If someone is susceptible to addiction, avoidance and escapism, they'll have more advanced ways of doing that in the future, but well-adjusted people will just be the same well-adjusted people, but with fancier phones and whatever else fits into their lifestyle. They will be largely unaffected by the growth of MMOs, except that some of the people they might have hung out with before will now play games instead.
I'm curious, why is there a value judgment of "good" for "real world" interactions, but "bad" for "online" interactions? Is it ultimately not just "bad" because it's stigmatised? If I think of some of the so-called "well-adjusted" people I know who crave a lot more real-world social interaction and aren't interested in computers, is it not equally arbitrary to pathologize and say that those people are "addicted" to "direct social interactions" which they crave because they get "psychological rewards"?
I've known plenty of people who are not very successful in life because they simply like going out and having fun with their friends a lot. Yet somehow we consider it more "well-adjusted" to be a fun party type in a McJob ("hooked on" going out, one could surely say) than, say, a highly successful financial manager who spends his evenings "hooked on" WoW.
I wonder how many posters here realise there's an odd level of 'meta' in this discussion; slashdot itself has some of the same properties... the "virtual" social interactions, reward mechanisms (e.g. getting a post modded up), etc.
But why is a telephone conversation generally still considered "real world" but written discussion on a computer screen (like e-mail, or most conversation in WoW) considered "virtual"? Telephone conversations are ultimately also "virtual". Except at the retail level, most of the world's business interactions have already occured "virtually" via telephone for a long time now. The level
Most of the WoW players I've known, incidentally, were skilled and competent professionals who played the game in their free time - but there's an obvious selection bias in my sample, so that meaningless (that's the type of people I happen to mostly meet). I knew one guy who was so addicted he played all day and lost his job. A few others were definitely (and some self-admittedly) 'addicted', but still managed to retain competence in their fields and restrict it mostly to free time.
A predictor is not a cause. Your parents being rich doesn't *cause you* to be rich. Large amounts of money don't magically transfer from parents bank accounts to those of their offspring, generation after generation. The *cause* of success is certain *character qualities*, and those *character qualities* are passed down by *parenting*. Your "predictor" is merely a proxy measure for something - e.g. hard work. The fact that you don't get that, makes you part of the problem, and you will never be successful.
It seems that today our entire culture wants the government system to warp into a giant "fix my situation" agency
That's probably at least partly because politicians *advertise* themselves as being such, because it gets them votes and grants them license to take ever more tax money.
That's why it's quite like a life sentence. If I had it my way, private citizens (and corporations) could not even find out one's past crimes if one completed fulfilling his debt to society.
Somehow I suspect you'd feel differently if it was *your* money (your life savings perhaps, or your house up on mortgage) you were about to spend hiring a candidate. Start your own business, then come back to me.
Assuming he did his time and repaid his debt to society, he shouldn't be punished for a crime for the rest of his life.
An employer merely (and perfectly validly) wanting to know why he should employ somebody who used to steal is not "punishment". A company has a valid interest in understanding certain aspects of the the character of the people it hires, such as whether or not they are thieves. Having your character judged for your behaviour is not "punishment" in the sense you're referring to. It sucks if you committed a crime, but it's valid.
19 year olds should be very capable of reasoning out the consequences of their own actions before doing them, and behaving accordingly. If you weren't by that age, then that is a parenting or schooling failure. People aren't naturally good at thinking, sure, but it's a skill that can and must be taught even to children.
Young people need to be able to do stupid things within a context of safety and forgetting in order to learn about themselves and the world.
Bull. You virtually never need to actually "do" stupid things to realise they are stupid - you just need to think. Young people need to be taught how to think, that they *must* think, and how to reason out the consequences of their actions *before* carrying them out. And yes, children are capable of being taught to think rationally and to think about the consequences of their actions. I was raised to 'bloody well think about my actions', and I made the effort; I don't see why I should be treated the same as someone who couldn't have been bothered to make that effort.
"Optionally, make the adult world understand that stupid things done at earlier age do not mean that they are guaranteed to repeat said stupidity at a later age"
The "adult world" does understand that, but it's a statistics game, and it's perfectly valid. Pretend you're an employer, about to hire someone. You have two resumes in front of you. Candidate A worked hard throughout his childhood studies, obtaining excellent marks. Candidate B spent his youth partying or doing other stupid things. Which do you think is more likely to be the better candidate to spend your money on?
