Please point me to a neuroscience textbook that indicates a scientific consensus that female brains are not well adapted to solitary programming (but possibly would do better at "pair programming").
If you're not claiming scientific consensus, then you're saying we should act based on some unproven boutique hypothesis from a subset of the scientists in a completely different field. Do we do that with any other type of science?
If a handful of semiconductor device guys tell us that we should be able to build carbon nanotube quantum computers in a few years, does Google start porting all their software over to that now? If a few chemists somewhere tell us that putting fluoride in the coffee should help us to code better, do we go ahead and start that now? or maybe wait until there's a scientific consensus?
The "Minister of Diversity at Google" did not claim any expertise about the current state of neuroscience, and he didn't claim any nonsense about "White Male Patriarchy". Those are two things that you made up in your mind--they didn't happen in reality. Does that make sense to you? There's no morale equivalence because one party erred in the actual real physical universe and the other offended you exclusively within your imagination.
If you are ready to join us on this plane, why don't you post what the "Minister of Diversity" said which triggered your snowflake reaction? and then we'll deal with the reality of what he actually said.
He wasn't trying to advance the state of neuroscience or sociology, as he is completely unqualified to do either. And he wasn't trying to present a scientific consensus, because there is no consensus on these issues: they are pretty complicated and the jury is still out.
Finally--and this is the surest indication that there was no science happening here--he wasn't talking to people who themselves are experts in neuroscience or sociology.
He was a non-expert talking to other non-experts; cherry-picking data to support his "beliefs". That's not science, that's politics.
And not just any politics, political speech that's claims that women are genetically predisposed towards different technical work than men. That is speech that creates a hostile work environment.
towards different styles of technical work than men. He said that since women are more social creatures then they'd likely excel with "pair programming", and a bunch of other things.
The whole thing reads as pretty man-splainy and pseudo-sciencey. There's also weird tangents about politics and echo-chambers and thought-police and whatnot. He's easy to see how someone could interpret it as a political statement--because that's essentially what it was.
I think he did make an effort to provide some balance, and I think he was trying to be honest. I probably would not have fired him for it. I would have given him some stern redirection.
It's the same thing that Larry Summers got in trouble for. You're not an expert in neuroscience or sociology. You're not qualified to say what differences are biological, which are cultural, and which are due to bias.
You're picking and choosing tidbits of pseudo-science that reinforce an argument that women are genetically predisposed towards different types of technical work than men. Absent scientific consensus to support that claim, this isn't all that different than classic sexism. It creates a hostile work environment, those who were offended had every right to be offended, and management is going to do what they're going to do in that situation.
how could they have tech that Google doesn't? Why would they add accessibility technology for free? This defies all of my preconceived notions, I'll just pretend I never saw this story.
4) You don't have 0% control, you equal control along with every other voter. Most of those voters don't agree with you--that doesn't mean you are unrepresented, it means that people are fully aware of your stupid ideology and they have decided to vote differently.
5) Oh, we shouldn't have a Treasury or Federal Reserve? I take back calling you an idiot, you're actually a complete fucking moron.
6) you are completely free to pick up and move to a country that has fully implemented your Libertarian ideology. I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.
You managed to get a number of us to respond and try to convince you that there's obviously a difference between real journals and fake journals, and you continue to deflect and speak gibberish.
If you are a troll then congratulations, well done.
If not, well then I'm sorry your paper got rejected and you're having trouble getting funding. Peer review does have its faults, but take some time and reflect and I think you'll find that those faults are completely different than those of predatory fake journals.
Because this article is about fake journals, not about your [potentially legit] beef with real journals.
It's intellectually dishonest to conflate the two. You're essentially saying that since you don't like how real journals direct research then they are no better than fake journals. That's a dangerous path to go down.
Just because there are lots of fake scientific journals out there doesn't mean that there aren't real scientific journals. Try publishing a nonsense paper to "Science" or "Nature" and see what happens. Try submitting this Start Wars paper to the New England journal of medicine and see what happens.
Perhaps this wasn't your intention, but statements like, "'peer review' is almost always a load of bullshit." are dangerous because they feed into the mass perception that science isn't real and scientific facts are a matter of personal opinion. That's how we end up with a president who happily claims that climate change is a hoax.
is because he was indisputably a tech visionary that altered nearly every facet of modern life. But don't let that get in the way of your stupid theory.
they've moved on from bashing Steve Jobs to bashing Elon Musk. Apparently the way to truly piss off this crowd is by being a world-changing tech visionary.
