I should also add that the Labour Board was at pains to point out that they don't accept imagined or spurious slights, the harm, discrimination and disruption has to be real. They cite other cases where people have been disciplined after making bogus claims of harm, and that in this case they judged that his memo wasn't just triggering snowflakes or whatever.
Scientifically backed research is now just "opinion" in the eyes of the Left. And they have the gall to call others "anti-science".
Wait, who is the "left" here? The Labour Board is going by the science, as explained to them by the authors of the studies that Damore cited. So the one treating the research as just "opinion" would be Damore, since he reaches a different conclusion to it despite not being a peer reviewed scientist himself.
I don't think that fits Damore at all. He seems to have just made a mistake. He did that classic internet rationalist thing of deciding on his opinion first and then looking for some science to back it up, but not bothering to read it carefully or understand it well enough to see that it wasn't supporting his claims. Same thing happens over and over, most recently with the great soy panic.
The way to make a contrary argument is to do or at least cite a rigorous study that justifies a contrary conclusion.
I'm sorry, but if the science doesn't support your opinion then just interpreting it in a way that the author of the study themselves says is unjustified doesn't work.
Actually the Labour Board specifically examined his research and claims that his statements were backed up by science. Since the authors of some of those papers have publicly rejected his conclusions it would be odd if the Labour Board went against their expert opinions and agreed that Damore's interpretation was the correct one, given that they are lawyers and not scientists and that Damore hasn't been peer reviewed or even qualified.
This outcome was inevitable as soon as it became clear that he got the science wrong. His lawsuit is probably going to go the same way, for the same reason. Google could probably get the authors of those studies to testify against him if necessary, and he couldn't exactly try to discredit the sources he relies on his own memo.
A key aspect of this decision is that they found his "scientific facts" to be dubious. The authors of the studies he cites have already said his conclusions were unwarranted, and I imagine that the Labour Board would defer to their opinions rather than trying to form their own.
Thus his appeal to science was considered to be merely an attempt to justify his discriminatory statements. Personally I think that's a bit harsh, the guy probably believed his conclusions were correct, but the result is the same in any case. Catastrophic error resulting in statements that got him justifiably fired by Google.
Here's the relevant part of the decision: (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 page 5)
The Charging Partyâ(TM)s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. statements about immutable traits linked to sexâ"such as womenâ(TM)s heightened neuroticism and menâ(TM)s prevalence at the top of the IQ distributionâ"were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, not withstanding effort to cloak comments with âoescientificâ references and analysis, and notwithstanding âoenot all womenâ disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace. Indeed, the memorandum did cause extreme discord, which the Charging Party exacerbated by deliberately expanding its audience. Numerous employees complained to the Employer that the memorandum was discriminatory against women, deeply offensive, and made them feel unsafe at work. Moreover, the Charging Party reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace. Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so. Thus, while much of the Charging Partyâ(TM)s memorandum was likely protected, the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.
So basically:
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
2. The use of softening language / disclaimers like "not all women" and "on average" don't help him.
3. He distributed the memo himself initially, expanding its audience, and should have known that such an inflammatory document would be more widely distributed once circulated.
4. People complained and actually withdraw from job opportunities as a result. Snowflakes or otherwise, there was measurable damage done to Google's workplace.
5. While a lot of what he said was protected, the statements on biological differences between the sexes (which were deemed bogus and pseudo-scientific, conclusions that the authors of the cited studies agreed with) do not enjoy any legal protection and Google was okay to fire him on over them.
250k/day for the local Facebook subsidiary is significant, and only the start. If they ignore it then the regulator can apply for further sanctions, contempt of court etc. Facebook staff can potentially go to jail.
Politicians sucking at social media is hardly news, and the Russians are good at it.
If you doubt the power of memes I'll give you an example: you are repeating the "Killary" meme over a year after she lost and became irrelevant.
If speech had no power we wouldn't value free speech so much. The good news is that Russia has inadvertently shown us how we can counter politicians buying their way into office.