You seem to think this is unfair to the one doing stupid stuff. But in fact, it would be highly unfair to candidate A, after working so hard, to treat the two *equally*.
Fact: In general, smart hardworking responsible kids tend to become smart hardworking responsible adults. Lazy kids who want to be absolved of responsibility for their own actions, tend to become like adults.
That's a stupid comment if there ever was one. I mean, as kids, you're supposed to know that you're doing something stupid?
I don't know where you grew up, but by the time I was 18, I must've been told by society (parents, teachers, school, messages on TV, messages in comics, messages in movies, magazines, you name it) about a gazillion times that mindlessly getting drunk, underage drinking, partying your life away etc. are bad. I find it hard to believe, as you suggest, that any child raised today has never been told this stuff. So that's one way that they're "supposed to know". (Never mind that it should be obvious to any kid with an ounce of common sense, and yes, kids do have some common sense from at least the age of 10.)
Sure they do! They just don't *care* when they're young. This is because they decide they'd rather have fun than worry about the future consequences.
Naturally they'll regret this once the future eventually arrives. Then they expect society to absolve them of responsibility for their earlier decisions, pretending that they were 'unable' to think clearly when they were young. Yeah right.
"So every hour you spend training costs $225,000... windows -> linux would likely be a 4 hour afternoon session, so you're knocking at a million dollars just for your employees time."
Now let's say that you saved $100 for each of those users in Microsoft and anti-virus software licensing fees, and that the extra robustness and security on Linux saved each of those employees 16 man-hours per year, plus you can let five of your IT admins go because there are fewer spyware infections etc. At what point have you broken even? What is your ROI over 1 year? Training *is* an investment cost, but the key word is 'investment'.
If you designed your APIs properly, then it wouldn't be the case that a kernel developer breathing funny on some piece of code would 'break 20 or 30 apps'. This kind of fragility happens primarily on really bad APIs.
That's hilarious, of course, but a huge part of the reason is actually that the APIs are *better designed*. Well designed and implemented APIs have much fewer such problems.
"Lawyers work with laws and lies. Even if they're not actually telling lies, they're still working with creative interpretation of law."
In fact, by definition they are required to, as different lawyers usually argue against one another on the same issue. If they attempted to follow both the letter and spirit of the law, then it could not be the case that when somebody appears to be an obvious scumbag, that you could have one lawyer defending him and the other doing the opposite; if the law were objective, as it should be, it should be more obvious which a laywer would prefer, and yet it is their job to ignore that to defend their client. It is the judge's (or jury's) job to be impartial interpreters of the law, not the lawyer; thus the judge's job is inherently noble and the lawyer's job inherently ignoble (since lawyers are required to defend scumbags - whether or not they like doing it doesn't matter when it's their job).
Maybe this 'joke' is actually a floater, to test public reaction, and start getting people accustomed to the idea? Yeah yeah, tinfoil hat blah blah - I won't be at all surprised though if this all just becomes 'normal' to future generations.
I don't know about you, but I could really do with a prosthetic memory like that -- and as our populations age, as more people have to live with dementia, there'll be huge demand for it
Actually, if you look at all the current research going on, there is a good chance that by 2020 (and an extremely good chance by 2030) that we will have cures for most forms of dementia (i.e. Alzheimers etc.) by then.
For people who think they've made things easier, all thats happened is that you bothered to take the time to look around for a change and find features.
This is an interesting point; something I've noticed for own software (at my ISV) is that a significant proportion of our users just never, ever 'peruse' the menus (or even if they do, they forget what was there, or where they found something). By adding toolbar shortcuts for various commonly used things, we found they literally seem to think they're 'finding new functionality' because they suddenly easily spot things that were actually there years ago already.
From a software design perspective, there is some redundancy between menus and toolbars - two different ways to access many of the same functions. So I suppose the ribbon was an attempt to combine the two, and I can follow the logic of that idea, sure - see if there's a smart way to remove that redundancy, just like Mac's Doc cleverly removes the redundancy between shortcuts for launching apps and buttons for currently open apps. But with the ribbon, they goofed I'm afraid.
