That's not, what you said. You said, a team as whole may benefit from a woman, even if she is a subpar programmer. Simply because she is a woman and contributes a uniquely feminine view point.
Obviously, that feminine viewpoint, so beneficial in some situations, could be detrimental in others. Such as, for a likely example, in warfare.
No, once you allow for special treatment of one sex (or race, or other characteristic), you are a sexist (or whatever other *ist).
That does not imply that if you could find a qualified woman that it wouldn't be better to trade marginal skill for diversity.
There. You admit to pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity and are willing to reject an otherwise better qualified candidate simply because of his sex. Like I said, sexist.
As I said, it wouldn't survive without government's subsidies, whereas the traditional means would do just fine.
And that takes us back to the original point — even with all of these subsidies, adopters of solar panels would barely break even in the best of circumstances. Which is similar to chasing foreign factories with specially-sweetened deals.
We all know this — the "free speech" Amendment only applies to government. You must not prosecuted for calling Trump "traitor" or a policemen — "an asshole".
Though the work to abolish the Amendment is in progress, it may take a while for us to become "more like Europe".
So, in order to control, what people say — and what politics they support — the statists have invented a new trick. Instead of pursuing the individuals, they would go after employers. See, the First Amendment may protect James Damore's speech, but it does not protect Google from charges of "creating hostile work-environment".
And just what constitutes such an environment? Whatever the government says it does (somehow "gender identity" is on the list already, for example)... Sure, sure, to actually win in court, the prosecutors/lawyers need to persuade a judge and the jury. But the process is daunting and very costly — and whereas the employer has to pay their own expenses, the "attackers" are paid by the taxpayers.
It is to protect themselves from such nonsense, that employers establish these "internal policies" and set up positions like "Vice President of Diversity" in the first place. These people sincerely believe in the justice of their causes, doing the government's job for it...
By inventing "protected categories" the government gets to decide, what Americans aren't allowed to say. At least, at work — where we spend about half of our waking time. And then come Social Justice Warriors, who would gleefully pursue you even for convictions privately held...
First Amendment? Yes, sure — you still have it, but best talk in your shower, where no one can hear it and get offended.
No, you take a pick of a citation, that supports your assertions.
Do fossil fuels get a pass when people whine about "subsidized" renewable energy?
They certainly don't, if this conversation is any guide.
You seem to believe cash in a savings account and investment in property or businesses are the same, which they are not.
Of course, they aren't.
the cost of using fossil fuels has been kept artificially low for decades
I don't know, if "low" is the right term, but I agree, that "lower" is correct. And that's a shame, though some people claim, much more subsidizing is needed — the better to destroy what little is left of America's capitalism.
But fossil fuels would've been usable — and profitable — without the subsidies too, whereas the solar panel wouldn't be. They just barely pay off (and not always) even with the subsidies and incentives.
You can not expect your opponent in a debate to do the research for you. You make a claim, you substantiate it.
according to the guy's own data, you're looking at a 4.8% ROI after 20 years. Anybody who complains about that is an idiot.
I really hope, you didn't mean to call me an idiot... Stipulating the figures you quoted are true, that's pitiful... I can put money into a saving account at 1.20% today. In 20 years that will have grown about 27% — and, unlike with purchased hardware, I will always have the option of pulling it out at a moment's notice. Other safe investment options exist without this immediate withdrawal option, but offering higher rates in return.
Third, the staggering size of fossil fuel subsidies is a matter of record in many, many places. Here's an easy one: [theguardian]
The Guardian carelessly (or deliberately?) conflates subsidies of different places. But they do refer to the original study:
Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP.
So, the real offender is China, where the market is decidedly not free and we do not know, how exactly they count in the first place. If, for example, they include road-building for accessing drilling sites, then that's not valid.
When I was complaining about solar subsidies, it was about direct help to the manufacturers and the incentives to buyers. In the US alone, that's been $4.4 bln just at the federal level — not including the state and town spending.
Even if you try to quibble about the amount (which would be unwise, because it's probably conservative)
Probably? Ha-ha... Try your Google strength again to find the real numbers.
plummeting solar costs mean that solar panels are still cost effective
They aren't. According to their own numbers, you'll make about 2000 quid over 20 years, under the most optimistic assumptions — that is, you will never have to repair your installation or otherwise spend any money on it after the initial installation. And even then only if that initial installation is sponsored by the government.
Do the $5 TRILLION in subsidies given to fossil fuel corporations
Apple chose the privacy of everyone over a redundant search of an empty phone.