1. blog posts exaggerate and pick out the extreme cases, just because Idaho passes some bone-headed restrictive law doesn't mean that every state makes it hard to change jobs. In California most non-compete clauses are essentially unenforceable.
2. "Americans have almost no vacation time away from work" : this is hyperbolic. Most Americans in tech positions have 2-3 weeks of vacation plus company holidays.
3. there's a reason that America has 5% unemployment and a thriving economy
that we need to shut down all gas & oil pipelines immediately, and ground all aircraft. Also we should probably evacuate all tall buildings--you know, since having a lot of connected steel makes you subject to catastrophic stress fractures and there's no possible way to guard against that.
One day you will ride in a Hyperloop or something similar. When that happens, I hope you'll have the self-awareness necessary to say, "you know what, it turns out the experts were right and the internet pseudo-technical wannabees were wrong; this thing does work. I guess, in hindsight, I'm basically the guy who said that horseless carriages will never work and man will never go to space".
> A leak with those kinds of pressure differentials is going to go from the tiniest beginnings of a leak to a catastrophic failure of that joint in an exceedingly short period of time.
Why? Does the air ignite & explode? Using as much detail as you can, explain to me why a small hole suddenly becomes a big hole--keeping in mind that we're talking about 1 inch steel tubes which can easily handle pressure differentials like this without the hole.
I know what you're picturing, something like a bullet sized hole which causes a huge blowout with the steel curled back into jagged edges. I know that's what you are picturing because that's how Hollywood does it. But I want you to explain the physics of that--because I find your explanations of physics to be pretty hilarious.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems perfectly in keeping with Apple's business plan--they do seem to care about customer security.
> Fuck if I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Feel free to leave, we'll try to get by without you.
Please point me to a neuroscience textbook that indicates a scientific consensus that female brains are not well adapted to solitary programming (but possibly would do better at "pair programming").
If you're not claiming scientific consensus, then you're saying we should act based on some unproven boutique hypothesis from a subset of the scientists in a completely different field. Do we do that with any other type of science?
If a handful of semiconductor device guys tell us that we should be able to build carbon nanotube quantum computers in a few years, does Google start porting all their software over to that now? If a few chemists somewhere tell us that putting fluoride in the coffee should help us to code better, do we go ahead and start that now? or maybe wait until there's a scientific consensus?
nt
The "Minister of Diversity at Google" did not claim any expertise about the current state of neuroscience, and he didn't claim any nonsense about "White Male Patriarchy". Those are two things that you made up in your mind--they didn't happen in reality. Does that make sense to you? There's no morale equivalence because one party erred in the actual real physical universe and the other offended you exclusively within your imagination.
If you are ready to join us on this plane, why don't you post what the "Minister of Diversity" said which triggered your snowflake reaction? and then we'll deal with the reality of what he actually said.
He wasn't trying to advance the state of neuroscience or sociology, as he is completely unqualified to do either. And he wasn't trying to present a scientific consensus, because there is no consensus on these issues: they are pretty complicated and the jury is still out.
Finally--and this is the surest indication that there was no science happening here--he wasn't talking to people who themselves are experts in neuroscience or sociology.
He was a non-expert talking to other non-experts; cherry-picking data to support his "beliefs". That's not science, that's politics.
And not just any politics, political speech that's claims that women are genetically predisposed towards different technical work than men. That is speech that creates a hostile work environment.
And that's game over.
towards different styles of technical work than men. He said that since women are more social creatures then they'd likely excel with "pair programming", and a bunch of other things.
The whole thing reads as pretty man-splainy and pseudo-sciencey. There's also weird tangents about politics and echo-chambers and thought-police and whatnot. He's easy to see how someone could interpret it as a political statement--because that's essentially what it was.
I think he did make an effort to provide some balance, and I think he was trying to be honest. I probably would not have fired him for it. I would have given him some stern redirection.
Some drunk jackass DJ groped her during a meet & greet, Taylor Swift complained to his company, he got fired, and now he's suing her.
