The authors of some of the papers that Damore cited seem to think the conclusions he draws are unwarranted: https://www.wired.com/story/th...
Sociobiology has fallen out of fashion because its results are far from solid, and today it is understood that the human brain is extremely malleable. As an example of this, girls in the 80s lagged behind boys in maths. This was often taken as a biological limitation, particularly in areas like geometry that it was thought male brains were better at. But actually when girls spent an equal amount of time studying maths they got equal results, and now surpass boys in many countries (which again is for social reasons).
You have decided that I am part of "the left" and that you know what the "the left" uses a ridiculous definition that contradicts what I am saying, and try to hold me to that standard.
Sorry, I'm not playing that game where I try to defend the indefensible version of me in your head.
When most people talk about inequality they mean inequality of opportunity, not that everyone is literally equal to everyone else in every measurable way.
Read a little further down the article and they address that point. It's actually Damore's memo that conflates preference and ability, and those two statements are addressing parts of it.
Tomorrow we start to look like France, who is making it illegal for a man to talk to women.
The link says: "France is considering a new law that fines men on-the-spot for catcalling and other forms of street harassment."
Or making it illegal to employ slender women as models
The link says: "The law requires models to show medical documentation that their body mass indices (BMIs) are 18 percent or higher. The law was passed on April 3 and it is just part of a nation-wide effort to stop eating disorders."
I normally enjoy your posts Ol, but come on, this is just dishonest.
All the comments I have posted here have been about how he isn't evil. You just proved that you didn't read them, and make a completely unfounded accusation.
If you want to argue about this, please start by posting a link to a post made by me, on this story, where I say he is evil.
Look at this story and the previous one about Damore. The majority of up-voted comments are conservative an support him. The majority of down-voted comments disagree with him.
If there is evidence of anything here, it's that disagreement with conservative views is not tolerated and his supporters attempt to silence them.
You constantly call all the egalitarians "anti-diversity", "racist", "misogynist", etc.
I do not. I am an egalitarian.
1. We must treat everyone equally
2. We must fix the injustices of the past (affirmative action)
You, and people like you, are trying to convince the rest of the world that those two separate concepts are the same. That is not true. For example, most people will get behind the concept of "Lets treat everyone equally", but not support affirmative action.
Simply treating everyone equally has been tried, in fact it has been law for decades in many places, but it hasn't addressed the inequalities. That's because the issues are often entrenched in systems and in the starting positions of all the players. It's like saying that a game of chess treats both players equally because the rules are the same for everyone, even though white doesn't start with a queen.
Having said that, I fully appreciate that affirmative action is highly controversial. To be absolutely clear I don't think everyone who opposes it is a bigot, that's silly. And sometimes affirmative action can be wrong, it can have unintended negative consequences, or even be malicious. But blanket rejection of it is also wrong, because it ignores reality and evidence in pursuit of some pure philosophical ideal.
Do you have the same concern over the sources that Damore cites? Because those are all sociobiology as well. That field was hot 20 years ago, but science has largely moved past it now because the results were so poor at modelling reality.
I don't know what Jewish heaven is like, but if I believed in such a thing I wouldn't want to risk damnation because I couldn't lawyer my way past all the obvious bullshit I pulled to get around God's rules during my lifetime.
I can't speak for other posters, only myself. Please try not to lump us together.
There are two issues here, and I have been consistent about this. Firstly, while the studies he cites do have some interesting and valid results, he interprets them in a way that isn't justified in order to make his argument. For example, David Schmitt, the author of the "Why Canâ(TM)t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Difference in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures" paper that Damore cites, states that the biological differences account for 10% of the variance, and the other 90% is due to non-biological. Damore greatly over-values the biological component here.
The other issue is that he ignores the successes of attempts to address non-biological factors, except to complain that they make conservatives uncomfortable and to state that they should end (without real explanation of why, other than the implication that he thinks the issue is entirely biological).
He has had opportunities to expand on this and clarify, but instead stuck to his original biological essentialism. For example, in an interview he repeated the claim that pre-natal testosterone exposure has a big influence on career choice, but there is no scientific consensus for that at all. In fact, scientists had largely moved on from the entire nature vs. nurture argument 15+ years ago.
Please stop mis-characterising my arguments and instead make some of your own. We have an opportunity to discuss the details of the memo, rather than fling accusations of bad faith around.
