Libertarianism is free market capitalism and government only by contract. Libertarianism doesn't believe in any sort of collectivist rights -- there is no "public good," only what the individuals decide to do.
How is that *not* the definition of crony capitalism?
> t may also be true, that some teams — such as, perhaps, an infantry
> company — should have no women at all.
> But you would not accept that argument, would you?
I wouldn't accept "should" no. I could accept "could", as in, a solid infantry company could be one with no women. But if you say "should", you're no longer saying there's a general preference for men in that role... you're now saying that there are no qualified women, period. And at that point, you've crossed the line into sexism.
Hard to distinguish lazy from efficient in this context. If it only takes a couple moments to pull in a giant library but that saves writing three functions, the time tradeoff may be worth it. And if the devices are beefy enough that no one complains about your app? Win!
Not really an advantage... I can lift my smartphone just fine.:-) But I guess you mean an advantage compared to ENIAC and its kin... the 1/2k machines or the even heavier 1/4k machines. Come to think of it, the original bit must've really massive!
> In his (and mine) view, there is no evidence of sexism
But his opening statement, as you noted, says there is sexism. So he and you just take the sexism on faith? If you and he are both confident that there is sexism but we have no evidence to measure it, how can you say it isn't a sufficient scale to warrant significant intervention?
Personally, I believe we have plenty of evidence of sexism rampant in tech, but I don't think it matters whether it is or not... there are other goals than just hiring the best raw engineering talent. Additional cultural and gender view points make for better software/hardware/business decisions. It's like making a good character in an RPG -- you give up points in one stat to balance the other to make a playable character. This isn't about "raping the rapist". It is about trying to create a better engineering team. And if we hire a slightly less skilled person in category A, it's because they bring additional skills in category B. The diversity has value that exceeds the value of optimizing the analytical engineering. In other words, in my experience, hiring the best person for each individual job does not make the best overall team.
But do they use text or voice? I suspect most of them in the USA are still tapping stuff out with text. This story claims that a wide swath overseas are illiterate enough that text isn't even an option for them.
Personally, I doubt this is the future. I suspect that the access to the phone will instead increase the literacy rate, rather than invalidate reading. We'll have to wait and see.
You are correct, that is his opening statement. I read the rest of the document, and I see it arguing against diversity campaigns or any program that would correct for sexism (see the section "The Harm of Google’s biases"). The author conflates what should be unrelated arguments:
that the gap is not evidence of sexism
that programs that correct for existent sexism should be eliminated
He takes clear evidence for the former and uses it as if it is evidence for the latter, implying that in his view there is no sexism that needs to be corrected for -- a contradiction to his opening statement.
> , the very existence of which is "proven" by nothing else
Therein lies the problem. The original author makes the reverse logic error.
The gap may or may not be the result of sexism -- true. Arguing that the gap is not caused by sexism is fine, but the author then goes on to say that therefore there is no sexism. But we do have other evidence of sexism in the tech industry as a whole, enough to suspect sexism exists in all the tech companies, including Google.
The paper's author, to me, overplayed his hand. And that's what triggered the backlash.
By definition, that cannot happen. Only after tech X lets us do something new can we start studying the impact of doing that thing. It can take years to decide whether we SHOULD do X and, if so, how to SAFELY do X. And that's before you consider the people whose lives are embedded in the current tech -- disruption is nice, but better for people when we can provide a transition period.
You might find interesting reading looking at Amish procedures for deciding whether to adopt new technology. There's a whole protocol for deciding how it should work. Not my cup of tea, but at least it is a framework for technology adoption... maybe something like it would work more broadly?
As long as they adhere to a 3rd party standard of what ads to block, I think they're in the clear. They make sure their own ads meet that standard, so they're fine, and then if they let users block additional ads, those additions have to include Google's ads.
Now, if they start getting involved with the 3rd party group and lobbying for ruling changes, that's where they'd have a problem.
Many areas of the USA are served by only one ISP. I can't believe it is much different in India. For many people, there isn't any such thing as "shopping around".
Sci-fi author Ian Banks had this problem in his futuristic The Culture novels. His solution: have repositories of record scattered everywhere that any recording device would upload to in real time. The repository would cryptographically sign the recording then download it back to the recording device. That provided both the sequence ordering and verifiability for the recordings at any future date.
Banks wrote that before the arrival of block chain tech. The crowdsourced signing ability of the block chain is being used for things far beyond digital currency already. Seems like we need recording devices that can add hashes of their recordings to the block chain so that there is a record of where and when a given video was shot that cannot be falsified or denied. If we get to the point where most commercial recorders are using that service, we could once again have verifiable news.
Seem viable?
Two reasons.
1) For the same reason people find it suspicious if you exercise your 5th Amendment rights... only criminals have something to hide. False, of course, but plenty of people who have never been charged with a crime or had their privacy invaded think it is an easy thing to give up.