It's the same thing that Larry Summers got in trouble for. You're not an expert in neuroscience or sociology. You're not qualified to say what differences are biological, which are cultural, and which are due to bias. You're picking and choosing tidbits of pseudo-science that reinforce an argument that women are genetically predisposed towards different types of technical work than men. Absent scientific consensus to support that claim, this isn't all that different than classic sexism. It creates a hostile work environment, those who were offended had every right to be offended, and management is going to do what they're going to do in that situation.
how could they have tech that Google doesn't? Why would they add accessibility technology for free? This defies all of my preconceived notions, I'll just pretend I never saw this story.
3) Like most Libertarians, you're an idiot.
4) You don't have 0% control, you equal control along with every other voter. Most of those voters don't agree with you--that doesn't mean you are unrepresented, it means that people are fully aware of your stupid ideology and they have decided to vote differently.
5) Oh, we shouldn't have a Treasury or Federal Reserve? I take back calling you an idiot, you're actually a complete fucking moron.
6) you are completely free to pick up and move to a country that has fully implemented your Libertarian ideology. I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.
"I like X, I don't understand why others like Y"
- Every Slashdot comment for the past 20 years
nt
nt
You managed to get a number of us to respond and try to convince you that there's obviously a difference between real journals and fake journals, and you continue to deflect and speak gibberish. If you are a troll then congratulations, well done. If not, well then I'm sorry your paper got rejected and you're having trouble getting funding. Peer review does have its faults, but take some time and reflect and I think you'll find that those faults are completely different than those of predatory fake journals.
Because this article is about fake journals, not about your [potentially legit] beef with real journals.
It's intellectually dishonest to conflate the two. You're essentially saying that since you don't like how real journals direct research then they are no better than fake journals. That's a dangerous path to go down.
Just because there are lots of fake scientific journals out there doesn't mean that there aren't real scientific journals. Try publishing a nonsense paper to "Science" or "Nature" and see what happens. Try submitting this Start Wars paper to the New England journal of medicine and see what happens. Perhaps this wasn't your intention, but statements like, "'peer review' is almost always a load of bullshit." are dangerous because they feed into the mass perception that science isn't real and scientific facts are a matter of personal opinion. That's how we end up with a president who happily claims that climate change is a hoax.
is because he was indisputably a tech visionary that altered nearly every facet of modern life. But don't let that get in the way of your stupid theory.
they've moved on from bashing Steve Jobs to bashing Elon Musk. Apparently the way to truly piss off this crowd is by being a world-changing tech visionary.
Or do you just not understand the difference between design & manufacturing?
In fact, let's rename it 'universal basic electricity' so that the Slashdot crowd will get interested.
You just described a job.
1. blog posts exaggerate and pick out the extreme cases, just because Idaho passes some bone-headed restrictive law doesn't mean that every state makes it hard to change jobs. In California most non-compete clauses are essentially unenforceable. 2. "Americans have almost no vacation time away from work" : this is hyperbolic. Most Americans in tech positions have 2-3 weeks of vacation plus company holidays. 3. there's a reason that America has 5% unemployment and a thriving economy
that we need to shut down all gas & oil pipelines immediately, and ground all aircraft. Also we should probably evacuate all tall buildings--you know, since having a lot of connected steel makes you subject to catastrophic stress fractures and there's no possible way to guard against that. One day you will ride in a Hyperloop or something similar. When that happens, I hope you'll have the self-awareness necessary to say, "you know what, it turns out the experts were right and the internet pseudo-technical wannabees were wrong; this thing does work. I guess, in hindsight, I'm basically the guy who said that horseless carriages will never work and man will never go to space".
> A leak with those kinds of pressure differentials is going to go from the tiniest beginnings of a leak to a catastrophic failure of that joint in an exceedingly short period of time.
Why? Does the air ignite & explode? Using as much detail as you can, explain to me why a small hole suddenly becomes a big hole--keeping in mind that we're talking about 1 inch steel tubes which can easily handle pressure differentials like this without the hole.
I know what you're picturing, something like a bullet sized hole which causes a huge blowout with the steel curled back into jagged edges. I know that's what you are picturing because that's how Hollywood does it. But I want you to explain the physics of that--because I find your explanations of physics to be pretty hilarious.