Nobody, including Apple, knew about the phone being empty, when they chose to fight the government's perfectly legal request. Therefor, this didn't play into their decision and, just as I said, they did choose the terrorist's privacy over safety of countless other people.
Your attempt to justify the decision with the knowledge they didn't have is called Historian fallacy. See also Outcome bias.
Meanwhile, they were demanding that Apple build a tool that would compromise the security of everyone's iPhones.
That's a lie. Every phone is already hackable if you have Apple's private keys to sign a "malicious" update for it — put the phone and a fake update server on an isolated LAN and you are done. They could've done it internally and just given the FBI an opened device for examination.
Once HackableIOS is written, it gets leaked, jailbroken onto the target's phone
First of all, the HackableOS is written and maintained by "jailbreakers", who Apple fights, but most of us applaud (here is the spin again). Indeed, as you say, it was these hackers, who broke the phone for the FBI — invalidating this argument of yours entirely along the way.
More importantly, even the official iOS is also breakable using the method I describe. Our only hope is that the keys are properly guarded. And they are, so far. (Although I wouldn't rule out Apple quietly having given them to Chinese government — who are much harder to fight in court, than the FBI.)
motivated by affiliate advertising more than the desire to share an opinion.
I'd like to think, the/. editors placing this truism on the front page were also motivated by something tangibly rewarding. It is too depressing to think, they sincerely believed it worth our attention...
But if you say "should", you're no longer saying there's a general preference for men in that role...
Ha! Didn't you just tell me, a woman may be preferred despite being personally inferior simply because "gender view points make for better software/hardware/business decisions"? If that were true, then it must also be true, that in some situations — such as in warfare — a feminine view point may be detrimental?
That is, if we should mix women — not because of an individual woman's talents, but simply because of their sex — into teams of software developers to make better software, we should also avoid letting them into some other teams — however capable an individual woman may be. You simply can not argue for the former without also accepting the latter...
And at that point, you've crossed the line into sexism.
I haven't — because I disagree with both of the above. But you have...
Exactly. Apple is consistent in preferring privacy — to a fault, such as when it chose the privacy of a dead terrorist over the potential for saving lives.
But the masses' reaction to that depends on the spin, and it is amusing to watch the crowd — even the/. crowd — flip-flop at the hands of the opinion-manipulators...
Wrong. It is exactly that — a criminal accusation. People driving SUVs or eating beef are evil, because they are killing the planet. So, yeah, vast well-funded forces are making criminal accusations with punishment ranging from mandatory education for the ignorant to prison time for the worst offenders, who are committing the crimes against humanity.
rhetorical turd you have dropped has an intimidating perfection because people would rather step around it than sweep it up.
Ah, a fecal metaphor, nice. Too bad, it does not help your argument in the slightest. For all the SAT-words in your vocabulary, you are still wrong — the Western world really is on trial, a criminal one, the fact you attempted to deny. Remember to logout.
The typical "proof" of sexism is the statistics. If we take it as an axiom, that women are equally capable, interested, and driven, on average, as men, then their under-representation in any field can only be explained by sexism. On the other hand, if we take it as an axiom, that what sexism there is, it is not sufficient to cause free market participants to sabotage themselves, then the under-representation becomes evidence of inherent (biological) differences between sexes. The two axioms contradict each other, but the theories based on each are not self-contradicting... Which do you pick? It seems to me, the theory based on the latter axiom better explains all of the known facts of life. Such as, for example, women's under-performance in most sports — including chess (this study suggests, the problem is in the women's own instincts/minds, not sexism).
Fortunately, to this conversation it is largely irrelevant. Because, even if sexism does exist, the methods to "correct" for it are equal in their evil — if not worse.
This isn't about "raping the rapist".
Bullshit. Every time you hold a "girls in STEM" event, you are depriving some boy or two of it. Every time you pick a woman for hiring/promotion because it would make you look better to the Vice President of Diversity, you are "raping" a likely innocent man, punishing him for the unproven sins of others.
The diversity has value that exceeds the value of optimizing the analytical engineering.
Where this is true — and it might be sometimes — there is no need for quotas and "diversity trainings". Managers seeking to improve their teams are doing it already. No. The whole argument here is about the diversity for the sake of diversity itself. Which is, as I already offered, like painting grass green, because green grass looks better.
hiring the best person for each individual job does not make the best overall team.
That may be true. It 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?
