Why should it be way down the priority list? Because "sluts" or something? We're talking about a viral cancer that has a vaccine. Like other vaccination efforts, this is a sensible, efficient priority, and probably one of the best return rates for QALYs per AUD.
I don't why there is always so much hand wringing over giving people in the sticks half-decent jobs. Wealthy vacationers are going to do much more harm than these jobs.
Who said anything about "superceding copyright law?" What happens is the existing license has already been granted, and that license has been permanently granted. So, any contribution that's already in the Linux kernel cannot be effectively taken back, and Stallman and his lawyer are right.
And how does the standard compare in sociology and women's studies to other subfields of academia? Because at least a cursory glance on the subject suggests that citations roughly follow a power law distribution.
Yes, an individual paper getting a lot of citations indicates that the paper is highly valued. But an expectation of every paper being groundbreaking is unreasonable. So, we're going to need more granularity than simply "most," because that applies to academia in general, and the relevant description would probably be more useful in terms of the power instead of percentage.
Other interesting factors might be how those rates change as a field matures, and how an increase in publish-or-perish culture changes the distribution.
My point is that it appears that this is not just true for sociology, but EVERY ACADEMIC FIELD. So, by that metric, you'd be claiming that all scientific fields don't work.
The reality is that like most fields, the 80/20 rule applies, and ~80% of citations are going to come from ~20% of sources. That also means that the remaining 80% are going to only constitute 20% of citations, which means that there is going to be a lot of papers without any citations.
So, while there are many valid criticisms of those fields (I would argue that they are around the level of maturity as chemistry was during the age of alchemy), this says more about your understanding of statistics than whatever Cultural Marxism boogeyman you fear.
but then again, most of the papers in their field are virtually never cited.
Is that really a meaningful metric? It doesn't seem to be specific to that field, and instead is a result of the nature of how citations work. it would be more indicative of a fraudulent circlejerk if most papers were cited.
It prevents an advantage in gaining market share, but reduces a major revenue stream. It is to the advantage of an individual manufacturer to go open-source, but it is harmful to the industry's profit margins.
The market failure is that the tractor industry is better able to collude than the farmers.
Unless you want to stay someone else's apprentice forever.
Why do they need to be an apprentice? Let's say I was a deaf plumber. That would mean that I couldn't communicate in the expected way, but it'd be fucking disgusting to suggest that I would have to remain an apprentice because of my disability.
Well, two reasons: 1) they're a minority of the population,
Because you change exactly nothing with this attitude, and society is so much larger that it will crush you.
I agree with this point on practical grounds, but social change involves moving past that. Aspies have to put forth some effort, but that doesn't mean that they should have to beat all of the burden. If it even went as close as 80/20 for the efforts by ASD/NT respectively, you'd probably find Aspies much more willing to be personable.
and 2) they can learn to do it well enough as long as they don't hide behind "I'm an Aspie!!! Reeeeeee"
And neurotypicals can learn as well, as long as they don't hide behind the fact that they have the existing dominant culture. In fact, it should be easy for them, because a lot of the behavior of Aspies/autistics is similar to that found in children (unfiltered honesty, literal usage of language), who neurotypical adults are generally capable of accommodating.
Learning to interpret a complex set of deceptive behaviors, and emulate a very particular way of moving is far more work, even at just the level of avoiding beatings and exploitation. They give actors Oscars for that level of emulation.
Again, this isn't salesman-quality. This is "I can look at your face wall talking" quality
Or, people could just tolerate not having someone look them in the face while talking It's not that hard. In the vast majority of the animal kingdom, eye contact is aggressive behavior that is to be avoided if you don't want a fight to break out. Eye contact is an area where, in the grand scheme of things, Aspies are normal and the neurotypicals are the weirdo freaks. But you apparently won't even consider that, so I think you are too stuck on your own preconceptions, and think that people should have to endure painful experiences because of social norms.
So pick up the rest of the basic skills you actually did need to learn in school, and you'll find 1) you have a much wider set of options for the future, and 2) you don't get relegated to some dark room to hide you away from the people that you actually need to meet if you want to advance your career.
Again, why does career advancement need to necessarily include people skills? Why should so many options rely on such a small subset of skills? The 'advancement' is typically to a management position, and more and more evidence shows that management is largely useless. Why couldn't we look into restructuring businesses to where management is seen as glorified secretaries (who tend to have the best actual social skills anyway)? It would also solve a lot of those gaps for gender and race to nerf management roles, because that's where it's really a white men's club.
