetic understanding of power structures, along with a somewhat comical juxtaposition of norms.
Actually, you can claim that most men are fucking morons without being sexist. After all, most humans are fucking morons, and all men are humans, so it would be true unless stupidity were disproportionately relegated to women.
Of course, you aren't even bothering to give a good faith argument, because the claim is that there are statistical differences on certain traits between men and women. Now, you might argue about the balance of biology vs. society in accounting for those differences, but they are merely statistics. The difference is also largely moot in the context of Google and diversity, as even possibly changing them would require changing society, and society is much larger than Google.
Except they aren't. In fact, they are so bad at doing that they missed a very interesting interpretation over their outrage. My tl;dr of his memo was that management doesn't have many women because men are more likely than women to be the kind of cutthroat assholes that will sacrifice everything for their job.
There are two ways to deal with this problem
Insist that women are just as good at being cutthroat assholes.
Restructure the company so management roles encourage pro-social behavior instead of being cutthroat assholes.
Arguably, Damore's problem was that he was dealing with unempathetic McFeminism instead of actual, empathetic feminism.
Yeah, it would be great if we had such a thing, but keep in mind the criteria a replacement has to meet. You need materials that can handle the sheer magnitude of heat energy of these plants. You need materials that will fail in the safest way possible. You need to be able to afford said materials. And that's assuming competency and responsibility all around.
The buzzword pop-sci solution would probably be some kind of metamaterial that can convert heat into electricity. or something harvested with greater efficiency. But even if such a material were created, it would have to be competing with water.
Slashdot Mirror
But we aren't the constituents. The corporations are.
Except torrents ARE legal content, and you can't trivially separate infringing torrents from non-infringing torrents. It's a moot point, because if you try to ban torrents, your head will be fucking caved in.
You can SPAM take my SPAM Monty Python references SPAM from my SPAM cold SPAMMITY dead SPAM hands.
I'm used to seeing the magazine with capital letters and the program with lower case. Also, the magazine tends to be in more /. articles. Not because it's nerdier, but because its newsier. fortune is largely static.
Maybe, but you clearly just pulled it out of your ass.
Largely true (compulsory licensing is a HUGE exception), but again, the whole point of STOCK music is that the contract is very liberal, to the point that it's about as close as you are going to get to licensing that resembles physical goods.
We can have a philosophical/semantics debate about how to classify a bug that was not known or prevalent before a certain time, but it's easier to accept reality and just stop assuming that bugs can only be created or closed by changes to the code.
"Doesn't work on a smartphone browser" was a "bug" that popped up for many sites when smartphones became mainstream, despite the sites themselves remaining unchanged (in fact, that was the bug).
By contrast, a bug that causes problems with a particular processor is "fixed" by the processor's end of life.
The whole point of stock music and photos is so they can basically be used as a neutral commodity. Same goes for fonts. Nazis (or whatever you fear) might use your fonts, too.
I meant minority. Editing failure on my part.
No, autism would tend to be asocial or socially neutral. Anti-social is when you actually harm society, and that's less prevalent in autistics than the general population (even moreso when you account for the degree of bullying autistics are recipients of).
It's certainly the simpler option. Also, it tends to be the more logical option. The problem that autistics face is that they are a tiny majority, and neurological "compatability" is more useful than simplicity or logic.
Most people act like dicks towards the autistic, especially if they express any desires or ideas outside of what NTs deem acceptable and normal. Plus, NTs have this tendency towards non-literal usage of language, which tends to be unintuitive outside of the cultural or subcultural context. That's why we are so bad at handling immigrants, or relations with people who are in any way different from us.
Yes, learning how to avoid pissing off others is one of the most important skills for autistics to succeed in an NT-dominated world, but it's easier said than done.
I don't believe it's been tried on anything at the scale of Google, but co-ops would tend towards that, and profit-sharing many companies have adopted in recent years would represent that dynamic a bit. You might get a bit of that from unions and thus union jobs, but they can tend to eventually fall into hierarchy or orthodoxy as well.
Google, and many other tech companies, already tend towards providing strong benefits and greater worker empowerment, but these are largely in existence as part of a greater ecosystem of encouraging workaholics to stay on campus. For better or worse, a lot of the SV culture was built around the habits of highly dedicated autistics, like rms, who would put 80 hours a week in for months on their personal projects. Unfortunately, a lot of that very specific context for a very specific accomplishment in a very specific environment has been lost, particularly the degree of dedication and personal interest in the project, and that's been used to justify tendencies for a horrible work-life balance within the industry.
The workplace of the tech industry is largely based on a PHBs' rudimentary understanding of autistic hacker culture, and that's a complete train wreck for everyone. Fixing that train wreck, so that the job isn't a form of cruel and unusual punishment for employees, is going to do more for getting a diverse workforce than any outreach or recruitment program. Until then, it's a hostile job that's highly compensated, and for a variety of reasons with cultural and biological factors, those kinds of jobs are often where you find the highest concentration of men.
Basically, if you make the power structure of Google less like patriarchal capitalism (likely tending more towards a social democrat mindset), it will not display the biases of patriarchal capitalism as much, and that will do far more for diversity than any program Google or others are currently implementing or considering. That is, of course, assuming that shareholders and board members don't revolt at such a change.