It's much more than just memes. Americans went on rallies organised by Russians. The Russian operatives encouraged minorities not to vote, and focused on damaging the Clinton campaign.
Per capita emissions is an important metric because China is industrialising, and it's vital that they don't reach western levels.
Your claim that it makes poverty a virtue is unfounded. Lots of countries have comparable or better quality of life than the US, but much lower emissions.
Total emissions are meaningless because clearly Belgium wouldn't get near the US total no matter how bad it was, and the US will not get close to China that has 4x the population.
You seem to be confusing two different statistics. Overall China is worse, but then China has many more people than the US. If you look at per-capita rates then China is quite far down the list, way below the US, Australia, Japan and multiple European countries.
The claim that the US is one of the worst per-capita is true. In fact apart from some under-developed and middle eastern oil producing countries the only one that is worse is Australia.
Weird that you think livestock are being ignored, when 2017 was the year that meat alternatives really started to become desirable products rather than just more ethical replacements. Also the year when the will to really tackle plastic packaging was found. Lots of longer range, nice looking electric cars reached market too.
It's partly down to technology providing us with equally good or better alternatives, and partly down to a backlash against the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
China is also capable of making massive changes very rapidly. Like replacing all the busses in a major city with electric ones in just a couple of years.
Years ago the company I worked for ran into something similar. Microsoft's argument was that the licence is only valid for the first owner of the computer, so the second hand buyer needs to purchase a new retail copy of the OS. Thus any Windows discs and licence stickers supplied are "counterfeit" as they give the impression that the machine has a genuine, valid licence.
They like the world "counterfeit" because it makes courts more likely to side with them. It allows them to argue that you are deliberately being deceptive and trying to fool the new owner of the PC. Of course in reality you just didn't read to ToS and at least in some jurisdictions the non-transferable licence clause is not legal anyway.
It's clear that these school shootings are driven by crazies wanting to "copy-cat" other school shooting they're heard about
It's already been reported that this guy was trained by supremacists and appears to have been radicalized by them. The chief supremacist confirmed it.
Maybe he was more vulnerable to their brainwashing because of existing mental illness, but he's just the latest in a long line of radicalized young men to go on murder sprees.
Just like the young men that are radicalized by Islamists.
The NRA as a non-lobby is interested in ACTUAL gun safety (like training, handling, information), information and sports.
If that is true then why did all the senators they bought for millions of dollars apiece release carefully worded statements that avoided using words like "gun" and "safety"?
What has changed mostly is the emotional, hyper media coverage of such shootings, making it SEEM like it is the end of the world.
According to Wikipeida there were 227 school shootings in the US in the entire 20th century. In the 21st century there have been 204 so far, with 143 since 2010.
Maybe you have some alternative facts proving this wrong. I'm sure you can dispute a few random examples from the list. In any case, the trend is undeniable.
The bad wording of that clause in the 2nd amendment is part of the problem. Even if we accept your interpretation of it, "arms" is vague and was probably never intended to allow individuals to own WMD.
The US is uniquely unable to deal with mass shootings because of this, and because politically it is impossible to properly fund mental healthcare.
The US also has a problem with the far right, particularly supremacists. Elliot Rodger was probably the first young man to be radicalized by the far right on the internet, and since then we have seen a string of similar murderers and terrorists attacking schools. Again, the US seems to be finding it very hard to deal with, because any attempt to even study the problem is met with howls of "mah free speech!" and censorship. The marketplace of ideas has failed to deal with this problem, just like marketplaces always do.
Slashdot Mirror
I should also add that the Labour Board was at pains to point out that they don't accept imagined or spurious slights, the harm, discrimination and disruption has to be real. They cite other cases where people have been disciplined after making bogus claims of harm, and that in this case they judged that his memo wasn't just triggering snowflakes or whatever.
Scientifically backed research is now just "opinion" in the eyes of the Left. And they have the gall to call others "anti-science".