Nonsense. Lack of proof for X does not mean "not X" must be true.
In a criminal court — and humanity, the civilized world in particular, is on trial — it means exactly that.
It just means that X is unproven.
Innocent until proven guilty, right? Until you can prove, my car is killing the life on planet, kindly keep the screeching to the confines of your safe space. Thank you.
implying that in his view there is no sexism that needs to be corrected for
In his (and mine) view, there is no evidence of sexism — certainly not on the scale, that could possibly justify the scale of the "corrective" measures.
It might exist, it probably does, but the efforts to "correct for it" are no better, and decidedly unfair. You do not "correct for" rape by raping somebody else. Though some may see "justice" in the rapist himself being raped (in prison), raping an unrelated party (or even a related one — such as his sister) is completely unacceptable to most people.
Such efforts to forcibly "correct" for *ism — even if the *ism were real, which remains entirely unproven — are bogus to the extreme. Yes, maybe, it would be nice, if every minority were equally represented in every field and walk of life. But deliberate efforts to that effect is like painting the grass green — fake, stupid, and ineffective.
His argument is, men are more competitive on average. Your counter-argument is, you know some men, who are not competitive, and some women, who are competitive. Which is completely unrelated to his point and makes you look not only "inexperienced", but outright dumb.
They shouldn't have to deal with fallout because he's got dumb opinions.
Had they really been "dumb" opinions, they would've been easy to dismiss. The very problem for Google — and the "progressives" everywhere — is that the man's opinions are perfectly reasonable and well-argued.
The particular point I appreciated was that any "gap" between sexes, races, etc. is not automatically evidence of an evil bias, contrary to what Social Justice Warriors would like us to believe. Such a bias may be responsible for a gap — entirely or partially — but it also may not. And, obviously, any efforts to fight the suspected discrimination, the very existence of which is "proven" by nothing else, with actual and deliberate discrimination is patently unfair — and bad for business.
My problem is that it is an Executive decision in the first place. Something this important should be controlled by law passed by Congress — not administration's "rules", which is subject to change by the next President.
And worse, when the President is a Democrat, the change is quiet and ignored by the "guardians of truth" and "defenders of liberty".
Oh, and the law should prescribe punishment for the violators.
If Javascript devs can be honest with themselves for a minute then they will realize that this is the result of using Javascript to make applications.
I don't think, it is fair to single out JavaScript developers in particular...
Per Moore's law, today's computers are 1024 times faster than 15 years ago. Is the "user experience" that much better? It is not. Maybe, it is 10 times better: voice recognition almost works, graphics are better, apps are smarter. But nowhere near 1000-fold improvement. Because the developers "ate" most of the gains in hardware using it for their own convenience instead of that of the end-users.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not, what you said. You said, a team as whole may benefit from a woman, even if she is a subpar programmer. Simply because she is a woman and contributes a uniquely feminine view point.
Obviously, that feminine viewpoint, so beneficial in some situations, could be detrimental in others. Such as, for a likely example, in warfare.
No, once you allow for special treatment of one sex (or race, or other characteristic), you are a sexist (or whatever other *ist).
There. You admit to pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity and are willing to reject an otherwise better qualified candidate simply because of his sex. Like I said, sexist.
I couldn't find anything relevant there, sorry. If you have, quote it here.
Renewable energy, according to the link I found, gets not "a tiny fraction", but 27% of all electricity-production subsidies. That's despite producing only 14% of the country's electricity.
As I said, it wouldn't survive without government's subsidies, whereas the traditional means would do just fine.
And that takes us back to the original point — even with all of these subsidies, adopters of solar panels would barely break even in the best of circumstances. Which is similar to chasing foreign factories with specially-sweetened deals.
We all know this — the "free speech" Amendment only applies to government. You must not prosecuted for calling Trump "traitor" or a policemen — "an asshole".
Though the work to abolish the Amendment is in progress, it may take a while for us to become "more like Europe".
So, in order to control, what people say — and what politics they support — the statists have invented a new trick. Instead of pursuing the individuals, they would go after employers. See, the First Amendment may protect James Damore's speech, but it does not protect Google from charges of "creating hostile work-environment".
And just what constitutes such an environment? Whatever the government says it does (somehow "gender identity" is on the list already, for example)... Sure, sure, to actually win in court, the prosecutors/lawyers need to persuade a judge and the jury. But the process is daunting and very costly — and whereas the employer has to pay their own expenses, the "attackers" are paid by the taxpayers.