Even by more conventional methods of business analysis and roles, management and leadership roles focus less on the skills needed for direct labor. So, if I have experience doing direct labor, why can't I reasonably continue to advance by being better at my job, instead of moving to a role that requires less of the skills I built experience with?
It sounds like you buy largely into the "everybody has to be a salesman for themselves" crap. Why shouldn't people who don't have "people skills" be able to make a good living for themselves? And why should the Aspies always be the ones making the accomodations? It makes no sense to insist that we have to mold people into fitting a very specific set of skills, most of which have nothing to do with genuine respect, in order for them to have the means to live their lives how they see fit.
California has people that give children bleach enemas and withhold important vaccines because of anti-autistic bigotry, and autistic children make up an enormous portion of bullying victims, but the problem is clearly that they are a bit territorial in the minority of professional fields where they have a decent chance of steady employment. If society at large doesn't respect them, why would expect them to respect society?
So, for what reasons do you think they are overrepresented? That they are overrepresented by merit doesn't mean that they are magiclaly always the best and no normie could ever compare, it just means that they are there because of merit, not because of their social connections or ability to influence important people, which is how people get jobs absent merit.
That's a very odd rationalization. Autistics have very high unemployment and underemployment rates, and tech is one of very few fields where they are actually OVERrepresented relative to the population, due to merit, and you are arguing that changing that will be a good thing?
For starters, a computer acts for more like a "dickish aspie" than Linus ever will. Furthermore, actual aspies make good code testers, and often good programmers.
Also, a hostile environment may actually be preferable, because it keeps the lowest common denominator higher.
Finally, I have to say there's a bit of irony in you describing Linus in a way that denigrates the autistic, while Linus himself has not used criticism in such a bigoted way. By the very notions behind such community conduct standards, you need to take a break before he does.
Let me put it more explicitly. Outside of a few areas like doctors and developers, the wages of people who actually do direct labor has gone down relative to productivity, while profits were diverted to a small minority. Because that labor has been continually undervalued, the incentive structure has underestimated the value in labor-saving, and appropriate amounts of research and manhours have not been put into labor-saving efforts and automation. If we were to start to bring back a stronger correlation between labor productivity and compensation, it would incentivize much healthier levels of automation, which tend to be where the real growth happens.
Cheap labor is an economic crutch. That's why, on top of the moral concerns, slavery and serfdom are not parts of good economic models.
If you think that low wages are holding back progress, then raising them should drive progress. Set the minimum wage at $50 and we should progress much faster. Hike it up again to $100 and even more progress, right? That's essentially what you're proposing. Are you proposing this across the board or just singling out Amazon workers because that's where you want to drive progress?
You are strawmanning like someone who's never heard of the concept of diminishing returns. Yes, bigger increases in wages will cause more pressure, but such massive increases will cause other problems on a bigger scale.
What you're failing to consider is that there isn't just one form of low wage labor. There are hundreds if not thousands of different jobs that pay minimum wage. The ones that get replaced first are where the greatest differential lies between the cost of labor and the savings due to automation.
Failed to consider? That's practically my thesis statement.
This assumes that the high-cost labor is focused on reducing the cost of low-cost labor, which isn't necessarily true.
That's a pretty reasonable assumption, given that your hypothetical has roughly the same pressure regardless of wages. Your point would be more relevant if these businesses were operating with virtually no profits, but there is more than enough money available for the big boys to do that kind of research either way.
Only when there is a shortage of available labor will companies actually raise wages. However, that just makes the cost of labor a relatively more expensive part of production.
Companies will raise wages if they have to raise wages. The underlying problem here is that wages have been kept stagnant in order to serve our oligarchs, and because of that, investment in automation has been disincentivized. That doesn't mean that there are no investments.
That's ridiculous thinking. We should alter economics to match technological changes, not the other way around. We don't need to work nearly as much. We do need to make sure that people can meet their basic needs. UBI is more sane than banning robots.
Which has never, ever been part of any argument. The question is not whether or not progress occurs, but the rate at which it occurs.
One could argue that paying starvation wages to the low skill labor leaves more money available to invest into research and development.
One would be ignoring how sensible investment works. Why would invest high-cost labor to reduce a minor part of costs? And this is especially true if the CxO structure is oriented around short-term gains.