And it would have been absolutely *trivial* for Microsoft to also include a "Use classic menus" option, I really don't understand why they didn't --- they could've just had both "as an option" for a few years transitional period. This must have been a huge management mistake (given the technical ease of doing it, and the ribbon fallout they've had), so the only reason they don't do it now is probably to save face - that would be like admitting it's a failure. Yet there's so much demand for the old menus that some company now makes a living selling a plugin that brings the old menus back, which really tells you just how big the demand for this is (and thus just how bad the ribbons are) - people are willing to pay *extra* money to bring them back.
I've spent a couple years using 2007 now, I still hate it.
Likewise, I spent well over a year using 2007, and still hated it and found it slower. It was really badly done.
I suspect that most people who like it probably just actually like how pretty it looks, and don't realise that aesthetics is not linked to practicality. And you also get a class of users that is naturally kind of 'slow' and patient - these users actually aren't that bothered if some functionality takes slightly longer to access. Thus you get a small minority of people who like the ribbon. The mistake is when they think that because they like it, everybody who disses it has no point whatsoever. It really *is* a worse experience for most people.
Since I've been modded by a biased moderator, I'll ask again, please explain what an "Internet Libertarian" is... I mean, the Internet is just a communications medium, so if someone advocates Libertarianism over the phone does that make them a "just a Telephone Libertarian"? If someone promotes Socialism in a newspaper opinion column, does that make them a "just a Newspaper Socialist"? Honestly, it sounds like it means something insightful, but when prodded, you see it means nothing at all.
With regard to your first point, I have to disagree. I think I have more power to remove a member of my government (thus depriving them of that salary) than I do to change the upper management of major companies which have a major impact on my life.
In theory you do, in practice, I don't really agree... the majority just keep voting fools and crooks in, and those fools and crooks seem to be good at one thing - convincing people to vote for them the next time round and give them more money (I live in South Africa, where the majority have just voted in a known corrupt rapist with no education as President, so I've seen that voters cannot be trusted). People by and large have short memories and are too distracted and obsessed by inane garbage than wanting to worry about whether or not their politicians are performing.
The self-interest of individuals would be a better way of keeping people "in check", *provided* that self-interest rewarded success and punished failure.
I also think history has shown that poor performance on the part of a business owner is by no means a guarantee to failure and good performance from a politician is no guarantee of success (and vice versa).
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in most cases this is not because the free market model is flawed, but because the free market model *wasn't actually followed*. For example, all the recent government bail-outs and bonuses etc. that are going straight into the pockets of the very same assholes whose crookedness or incompetence caused the problems in the first place. An actual free market system would see those people out on the street or in jail where they belong; what we're seeing now is a corrupt system of crony capitalism where politicians reward their failing buddies... that's more akin to theft.
You misinterpreted my second point, however.
Well, it did sound an awful lot like you were saying people "can't ever totally get rid of X, so might as well accept X". If that wasn't what you were saying, OK.
I actually agree with your take on the matter. I wasn't saying that we should accept the consequences of the selfish actions of politicians, I was saying that we should acknowledge that many (most? all?) people are often going to act in their own self interest at the expense of others
That is true, I agree with you. I just think that true free markets do a better job of taking this into account, because (again, in *true* free markets, which is not what we've had) self-interest is (basically by definition) rewarded typically when it also benefits others, and punished when it doesn't. I own a small business, and if my products didn't genuinely help my customers, I would go bankrupt quickly. On the other hand, I've seen government organisations here "competing" in the same field get millions more than I do, year after year, and produce absolutely nothing, year after year after year. They get contracts that should rather go to us, and literally deliver nothing that actually works. The system is simply not working. Taxpayers are dumping a fortune into corrupt black holes.
we are not going to be able to change this part of people's nature, so we should ensure (to use the exact words of my original post) "the limitations on the remit of any particular agency should err strongly on the side of 'too strict'". That sounds pretty much like what you're saying when you suggest we "work hard to keep it in check". Accept that's how people are going to behave, and set up the system to prevent it from being damaging, or indeed to make it so that their self interest and the public's interests are one and the same.
That would work if there was a good way to make sure that public agencies were performing. Unfortunately there isn't. And bureaucrats who run these shows tend to be people who become skilled at things like getting gov
Slashdot Mirror
If someone is susceptible to addiction, avoidance and escapism, they'll have more advanced ways of doing that in the future, but well-adjusted people will just be the same well-adjusted people, but with fancier phones and whatever else fits into their lifestyle. They will be largely unaffected by the growth of MMOs, except that some of the people they might have hung out with before will now play games instead.