The memo seems somewhat reasonable if you read it in a perfect vacuum and have zero knowledge of the last 100 years of study in the areas of equality, women's rights and diversity.
Ignoring those things made his intentions seem malicious, because it's the standard tactic used by people who are malicious. He was given an opportunity to clarify, but instead doubled down.
It's possible that was because of his autism, it's possible it was for some other reason. At this point we don't really know what he intended, innocent or otherwise.
Of course, it's very hard to have an actual discussion about this when ACs rant at you about "feminist SJWs" and communists, but I'll try anyway.
Building doesn't start the instant the project is approved. All of the ones you mention were approved or in the late stages of approval before March 2011.
I'm starting to think the same thing as well. He seems unaware of both the last 100 years of research on the subject and that people would assume that not addressing it is a deliberate attempt to misdirect the reader, in the way that anti-diversity activists have also been doing for the last 100 years.
The initial assumption was that he must have done it deliberately, but perhaps it is possible that he really didn't mean to.
Maybe it does work as they describe, but they had to turn down the % match limit to make it usable. People expect the phone to unlock quickly when they look at it, in all lighting conditions and from various angles. Although humans can't see IR, it is still there and able to interfere with the iPhone's weak IR projection.
Say it measures the distance between your eyes. To do that it has to find the corners of your eyes, from various angles and various distances. The resolution of the sensor is limited so there has to be some tolerance. Set the tolerance too low and users struggle to unlock their phones, set it too high and family members can unlock it. Maybe there is no good setting that is both secure and convenient.
You are only considering trees though, and the Amazon is full of lots of other plants too. I don't have stats but some very significant percentage of the green biomass must be in things other than trees.
I agree with your basic point though, an epic-level solution is required. We need to make forests economically desirable.
Slashdot Mirror
The authors of some of the papers that Damore cited seem to think the conclusions he draws are unwarranted: https://www.wired.com/story/th...
Sociobiology has fallen out of fashion because its results are far from solid, and today it is understood that the human brain is extremely malleable. As an example of this, girls in the 80s lagged behind boys in maths. This was often taken as a biological limitation, particularly in areas like geometry that it was thought male brains were better at. But actually when girls spent an equal amount of time studying maths they got equal results, and now surpass boys in many countries (which again is for social reasons).
You have decided that I am part of "the left" and that you know what the "the left" uses a ridiculous definition that contradicts what I am saying, and try to hold me to that standard.
Sorry, I'm not playing that game where I try to defend the indefensible version of me in your head.
With Linus it's more like security through obscenity :-)
When most people talk about inequality they mean inequality of opportunity, not that everyone is literally equal to everyone else in every measurable way.
Read a little further down the article and they address that point. It's actually Damore's memo that conflates preference and ability, and those two statements are addressing parts of it.
Tomorrow we start to look like France, who is making it illegal for a man to talk to women.
The link says: "France is considering a new law that fines men on-the-spot for catcalling and other forms of street harassment."
Or making it illegal to employ slender women as models
The link says: "The law requires models to show medical documentation that their body mass indices (BMIs) are 18 percent or higher. The law was passed on April 3 and it is just part of a nation-wide effort to stop eating disorders."
I normally enjoy your posts Ol, but come on, this is just dishonest.
All the comments I have posted here have been about how he isn't evil. You just proved that you didn't read them, and make a completely unfounded accusation.
If you want to argue about this, please start by posting a link to a post made by me, on this story, where I say he is evil.
Look at this story and the previous one about Damore. The majority of up-voted comments are conservative an support him. The majority of down-voted comments disagree with him.
If there is evidence of anything here, it's that disagreement with conservative views is not tolerated and his supporters attempt to silence them.
That Dolezal women was pretty much universally criticised and "the left" rejected her. Also, Damore says he was diagnosed.
Criticism is not mobbing.
He wasn't mobbed. Mobbing is when someone gets a torrent of harassment when someone targeted them. He has not reported being harassed.
Worst conspiracy theory ever.
Damore is the one who brought up his autism. Go check the interview.
You constantly call all the egalitarians "anti-diversity", "racist", "misogynist", etc.
I do not. I am an egalitarian.
1. We must treat everyone equally
2. We must fix the injustices of the past (affirmative action)
You, and people like you, are trying to convince the rest of the world that those two separate concepts are the same. That is not true. For example, most people will get behind the concept of "Lets treat everyone equally", but not support affirmative action.