It is to protect themselves from such nonsense, that employers establish these "internal policies" and set up positions like "Vice President of Diversity" in the first place. These people sincerely believe in the justice of their causes, doing the government's job for it...
By inventing "protected categories" the government gets to decide, what Americans aren't allowed to say. At least, at work — where we spend about half of our waking time. And then come Social Justice Warriors, who would gleefully pursue you even for convictions privately held...
First Amendment? Yes, sure — you still have it, but best talk in your shower, where no one can hear it and get offended.
No, you take a pick of a citation, that supports your assertions.
They certainly don't, if this conversation is any guide.
Of course, they aren't.
I don't know, if "low" is the right term, but I agree, that "lower" is correct. And that's a shame, though some people claim, much more subsidizing is needed — the better to destroy what little is left of America's capitalism.
But fossil fuels would've been usable — and profitable — without the subsidies too, whereas the solar panel wouldn't be. They just barely pay off (and not always) even with the subsidies and incentives.
You can not expect your opponent in a debate to do the research for you. You make a claim, you substantiate it.
I really hope, you didn't mean to call me an idiot... Stipulating the figures you quoted are true, that's pitiful... I can put money into a saving account at 1.20% today. In 20 years that will have grown about 27% — and, unlike with purchased hardware, I will always have the option of pulling it out at a moment's notice. Other safe investment options exist without this immediate withdrawal option, but offering higher rates in return.
The Guardian carelessly (or deliberately?) conflates subsidies of different places. But they do refer to the original study:
So, the real offender is China, where the market is decidedly not free and we do not know, how exactly they count in the first place. If, for example, they include road-building for accessing drilling sites, then that's not valid.
When I was complaining about solar subsidies, it was about direct help to the manufacturers and the incentives to buyers. In the US alone, that's been $4.4 bln just at the federal level — not including the state and town spending.
Probably? Ha-ha... Try your Google strength again to find the real numbers.
They aren't. According to their own numbers, you'll make about 2000 quid over 20 years, under the most optimistic assumptions — that is, you will never have to repair your installation or otherwise spend any money on it after the initial installation. And even then only if that initial installation is sponsored by the government.
Citation needed.
Sounds much like installing solar panels on your roof — barely even after decades with governmental subsidy, ruinously expensive in a free market.
Nobody, including Apple, knew about the phone being empty, when they chose to fight the government's perfectly legal request. Therefor, this didn't play into their decision and, just as I said, they did choose the terrorist's privacy over safety of countless other people.
Your attempt to justify the decision with the knowledge they didn't have is called Historian fallacy. See also Outcome bias.
That's a lie. Every phone is already hackable if you have Apple's private keys to sign a "malicious" update for it — put the phone and a fake update server on an isolated LAN and you are done. They could've done it internally and just given the FBI an opened device for examination.
First of all, the HackableOS is written and maintained by "jailbreakers", who Apple fights, but most of us applaud (here is the spin again). Indeed, as you say, it was these hackers, who broke the phone for the FBI — invalidating this argument of yours entirely along the way.
More importantly, even the official iOS is also breakable using the method I describe. Our only hope is that the keys are properly guarded. And they are, so far. (Although I wouldn't rule out Apple quietly having given them to Chinese government — who are much harder to fight in court, than the FBI.)
I'd like to think, the /. editors placing this truism on the front page were also motivated by something tangibly rewarding. It is too depressing to think, they sincerely believed it worth our attention...
Ha! Didn't you just tell me, a woman may be preferred despite being personally inferior simply because "gender view points make for better software/hardware/business decisions"? If that were true, then it must also be true, that in some situations — such as in warfare — a feminine view point may be detrimental?
That is, if we should mix women — not because of an individual woman's talents, but simply because of their sex — into teams of software developers to make better software, we should also avoid letting them into some other teams — however capable an individual woman may be. You simply can not argue for the former without also accepting the latter...
I haven't — because I disagree with both of the above. But you have...
Exactly. Apple is consistent in preferring privacy — to a fault, such as when it chose the privacy of a dead terrorist over the potential for saving lives.
But the masses' reaction to that depends on the spin, and it is amusing to watch the crowd — even the /. crowd — flip-flop at the hands of the opinion-manipulators...
If only Apple were as heroic in other countries...
vs.
Funny, how these guys never argue with each other...