2) For the same reason that any non-standard social behavior causes problems: it marks you as different, and human instinct is that different is bad. We all have that bias, and it takes conscious effort to keep that bias in check. Plus, dealing with nonconformists is exhausting. It might be fun, educational, profitable, etc, but it is also exhausting. Therefore, some people prefer to not keep that bias in check.
> despite the fact that being a racist isn't illegal.
Correct. But establishment of religion is illegal, PARTICULARLY for the president, and if he is implementing the ban because it is part of his goal to block Islam, then it becomes illegal under the PLAIN READING of the First Amendment.
Sure. It's pretty easy to find good stats on the topic from CDC and NHS going back a couple decades.
I pulled a few links together, but that's always tricky for people on the Internet... what is your definition of "non-biased"? I encourage you to go search around yourself if you have doubts... there's a whole lot of data, from a whole lot of countries, and it is all pretty consistent.
CDC numbers for 2015 are here. 41% had full heterosexual intercourse. Rates of oral sex and hand jobs are higher. Numbers for homosexual sex are much harder to come by. The cites for the studies are in the summary report.
I suppose least biased, most obvious stats are CDC numbers on teen pregnancy and STD spread. Those are relatively low and falling for the last decade, but they provide a minimum threshold. 22 pregnancies per 1000 women in 2015. That's a pretty small percentage (0.2%)... but it is also a record low. Backing up to 2007, back then it was 80 per 1000. 1991 was 116 per 1000, according to US HHS. The trend has been downward as contraception becomes more accessible. Does anyone really think the sex rate has been going down during the same window?:-). The percentages are not evenly distributed. You can find teen pregnancy rates over 1% in some parts of Texas and the southern USA. So that's a bare minimum.
There's plenty of researchers who work on this, and their numbers largely agree: by the time their 19, well over half, usually around 3/4, have had oral sex. Full intercourse is usually lower. These numbers hold in the USA, in Britain, in Austrailia, in France... I'm less aware of other cultures, but, frankly, humans are humans. I bet the numbers hold... there's a reason we used to get married commonly at 14 (men and women).
If you want something more direct, go do interviews on college campuses about their HS experiences. You can put your own numbers together pretty quick.
Slashdot Mirror
If we're pricing it appropriately, that should be a money making operation for the government, even if it is high risk.
That's not the fault of the people or the state. If landowner finds a way to sue the ocean, he/she is welcome to take the waters to court.
Libertarianism is free market capitalism and government only by contract. Libertarianism doesn't believe in any sort of collectivist rights -- there is no "public good," only what the individuals decide to do. How is that *not* the definition of crony capitalism?
> t may also be true, that some teams — such as, perhaps, an infantry
> company — should have no women at all.
> But you would not accept that argument, would you?
I wouldn't accept "should" no. I could accept "could", as in, a solid infantry company could be one with no women. But if you say "should", you're no longer saying there's a general preference for men in that role... you're now saying that there are no qualified women, period. And at that point, you've crossed the line into sexism.
Hard to distinguish lazy from efficient in this context. If it only takes a couple moments to pull in a giant library but that saves writing three functions, the time tradeoff may be worth it. And if the devices are beefy enough that no one complains about your app? Win!
> On the plus side, you could lift it yourself.
:-) But I guess you mean an advantage compared to ENIAC and its kin... the 1/2k machines or the even heavier 1/4k machines. Come to think of it, the original bit must've really massive!
Not really an advantage... I can lift my smartphone just fine.
> In his (and mine) view, there is no evidence of sexism But his opening statement, as you noted, says there is sexism. So he and you just take the sexism on faith? If you and he are both confident that there is sexism but we have no evidence to measure it, how can you say it isn't a sufficient scale to warrant significant intervention?
Personally, I believe we have plenty of evidence of sexism rampant in tech, but I don't think it matters whether it is or not... there are other goals than just hiring the best raw engineering talent. Additional cultural and gender view points make for better software/hardware/business decisions. It's like making a good character in an RPG -- you give up points in one stat to balance the other to make a playable character. This isn't about "raping the rapist". It is about trying to create a better engineering team. And if we hire a slightly less skilled person in category A, it's because they bring additional skills in category B. The diversity has value that exceeds the value of optimizing the analytical engineering. In other words, in my experience, hiring the best person for each individual job does not make the best overall team.
But do they use text or voice? I suspect most of them in the USA are still tapping stuff out with text. This story claims that a wide swath overseas are illiterate enough that text isn't even an option for them. Personally, I doubt this is the future. I suspect that the access to the phone will instead increase the literacy rate, rather than invalidate reading. We'll have to wait and see.
Mod the AC comment up!
He takes clear evidence for the former and uses it as if it is evidence for the latter, implying that in his view there is no sexism that needs to be corrected for -- a contradiction to his opening statement.
Have I misread something?