I'm curious, why is there a value judgment of "good" for "real world" interactions, but "bad" for "online" interactions? Is it ultimately not just "bad" because it's stigmatised? If I think of some of the so-called "well-adjusted" people I know who crave a lot more real-world social interaction and aren't interested in computers, is it not equally arbitrary to pathologize and say that those people are "addicted" to "direct social interactions" which they crave because they get "psychological rewards"?
I've known plenty of people who are not very successful in life because they simply like going out and having fun with their friends a lot. Yet somehow we consider it more "well-adjusted" to be a fun party type in a McJob ("hooked on" going out, one could surely say) than, say, a highly successful financial manager who spends his evenings "hooked on" WoW.
I wonder how many posters here realise there's an odd level of 'meta' in this discussion; slashdot itself has some of the same properties ... the "virtual" social interactions, reward mechanisms (e.g. getting a post modded up), etc.
But why is a telephone conversation generally still considered "real world" but written discussion on a computer screen (like e-mail, or most conversation in WoW) considered "virtual"? Telephone conversations are ultimately also "virtual". Except at the retail level, most of the world's business interactions have already occured "virtually" via telephone for a long time now. The level
Most of the WoW players I've known, incidentally, were skilled and competent professionals who played the game in their free time - but there's an obvious selection bias in my sample, so that meaningless (that's the type of people I happen to mostly meet). I knew one guy who was so addicted he played all day and lost his job. A few others were definitely (and some self-admittedly) 'addicted', but still managed to retain competence in their fields and restrict it mostly to free time.
A predictor is not a cause. Your parents being rich doesn't *cause you* to be rich. Large amounts of money don't magically transfer from parents bank accounts to those of their offspring, generation after generation. The *cause* of success is certain *character qualities*, and those *character qualities* are passed down by *parenting*. Your "predictor" is merely a proxy measure for something - e.g. hard work. The fact that you don't get that, makes you part of the problem, and you will never be successful.
It seems that today our entire culture wants the government system to warp into a giant "fix my situation" agency
That's probably at least partly because politicians *advertise* themselves as being such, because it gets them votes and grants them license to take ever more tax money.
That's why it's quite like a life sentence. If I had it my way, private citizens (and corporations) could not even find out one's past crimes if one completed fulfilling his debt to society.
Somehow I suspect you'd feel differently if it was *your* money (your life savings perhaps, or your house up on mortgage) you were about to spend hiring a candidate. Start your own business, then come back to me.
Assuming he did his time and repaid his debt to society, he shouldn't be punished for a crime for the rest of his life.
An employer merely (and perfectly validly) wanting to know why he should employ somebody who used to steal is not "punishment". A company has a valid interest in understanding certain aspects of the the character of the people it hires, such as whether or not they are thieves. Having your character judged for your behaviour is not "punishment" in the sense you're referring to. It sucks if you committed a crime, but it's valid.
19 year olds should be very capable of reasoning out the consequences of their own actions before doing them, and behaving accordingly. If you weren't by that age, then that is a parenting or schooling failure. People aren't naturally good at thinking, sure, but it's a skill that can and must be taught even to children.
Young people need to be able to do stupid things within a context of safety and forgetting in order to learn about themselves and the world.
Bull. You virtually never need to actually "do" stupid things to realise they are stupid - you just need to think. Young people need to be taught how to think, that they *must* think, and how to reason out the consequences of their actions *before* carrying them out. And yes, children are capable of being taught to think rationally and to think about the consequences of their actions. I was raised to 'bloody well think about my actions', and I made the effort; I don't see why I should be treated the same as someone who couldn't have been bothered to make that effort.
How about underage drinking, is that "just human", "stupidity", or "irresponsible"?
"Optionally, make the adult world understand that stupid things done at earlier age do not mean that they are guaranteed to repeat said stupidity at a later age"
The "adult world" does understand that, but it's a statistics game, and it's perfectly valid. Pretend you're an employer, about to hire someone. You have two resumes in front of you. Candidate A worked hard throughout his childhood studies, obtaining excellent marks. Candidate B spent his youth partying or doing other stupid things. Which do you think is more likely to be the better candidate to spend your money on?