Wait, who is the "left" here? The Labour Board is going by the science, as explained to them by the authors of the studies that Damore cited. So the one treating the research as just "opinion" would be Damore, since he reaches a different conclusion to it despite not being a peer reviewed scientist himself.
I don't think that fits Damore at all. He seems to have just made a mistake. He did that classic internet rationalist thing of deciding on his opinion first and then looking for some science to back it up, but not bothering to read it carefully or understand it well enough to see that it wasn't supporting his claims. Same thing happens over and over, most recently with the great soy panic.
The way to make a contrary argument is to do or at least cite a rigorous study that justifies a contrary conclusion.
I'm sorry, but if the science doesn't support your opinion then just interpreting it in a way that the author of the study themselves says is unjustified doesn't work.
Actually the Labour Board specifically examined his research and claims that his statements were backed up by science. Since the authors of some of those papers have publicly rejected his conclusions it would be odd if the Labour Board went against their expert opinions and agreed that Damore's interpretation was the correct one, given that they are lawyers and not scientists and that Damore hasn't been peer reviewed or even qualified.
This outcome was inevitable as soon as it became clear that he got the science wrong. His lawsuit is probably going to go the same way, for the same reason. Google could probably get the authors of those studies to testify against him if necessary, and he couldn't exactly try to discredit the sources he relies on his own memo.
A key aspect of this decision is that they found his "scientific facts" to be dubious. The authors of the studies he cites have already said his conclusions were unwarranted, and I imagine that the Labour Board would defer to their opinions rather than trying to form their own.
https://www.wired.com/story/th...
Thus his appeal to science was considered to be merely an attempt to justify his discriminatory statements. Personally I think that's a bit harsh, the guy probably believed his conclusions were correct, but the result is the same in any case. Catastrophic error resulting in statements that got him justifiably fired by Google.
Here's the relevant part of the decision: (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 page 5)
The Charging Partyâ(TM)s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. statements about immutable traits linked to sexâ"such as womenâ(TM)s heightened neuroticism and menâ(TM)s prevalence at the top of the IQ distributionâ"were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, not withstanding effort to cloak comments with âoescientificâ references and analysis, and notwithstanding âoenot all womenâ disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace. Indeed, the memorandum did cause extreme discord, which the Charging Party exacerbated by deliberately expanding its audience. Numerous employees complained to the Employer that the memorandum was discriminatory against women, deeply offensive, and made them feel unsafe at work. Moreover, the Charging Party reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace. Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so. Thus, while much of the Charging Partyâ(TM)s memorandum was likely protected, the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.
So basically:
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
2. The use of softening language / disclaimers like "not all women" and "on average" don't help him.
3. He distributed the memo himself initially, expanding its audience, and should have known that such an inflammatory document would be more widely distributed once circulated.
4. People complained and actually withdraw from job opportunities as a result. Snowflakes or otherwise, there was measurable damage done to Google's workplace.
5. While a lot of what he said was protected, the statements on biological differences between the sexes (which were deemed bogus and pseudo-scientific, conclusions that the authors of the cited studies agreed with) do not enjoy any legal protection and Google was okay to fire him on over them.
250k/day for the local Facebook subsidiary is significant, and only the start. If they ignore it then the regulator can apply for further sanctions, contempt of court etc. Facebook staff can potentially go to jail.
The rallies were after the election. If you read the actual document they state that most of the activity was against the Clinton campaign.
Politicians sucking at social media is hardly news, and the Russians are good at it.
If you doubt the power of memes I'll give you an example: you are repeating the "Killary" meme over a year after she lost and became irrelevant.
If speech had no power we wouldn't value free speech so much. The good news is that Russia has inadvertently shown us how we can counter politicians buying their way into office.
It's much more than just memes. Americans went on rallies organised by Russians. The Russian operatives encouraged minorities not to vote, and focused on damaging the Clinton campaign.
Does the existence of a class action stop you suing them yourself?
I'm using small claims court. Cheap and effective.
Per capita emissions is an important metric because China is industrialising, and it's vital that they don't reach western levels.