> , the very existence of which is "proven" by nothing else Therein lies the problem. The original author makes the reverse logic error. The gap may or may not be the result of sexism -- true. Arguing that the gap is not caused by sexism is fine, but the author then goes on to say that therefore there is no sexism. But we do have other evidence of sexism in the tech industry as a whole, enough to suspect sexism exists in all the tech companies, including Google. The paper's author, to me, overplayed his hand. And that's what triggered the backlash.
:-) I did say *like* it... the procedure, not necessarily the particular moral measures. :-)
By definition, that cannot happen. Only after tech X lets us do something new can we start studying the impact of doing that thing. It can take years to decide whether we SHOULD do X and, if so, how to SAFELY do X. And that's before you consider the people whose lives are embedded in the current tech -- disruption is nice, but better for people when we can provide a transition period.
You might find interesting reading looking at Amish procedures for deciding whether to adopt new technology. There's a whole protocol for deciding how it should work. Not my cup of tea, but at least it is a framework for technology adoption... maybe something like it would work more broadly?
As long as they adhere to a 3rd party standard of what ads to block, I think they're in the clear. They make sure their own ads meet that standard, so they're fine, and then if they let users block additional ads, those additions have to include Google's ads. Now, if they start getting involved with the 3rd party group and lobbying for ruling changes, that's where they'd have a problem.
Many areas of the USA are served by only one ISP. I can't believe it is much different in India. For many people, there isn't any such thing as "shopping around".
I think the problem -- in this case -- may not be with the journalist but with the excuses the government is providing.
Sci-fi author Ian Banks had this problem in his futuristic The Culture novels. His solution: have repositories of record scattered everywhere that any recording device would upload to in real time. The repository would cryptographically sign the recording then download it back to the recording device. That provided both the sequence ordering and verifiability for the recordings at any future date. Banks wrote that before the arrival of block chain tech. The crowdsourced signing ability of the block chain is being used for things far beyond digital currency already. Seems like we need recording devices that can add hashes of their recordings to the block chain so that there is a record of where and when a given video was shot that cannot be falsified or denied. If we get to the point where most commercial recorders are using that service, we could once again have verifiable news. Seem viable?
Whether you can be easily fired depends upon where you live. Texas? Yes. France? No. Lots of places in between that range.
Anti-homosexual discrimination in employment is perfectly legal in most places, including most of the USA. So, no, it isn't different.
Two reasons. 1) For the same reason people find it suspicious if you exercise your 5th Amendment rights... only criminals have something to hide. False, of course, but plenty of people who have never been charged with a crime or had their privacy invaded think it is an easy thing to give up. 2) For the same reason that any non-standard social behavior causes problems: it marks you as different, and human instinct is that different is bad. We all have that bias, and it takes conscious effort to keep that bias in check. Plus, dealing with nonconformists is exhausting. It might be fun, educational, profitable, etc, but it is also exhausting. Therefore, some people prefer to not keep that bias in check.
He's over 30 years old. The "15" was a rumor started early on based on some of the childish posts he'd made.
Once they knew about it, allowing the scam to continue... wouldn't that be aiding and abetting?
> despite the fact that being a racist isn't illegal.
Correct. But establishment of religion is illegal, PARTICULARLY for the president, and if he is implementing the ban because it is part of his goal to block Islam, then it becomes illegal under the PLAIN READING of the First Amendment.
Sure. It's pretty easy to find good stats on the topic from CDC and NHS going back a couple decades.
:-). The percentages are not evenly distributed. You can find teen pregnancy rates over 1% in some parts of Texas and the southern USA. So that's a bare minimum.
I pulled a few links together, but that's always tricky for people on the Internet... what is your definition of "non-biased"? I encourage you to go search around yourself if you have doubts... there's a whole lot of data, from a whole lot of countries, and it is all pretty consistent.
CDC numbers for 2015 are here. 41% had full heterosexual intercourse. Rates of oral sex and hand jobs are higher. Numbers for homosexual sex are much harder to come by. The cites for the studies are in the summary report.
I suppose least biased, most obvious stats are CDC numbers on teen pregnancy and STD spread. Those are relatively low and falling for the last decade, but they provide a minimum threshold. 22 pregnancies per 1000 women in 2015. That's a pretty small percentage (0.2%)... but it is also a record low. Backing up to 2007, back then it was 80 per 1000. 1991 was 116 per 1000, according to US HHS. The trend has been downward as contraception becomes more accessible. Does anyone really think the sex rate has been going down during the same window?
There's plenty of researchers who work on this, and their numbers largely agree: by the time their 19, well over half, usually around 3/4, have had oral sex. Full intercourse is usually lower. These numbers hold in the USA, in Britain, in Austrailia, in France... I'm less aware of other cultures, but, frankly, humans are humans. I bet the numbers hold... there's a reason we used to get married commonly at 14 (men and women).
If you want something more direct, go do interviews on college campuses about their HS experiences. You can put your own numbers together pretty quick.
"To look at it from another angle..."
Isn't that the whole question? Are we allowed to look from a different angle or must we watch only through the director's lens?