It's simple. By trying to keep the price of human labor low, you discourage proper investment in automation. Why bother automating while its still cheaper to just throw cheap labor at your problems?
The same rationalization is used by opponents of wage increases, saying that increasing wages will lead to jobs being replaced by robots. But works sucks, and jobs that can be replaced by robots should be replaced by robots.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should it be way down the priority list? Because "sluts" or something? We're talking about a viral cancer that has a vaccine. Like other vaccination efforts, this is a sensible, efficient priority, and probably one of the best return rates for QALYs per AUD.
Yeah, fuck Booker and Feinstein. Are you happy now that you can't use the least useful Dems in your argument?
I don't why there is always so much hand wringing over giving people in the sticks half-decent jobs. Wealthy vacationers are going to do much more harm than these jobs.
Kavanaugh is a Bush-appointed judge. He doesn't give two shits about the constitution.
They could at least FEEL that it was better with Job's RDF active, which is why they're complaining now.
Who said anything about "superceding copyright law?" What happens is the existing license has already been granted, and that license has been permanently granted. So, any contribution that's already in the Linux kernel cannot be effectively taken back, and Stallman and his lawyer are right.
And how does the standard compare in sociology and women's studies to other subfields of academia? Because at least a cursory glance on the subject suggests that citations roughly follow a power law distribution.
Yes, an individual paper getting a lot of citations indicates that the paper is highly valued. But an expectation of every paper being groundbreaking is unreasonable. So, we're going to need more granularity than simply "most," because that applies to academia in general, and the relevant description would probably be more useful in terms of the power instead of percentage.
Other interesting factors might be how those rates change as a field matures, and how an increase in publish-or-perish culture changes the distribution.
My point is that it appears that this is not just true for sociology, but EVERY ACADEMIC FIELD. So, by that metric, you'd be claiming that all scientific fields don't work.
The reality is that like most fields, the 80/20 rule applies, and ~80% of citations are going to come from ~20% of sources. That also means that the remaining 80% are going to only constitute 20% of citations, which means that there is going to be a lot of papers without any citations.
So, while there are many valid criticisms of those fields (I would argue that they are around the level of maturity as chemistry was during the age of alchemy), this says more about your understanding of statistics than whatever Cultural Marxism boogeyman you fear.
Is that really a meaningful metric? It doesn't seem to be specific to that field, and instead is a result of the nature of how citations work. it would be more indicative of a fraudulent circlejerk if most papers were cited.
You can be completely unaffected by an image and still understand the image meets a classification of not being acceptable.
Does it really matter, if those carriers don't infect humans?
It prevents an advantage in gaining market share, but reduces a major revenue stream. It is to the advantage of an individual manufacturer to go open-source, but it is harmful to the industry's profit margins.
The market failure is that the tractor industry is better able to collude than the farmers.
Until we open up Schrödinger's coffin, we can't know whether he was arguing for or against the Copenhagen interpretation.
Why do they need to be an apprentice? Let's say I was a deaf plumber. That would mean that I couldn't communicate in the expected way, but it'd be fucking disgusting to suggest that I would have to remain an apprentice because of my disability.
I agree with this point on practical grounds, but social change involves moving past that. Aspies have to put forth some effort, but that doesn't mean that they should have to beat all of the burden. If it even went as close as 80/20 for the efforts by ASD/NT respectively, you'd probably find Aspies much more willing to be personable.
And neurotypicals can learn as well, as long as they don't hide behind the fact that they have the existing dominant culture. In fact, it should be easy for them, because a lot of the behavior of Aspies/autistics is similar to that found in children (unfiltered honesty, literal usage of language), who neurotypical adults are generally capable of accommodating.
Learning to interpret a complex set of deceptive behaviors, and emulate a very particular way of moving is far more work, even at just the level of avoiding beatings and exploitation. They give actors Oscars for that level of emulation.
Or, people could just tolerate not having someone look them in the face while talking It's not that hard. In the vast majority of the animal kingdom, eye contact is aggressive behavior that is to be avoided if you don't want a fight to break out. Eye contact is an area where, in the grand scheme of things, Aspies are normal and the neurotypicals are the weirdo freaks. But you apparently won't even consider that, so I think you are too stuck on your own preconceptions, and think that people should have to endure painful experiences because of social norms.