You seem to think this is unfair to the one doing stupid stuff. But in fact, it would be highly unfair to candidate A, after working so hard, to treat the two *equally*.
Fact: In general, smart hardworking responsible kids tend to become smart hardworking responsible adults. Lazy kids who want to be absolved of responsibility for their own actions, tend to become like adults.
That's a stupid comment if there ever was one. I mean, as kids, you're supposed to know that you're doing something stupid?
I don't know where you grew up, but by the time I was 18, I must've been told by society (parents, teachers, school, messages on TV, messages in comics, messages in movies, magazines, you name it) about a gazillion times that mindlessly getting drunk, underage drinking, partying your life away etc. are bad. I find it hard to believe, as you suggest, that any child raised today has never been told this stuff. So that's one way that they're "supposed to know". (Never mind that it should be obvious to any kid with an ounce of common sense, and yes, kids do have some common sense from at least the age of 10.)
Sure they do! They just don't *care* when they're young. This is because they decide they'd rather have fun than worry about the future consequences.
Naturally they'll regret this once the future eventually arrives. Then they expect society to absolve them of responsibility for their earlier decisions, pretending that they were 'unable' to think clearly when they were young. Yeah right.
Wow, talk about short-sighted:
"So every hour you spend training costs $225,000 ... windows -> linux would likely be a 4 hour afternoon session, so you're knocking at a million dollars just for your employees time."
Now let's say that you saved $100 for each of those users in Microsoft and anti-virus software licensing fees, and that the extra robustness and security on Linux saved each of those employees 16 man-hours per year, plus you can let five of your IT admins go because there are fewer spyware infections etc. At what point have you broken even? What is your ROI over 1 year? Training *is* an investment cost, but the key word is 'investment'.
If you designed your APIs properly, then it wouldn't be the case that a kernel developer breathing funny on some piece of code would 'break 20 or 30 apps'. This kind of fragility happens primarily on really bad APIs.
That's hilarious, of course, but a huge part of the reason is actually that the APIs are *better designed*. Well designed and implemented APIs have much fewer such problems.
"Lawyers work with laws and lies. Even if they're not actually telling lies, they're still working with creative interpretation of law."
In fact, by definition they are required to, as different lawyers usually argue against one another on the same issue. If they attempted to follow both the letter and spirit of the law, then it could not be the case that when somebody appears to be an obvious scumbag, that you could have one lawyer defending him and the other doing the opposite; if the law were objective, as it should be, it should be more obvious which a laywer would prefer, and yet it is their job to ignore that to defend their client. It is the judge's (or jury's) job to be impartial interpreters of the law, not the lawyer; thus the judge's job is inherently noble and the lawyer's job inherently ignoble (since lawyers are required to defend scumbags - whether or not they like doing it doesn't matter when it's their job).
Maybe this 'joke' is actually a floater, to test public reaction, and start getting people accustomed to the idea? Yeah yeah, tinfoil hat blah blah - I won't be at all surprised though if this all just becomes 'normal' to future generations.
I don't know about you, but I could really do with a prosthetic memory like that -- and as our populations age, as more people have to live with dementia, there'll be huge demand for it
Actually, if you look at all the current research going on, there is a good chance that by 2020 (and an extremely good chance by 2030) that we will have cures for most forms of dementia (i.e. Alzheimers etc.) by then.
You probably meant WordPerfect (and no, not the Corel variety), but I can forgive people for forgetting such old history.
For people who think they've made things easier, all thats happened is that you bothered to take the time to look around for a change and find features.
This is an interesting point; something I've noticed for own software (at my ISV) is that a significant proportion of our users just never, ever 'peruse' the menus (or even if they do, they forget what was there, or where they found something). By adding toolbar shortcuts for various commonly used things, we found they literally seem to think they're 'finding new functionality' because they suddenly easily spot things that were actually there years ago already.
From a software design perspective, there is some redundancy between menus and toolbars - two different ways to access many of the same functions. So I suppose the ribbon was an attempt to combine the two, and I can follow the logic of that idea, sure - see if there's a smart way to remove that redundancy, just like Mac's Doc cleverly removes the redundancy between shortcuts for launching apps and buttons for currently open apps. But with the ribbon, they goofed I'm afraid.