Wrong. It is exactly that — a criminal accusation. People driving SUVs or eating beef are evil, because they are killing the planet . So, yeah, vast well-funded forces are making criminal accusations with punishment ranging from mandatory education for the ignorant to prison time for the worst offenders, who are committing the crimes against humanity.
Ah, a fecal metaphor, nice. Too bad, it does not help your argument in the slightest. For all the SAT-words in your vocabulary, you are still wrong — the Western world really is on trial, a criminal one, the fact you attempted to deny. Remember to logout.
The typical "proof" of sexism is the statistics. If we take it as an axiom, that women are equally capable, interested, and driven, on average, as men, then their under-representation in any field can only be explained by sexism. On the other hand, if we take it as an axiom, that what sexism there is, it is not sufficient to cause free market participants to sabotage themselves, then the under-representation becomes evidence of inherent (biological) differences between sexes. The two axioms contradict each other, but the theories based on each are not self-contradicting... Which do you pick? It seems to me, the theory based on the latter axiom better explains all of the known facts of life. Such as, for example, women's under-performance in most sports — including chess (this study suggests, the problem is in the women's own instincts/minds, not sexism).
Fortunately, to this conversation it is largely irrelevant. Because, even if sexism does exist, the methods to "correct" for it are equal in their evil — if not worse.
Bullshit. Every time you hold a "girls in STEM" event, you are depriving some boy or two of it. Every time you pick a woman for hiring/promotion because it would make you look better to the Vice President of Diversity, you are "raping" a likely innocent man, punishing him for the unproven sins of others.
Where this is true — and it might be sometimes — there is no need for quotas and "diversity trainings". Managers seeking to improve their teams are doing it already. No. The whole argument here is about the diversity for the sake of diversity itself. Which is, as I already offered, like painting grass green, because green grass looks better.
That may be true. It 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?
In a criminal court — and humanity, the civilized world in particular, is on trial — it means exactly that.
Innocent until proven guilty, right? Until you can prove, my car is killing the life on planet, kindly keep the screeching to the confines of your safe space. Thank you.
In his (and mine) view, there is no evidence of sexism — certainly not on the scale, that could possibly justify the scale of the "corrective" measures.
It might exist, it probably does, but the efforts to "correct for it" are no better, and decidedly unfair. You do not "correct for" rape by raping somebody else. Though some may see "justice" in the rapist himself being raped (in prison), raping an unrelated party (or even a related one — such as his sister) is completely unacceptable to most people.
Such efforts to forcibly "correct" for *ism — even if the *ism were real, which remains entirely unproven — are bogus to the extreme. Yes, maybe, it would be nice, if every minority were equally represented in every field and walk of life. But deliberate efforts to that effect is like painting the grass green — fake, stupid, and ineffective.
His argument is, men are more competitive on average. Your counter-argument is, you know some men, who are not competitive, and some women, who are competitive. Which is completely unrelated to his point and makes you look not only "inexperienced", but outright dumb.
Remember to logout.
Actually, no, not only does he not make such a claim, he says the exact opposite: I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists.
Dismissed. Remember to logout.
Citations?
Citations?
Had they really been "dumb" opinions, they would've been easy to dismiss. The very problem for Google — and the "progressives" everywhere — is that the man's opinions are perfectly reasonable and well-argued.
The particular point I appreciated was that any "gap" between sexes, races, etc. is not automatically evidence of an evil bias, contrary to what Social Justice Warriors would like us to believe. Such a bias may be responsible for a gap — entirely or partially — but it also may not. And, obviously, any efforts to fight the suspected discrimination, the very existence of which is "proven" by nothing else, with actual and deliberate discrimination is patently unfair — and bad for business.
And if we could find us a Maxwell's Demon or two, we wouldn't even need to do that...
My problem is that it is an Executive decision in the first place. Something this important should be controlled by law passed by Congress — not administration's "rules", which is subject to change by the next President.
And worse, when the President is a Democrat, the change is quiet and ignored by the "guardians of truth" and "defenders of liberty".
Oh, and the law should prescribe punishment for the violators.
Or Ruby. Or Scala. Or...
Why, thank you kindly for your generous permission...
I don't think, it is fair to single out JavaScript developers in particular...
Per Moore's law, today's computers are 1024 times faster than 15 years ago. Is the "user experience" that much better? It is not. Maybe, it is 10 times better: voice recognition almost works, graphics are better, apps are smarter. But nowhere near 1000-fold improvement. Because the developers "ate" most of the gains in hardware using it for their own convenience instead of that of the end-users.