Simply treating everyone equally has been tried, in fact it has been law for decades in many places, but it hasn't addressed the inequalities. That's because the issues are often entrenched in systems and in the starting positions of all the players. It's like saying that a game of chess treats both players equally because the rules are the same for everyone, even though white doesn't start with a queen.
Having said that, I fully appreciate that affirmative action is highly controversial. To be absolutely clear I don't think everyone who opposes it is a bigot, that's silly. And sometimes affirmative action can be wrong, it can have unintended negative consequences, or even be malicious. But blanket rejection of it is also wrong, because it ignores reality and evidence in pursuit of some pure philosophical ideal.
Do you have the same concern over the sources that Damore cites? Because those are all sociobiology as well. That field was hot 20 years ago, but science has largely moved past it now because the results were so poor at modelling reality.
I don't know what Jewish heaven is like, but if I believed in such a thing I wouldn't want to risk damnation because I couldn't lawyer my way past all the obvious bullshit I pulled to get around God's rules during my lifetime.
assuming permission is given
They won't be. The current policy is to not approve any new reactors.
I can't speak for other posters, only myself. Please try not to lump us together.
There are two issues here, and I have been consistent about this. Firstly, while the studies he cites do have some interesting and valid results, he interprets them in a way that isn't justified in order to make his argument. For example, David Schmitt, the author of the "Why Canâ(TM)t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Difference in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures" paper that Damore cites, states that the biological differences account for 10% of the variance, and the other 90% is due to non-biological. Damore greatly over-values the biological component here.
The other issue is that he ignores the successes of attempts to address non-biological factors, except to complain that they make conservatives uncomfortable and to state that they should end (without real explanation of why, other than the implication that he thinks the issue is entirely biological).
He has had opportunities to expand on this and clarify, but instead stuck to his original biological essentialism. For example, in an interview he repeated the claim that pre-natal testosterone exposure has a big influence on career choice, but there is no scientific consensus for that at all. In fact, scientists had largely moved on from the entire nature vs. nurture argument 15+ years ago.
Please stop mis-characterising my arguments and instead make some of your own. We have an opportunity to discuss the details of the memo, rather than fling accusations of bad faith around.
The memo seems somewhat reasonable if you read it in a perfect vacuum and have zero knowledge of the last 100 years of study in the areas of equality, women's rights and diversity.
Ignoring those things made his intentions seem malicious, because it's the standard tactic used by people who are malicious. He was given an opportunity to clarify, but instead doubled down.
It's possible that was because of his autism, it's possible it was for some other reason. At this point we don't really know what he intended, innocent or otherwise.
Of course, it's very hard to have an actual discussion about this when ACs rant at you about "feminist SJWs" and communists, but I'll try anyway.
Building doesn't start the instant the project is approved. All of the ones you mention were approved or in the late stages of approval before March 2011.
I'm starting to think the same thing as well. He seems unaware of both the last 100 years of research on the subject and that people would assume that not addressing it is a deliberate attempt to misdirect the reader, in the way that anti-diversity activists have also been doing for the last 100 years.
The initial assumption was that he must have done it deliberately, but perhaps it is possible that he really didn't mean to.
You could at least read TFA before making bizarre claims like that. It's not even very long.
Who is? Both the Guardian and The Mary Sue have been accused of being SJWs before, so it's impossible to tell which on you are talking about.
What specifically do you think was misrepresented?
Maybe it does work as they describe, but they had to turn down the % match limit to make it usable. People expect the phone to unlock quickly when they look at it, in all lighting conditions and from various angles. Although humans can't see IR, it is still there and able to interfere with the iPhone's weak IR projection.
Say it measures the distance between your eyes. To do that it has to find the corners of your eyes, from various angles and various distances. The resolution of the sensor is limited so there has to be some tolerance. Set the tolerance too low and users struggle to unlock their phones, set it too high and family members can unlock it. Maybe there is no good setting that is both secure and convenient.
All biometric sensors are the same.
You are only considering trees though, and the Amazon is full of lots of other plants too. I don't have stats but some very significant percentage of the green biomass must be in things other than trees.
I agree with your basic point though, an epic-level solution is required. We need to make forests economically desirable.
Begs the question though, how did the carbon get into the ground in the first place? What is coal made of?!?
If only we could figure that out I'm sure we could crack this nut...
Wait, has anyone tried carbon filters? They filter out carbon, right?