And it would have been absolutely *trivial* for Microsoft to also include a "Use classic menus" option, I really don't understand why they didn't --- they could've just had both "as an option" for a few years transitional period. This must have been a huge management mistake (given the technical ease of doing it, and the ribbon fallout they've had), so the only reason they don't do it now is probably to save face - that would be like admitting it's a failure. Yet there's so much demand for the old menus that some company now makes a living selling a plugin that brings the old menus back, which really tells you just how big the demand for this is (and thus just how bad the ribbons are) - people are willing to pay *extra* money to bring them back.
I've spent a couple years using 2007 now, I still hate it.
Likewise, I spent well over a year using 2007, and still hated it and found it slower. It was really badly done.
I suspect that most people who like it probably just actually like how pretty it looks, and don't realise that aesthetics is not linked to practicality. And you also get a class of users that is naturally kind of 'slow' and patient - these users actually aren't that bothered if some functionality takes slightly longer to access. Thus you get a small minority of people who like the ribbon. The mistake is when they think that because they like it, everybody who disses it has no point whatsoever. It really *is* a worse experience for most people.
Since I've been modded by a biased moderator, I'll ask again, please explain what an "Internet Libertarian" is ... I mean, the Internet is just a communications medium, so if someone advocates Libertarianism over the phone does that make them a "just a Telephone Libertarian"? If someone promotes Socialism in a newspaper opinion column, does that make them a "just a Newspaper Socialist"? Honestly, it sounds like it means something insightful, but when prodded, you see it means nothing at all.
With regard to your first point, I have to disagree. I think I have more power to remove a member of my government (thus depriving them of that salary) than I do to change the upper management of major companies which have a major impact on my life.
In theory you do, in practice, I don't really agree ... the majority just keep voting fools and crooks in, and those fools and crooks seem to be good at one thing - convincing people to vote for them the next time round and give them more money (I live in South Africa, where the majority have just voted in a known corrupt rapist with no education as President, so I've seen that voters cannot be trusted). People by and large have short memories and are too distracted and obsessed by inane garbage than wanting to worry about whether or not their politicians are performing.
The self-interest of individuals would be a better way of keeping people "in check", *provided* that self-interest rewarded success and punished failure.
I also think history has shown that poor performance on the part of a business owner is by no means a guarantee to failure and good performance from a politician is no guarantee of success (and vice versa).
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in most cases this is not because the free market model is flawed, but because the free market model *wasn't actually followed*. For example, all the recent government bail-outs and bonuses etc. that are going straight into the pockets of the very same assholes whose crookedness or incompetence caused the problems in the first place. An actual free market system would see those people out on the street or in jail where they belong; what we're seeing now is a corrupt system of crony capitalism where politicians reward their failing buddies ... that's more akin to theft.
You misinterpreted my second point, however.
Well, it did sound an awful lot like you were saying people "can't ever totally get rid of X, so might as well accept X". If that wasn't what you were saying, OK.
I actually agree with your take on the matter. I wasn't saying that we should accept the consequences of the selfish actions of politicians, I was saying that we should acknowledge that many (most? all?) people are often going to act in their own self interest at the expense of others
That is true, I agree with you. I just think that true free markets do a better job of taking this into account, because (again, in *true* free markets, which is not what we've had) self-interest is (basically by definition) rewarded typically when it also benefits others, and punished when it doesn't. I own a small business, and if my products didn't genuinely help my customers, I would go bankrupt quickly. On the other hand, I've seen government organisations here "competing" in the same field get millions more than I do, year after year, and produce absolutely nothing, year after year after year. They get contracts that should rather go to us, and literally deliver nothing that actually works. The system is simply not working. Taxpayers are dumping a fortune into corrupt black holes.
we are not going to be able to change this part of people's nature, so we should ensure (to use the exact words of my original post) "the limitations on the remit of any particular agency should err strongly on the side of 'too strict'". That sounds pretty much like what you're saying when you suggest we "work hard to keep it in check". Accept that's how people are going to behave, and set up the system to prevent it from being damaging, or indeed to make it so that their self interest and the public's interests are one and the same.
That would work if there was a good way to make sure that public agencies were performing. Unfortunately there isn't. And bureaucrats who run these shows tend to be people who become skilled at things like getting gov
How was that a troll? *Puzzled* ... guess I trod on somebody's biased toes.
Donate sperm.
I didn't see anyone expressing surprise that this happened.