Your claim that it makes poverty a virtue is unfounded. Lots of countries have comparable or better quality of life than the US, but much lower emissions.
Total emissions are meaningless because clearly Belgium wouldn't get near the US total no matter how bad it was, and the US will not get close to China that has 4x the population.
You seem to be confusing two different statistics. Overall China is worse, but then China has many more people than the US. If you look at per-capita rates then China is quite far down the list, way below the US, Australia, Japan and multiple European countries.
The claim that the US is one of the worst per-capita is true. In fact apart from some under-developed and middle eastern oil producing countries the only one that is worse is Australia.
Weird that you think livestock are being ignored, when 2017 was the year that meat alternatives really started to become desirable products rather than just more ethical replacements. Also the year when the will to really tackle plastic packaging was found. Lots of longer range, nice looking electric cars reached market too.
It's partly down to technology providing us with equally good or better alternatives, and partly down to a backlash against the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
You don't get it, he has to hire them first so that he can fire them, otherwise how will he drain the swamp!?
China is also capable of making massive changes very rapidly. Like replacing all the busses in a major city with electric ones in just a couple of years.
Years ago the company I worked for ran into something similar. Microsoft's argument was that the licence is only valid for the first owner of the computer, so the second hand buyer needs to purchase a new retail copy of the OS. Thus any Windows discs and licence stickers supplied are "counterfeit" as they give the impression that the machine has a genuine, valid licence.
They like the world "counterfeit" because it makes courts more likely to side with them. It allows them to argue that you are deliberately being deceptive and trying to fool the new owner of the PC. Of course in reality you just didn't read to ToS and at least in some jurisdictions the non-transferable licence clause is not legal anyway.
It's all GCHQ's fault. Kinda. Their guide to trolling leaked out and people realized that it could be used as a powerful weapon.
Maybe it was inevitable but that leak is when trolling went from relatively benign to being used for political purposes.
It's a technical problem, like spam. Unintended, unwanted use of the systems we built.
It's clear that these school shootings are driven by crazies wanting to "copy-cat" other school shooting they're heard about
It's already been reported that this guy was trained by supremacists and appears to have been radicalized by them. The chief supremacist confirmed it.
Maybe he was more vulnerable to their brainwashing because of existing mental illness, but he's just the latest in a long line of radicalized young men to go on murder sprees.
Just like the young men that are radicalized by Islamists.
Russia's goal is to create division in the US, not to promote any particular ideology.
Right, victims demanding justice is just sour grapes. Elites like Trump are above the law and little people should remember that.
The NRA as a non-lobby is interested in ACTUAL gun safety (like training, handling, information), information and sports.
If that is true then why did all the senators they bought for millions of dollars apiece release carefully worded statements that avoided using words like "gun" and "safety"?
What has changed mostly is the emotional, hyper media coverage of such shootings, making it SEEM like it is the end of the world.
According to Wikipeida there were 227 school shootings in the US in the entire 20th century. In the 21st century there have been 204 so far, with 143 since 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Maybe you have some alternative facts proving this wrong. I'm sure you can dispute a few random examples from the list. In any case, the trend is undeniable.
The bad wording of that clause in the 2nd amendment is part of the problem. Even if we accept your interpretation of it, "arms" is vague and was probably never intended to allow individuals to own WMD.
The US is uniquely unable to deal with mass shootings because of this, and because politically it is impossible to properly fund mental healthcare.
The US also has a problem with the far right, particularly supremacists. Elliot Rodger was probably the first young man to be radicalized by the far right on the internet, and since then we have seen a string of similar murderers and terrorists attacking schools. Again, the US seems to be finding it very hard to deal with, because any attempt to even study the problem is met with howls of "mah free speech!" and censorship. The marketplace of ideas has failed to deal with this problem, just like marketplaces always do.
Fairly sure I disabled all that shit and it still installed apps I previously removed when the creator's update came down.
Knowing Uber I'm guessing hookers, blow and access to the office sex dungeon for investors.