Basically, the shift needs to be far less management, and a more supportive style of management, as opposed to a more controlling one. The actual ideas are a lot more complex, but there needs to be a less steep hierarchy, and basically a complete death of Theory X management, replaced by Theory Y management. C*Os and upper level management should have radically less power, and be compensated WAY less. They should be treated as the glorified babysitters they are, and the excesses of their salaries should be used to ensure a healthy set of benefits for the rest of the employees. And my "rant" is pro-left, and pro-feminism, but is critical of "halfway" measures that, by their compromised nature, are very much ideologically inconsistent. The problem with Damore's memo is not that it doesn't have a ready conclusion that constructively solves the problem, it's that the ready conclusion (kill the PHBs) is unacceptable to a billion-dollar corporation, so the memo is analyzed under the assumption that all of the PHB/corporate conclusions are valid. That, along with a lipservice adherence to cherry-picked principles of the "left," means that he's called a misogynist instead of a commie.
How is normal, by definition, not defective? The only way to not be defective in some way is to be perfect, and I've never seen an NT walk on water. Normative language tends to have positive connotations for obvious reasons, but if you replace 'normies' with 'plebians,' you end up with the opposite connotation.
Yes, the dispute is over the nature of the change. The nature of the change should be that realizing that our current style of corporate management is total bullshit (in a way that particularly excludes women), with an abundance of supporting data. But PHBs don't like being told that PHBs are useless and should be chucked off a cliff, so that option isn't weighed.
The problem is that this is only analyzed in the context of the corporate left, the McFeminists who only want a more diverse oligopoly. For the revolutionary left, the conclusions about management falling into systematic patriarchy are taken as a given.
That sounds like exactly the kind of mixture of expertise and ignorance that autism, and hyperfocus in general, tend towards. It's an "unusual" blend of knowledge and lack thereof, so we, as a society, tend to be skeptical and dismissive. I can agree that this tendency is common, and that there may be rational reasons for it, but that's pretty much a paint-by-numbers example of how we suck at accepting neurological diversity.
Let's take things a little bit further. Let's say that promotion in the workplace was based on the ability to withstand multiple upper body blows. This would bias career advancement for men, likely to a much larger extent than we had now, and it is very deeply rooted in the most well documented differences between sexes.
The problem is that this environment is not suited for women (as they biologically and culturally exist at present). The solutions are to 1) change the environment, to 2) change women, or to 3) accept it. The rational argument is clearly 1), because that is a fucking stupid way to handle management. The current way of handling management is roughly as stupid, but various incentives and cognitive biases make that option unthinkable, so those people only see 2) and 3), both of which are horrible options.
So, you're saying that people won't accept someone's actions as being naive because they are "showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment?" You may be correct in that assessment, but that would represent more of a societal bias on how we accept naivety than whatever it is exactly that you are trying to accuse Damore of.
I will grant you that this is an awkward difference that misses actually stating the important point of neurological diversity being a good thing.
Ignoring for a moment the final decision on the memo's intent and interpretation, let's say that Damore really is speaking truth to power in a "The Emperor's New Clothes" kind of way. Is it reasonable to guess that people who don't already fit in would be more likely to point out the emperor's nudity?
Yes. In fact, in the original short story, it was a child who pointed this out, because, as a child, he was not yet indoctrinated with the strongly held societal beliefs. He was an outsider, and did not now the "right" things to do or say. Similarly, autistics (or anyone neurologically different) tend to be outsiders in a similar way, and they are going to tend towards a lot of "childish" honesty.
The usage of "The Rock" is clearly because he would possibly kick your ass if you dismissed or harassed him, reversing the typical power dynamic. The power dynamic is an essential part of this test. Otherwise, it would be the "Billy Crystal test" or "Chris Rock test." p.That doesn't mean that the idea of this test is castration, but rather, an empathetic understanding of power structures, along with a somewhat comical juxtaposition of norms.
Actually, you can claim that most men are fucking morons without being sexist. After all, most humans are fucking morons, and all men are humans, so it would be true unless stupidity were disproportionately relegated to women.
Of course, you aren't even bothering to give a good faith argument, because the claim is that there are statistical differences on certain traits between men and women. Now, you might argue about the balance of biology vs. society in accounting for those differences, but they are merely statistics. The difference is also largely moot in the context of Google and diversity, as even possibly changing them would require changing society, and society is much larger than Google.
Except they aren't. In fact, they are so bad at doing that they missed a very interesting interpretation over their outrage. My tl;dr of his memo was that management doesn't have many women because men are more likely than women to be the kind of cutthroat assholes that will sacrifice everything for their job.
There are two ways to deal with this problem
Insist that women are just as good at being cutthroat assholes.
Restructure the company so management roles encourage pro-social behavior instead of being cutthroat assholes.
Arguably, Damore's problem was that he was dealing with unempathetic McFeminism instead of actual, empathetic feminism.
Yeah, it would be great if we had such a thing, but keep in mind the criteria a replacement has to meet. You need materials that can handle the sheer magnitude of heat energy of these plants. You need materials that will fail in the safest way possible. You need to be able to afford said materials. And that's assuming competency and responsibility all around.
The buzzword pop-sci solution would probably be some kind of metamaterial that can convert heat into electricity. or something harvested with greater efficiency. But even if such a material were created, it would have to be competing with water.