Again, why does career advancement need to necessarily include people skills? Why should so many options rely on such a small subset of skills? The 'advancement' is typically to a management position, and more and more evidence shows that management is largely useless. Why couldn't we look into restructuring businesses to where management is seen as glorified secretaries (who tend to have the best actual social skills anyway)? It would also solve a lot of those gaps for gender and race to nerf management roles, because that's where it's really a white men's club. Even by more conventional methods of business analysis and roles, management and leadership roles focus less on the skills needed for direct labor. So, if I have experience doing direct labor, why can't I reasonably continue to advance by being better at my job, instead of moving to a role that requires less of the skills I built experience with?
It sounds like you buy largely into the "everybody has to be a salesman for themselves" crap. Why shouldn't people who don't have "people skills" be able to make a good living for themselves? And why should the Aspies always be the ones making the accomodations? It makes no sense to insist that we have to mold people into fitting a very specific set of skills, most of which have nothing to do with genuine respect, in order for them to have the means to live their lives how they see fit.
California has people that give children bleach enemas and withhold important vaccines because of anti-autistic bigotry, and autistic children make up an enormous portion of bullying victims, but the problem is clearly that they are a bit territorial in the minority of professional fields where they have a decent chance of steady employment. If society at large doesn't respect them, why would expect them to respect society?
So, for what reasons do you think they are overrepresented? That they are overrepresented by merit doesn't mean that they are magiclaly always the best and no normie could ever compare, it just means that they are there because of merit, not because of their social connections or ability to influence important people, which is how people get jobs absent merit.
That's a very odd rationalization. Autistics have very high unemployment and underemployment rates, and tech is one of very few fields where they are actually OVERrepresented relative to the population, due to merit, and you are arguing that changing that will be a good thing?
For starters, a computer acts for more like a "dickish aspie" than Linus ever will.
Furthermore, actual aspies make good code testers, and often good programmers.
Also, a hostile environment may actually be preferable, because it keeps the lowest common denominator higher.
Finally, I have to say there's a bit of irony in you describing Linus in a way that denigrates the autistic, while Linus himself has not used criticism in such a bigoted way. By the very notions behind such community conduct standards, you need to take a break before he does.
Who is praising the Kochs, Muroch, or Trump here, outside of obvious trolls?
The answer is simple. You can't have an amount of wealth that couldn't possibly be earned without drawing plenty of legitimate criticism.
Let me put it more explicitly. Outside of a few areas like doctors and developers, the wages of people who actually do direct labor has gone down relative to productivity, while profits were diverted to a small minority. Because that labor has been continually undervalued, the incentive structure has underestimated the value in labor-saving, and appropriate amounts of research and manhours have not been put into labor-saving efforts and automation. If we were to start to bring back a stronger correlation between labor productivity and compensation, it would incentivize much healthier levels of automation, which tend to be where the real growth happens.
Cheap labor is an economic crutch. That's why, on top of the moral concerns, slavery and serfdom are not parts of good economic models.
You are strawmanning like someone who's never heard of the concept of diminishing returns. Yes, bigger increases in wages will cause more pressure, but such massive increases will cause other problems on a bigger scale.
Failed to consider? That's practically my thesis statement.
That's a pretty reasonable assumption, given that your hypothetical has roughly the same pressure regardless of wages. Your point would be more relevant if these businesses were operating with virtually no profits, but there is more than enough money available for the big boys to do that kind of research either way.
Companies will raise wages if they have to raise wages. The underlying problem here is that wages have been kept stagnant in order to serve our oligarchs, and because of that, investment in automation has been disincentivized. That doesn't mean that there are no investments.
That's ridiculous thinking. We should alter economics to match technological changes, not the other way around. We don't need to work nearly as much. We do need to make sure that people can meet their basic needs. UBI is more sane than banning robots.
Which has never, ever been part of any argument. The question is not whether or not progress occurs, but the rate at which it occurs.
One would be ignoring how sensible investment works. Why would invest high-cost labor to reduce a minor part of costs? And this is especially true if the CxO structure is oriented around short-term gains.
That's covered by the whole "boss" thing.
It's simple. By trying to keep the price of human labor low, you discourage proper investment in automation. Why bother automating while its still cheaper to just throw cheap labor at your problems?
The same rationalization is used by opponents of wage increases, saying that increasing wages will lead to jobs being replaced by robots. But works sucks, and jobs that can be replaced by robots should be replaced by robots.