Neither disengaged nor tired implies participation. Look at the definition in the dictionary. Neither has any connotation of participation.
So that's just false.
As to the numbers, I said 70 percent were disengaged/tired. The wings are not activists.
You are now saying 100% of people that identify as progressives are activists and 100% that identify with some flavor conservativism are activists.
So wrong again.
As to me calling you a pedant, that was an error on my part apparently.
What you are instead is someone that thinks the word "tired" means participating.
And someone that thinks is that anyone that is politically engaged is an "activist".
What this boils down to is that you don't know what words mean. Full stop. And given that you're apparently somewhat arrogant about your position... there is no productive way to correct you.
This can only end in a pointless exchange of insults where neither of us will be persuaded by the other.
I've made my case pretty clearly. I feel you've also made it very clear what you believe. I do not find it credible that any able bodied person in their right mind could agree with you. That is "my" position and we're leaving it there.
You can also say things about the relative sizes of the wings but that's not an argument worth having. The clear observation that is beyond reproach is that the overwhelming majority are disaffected, disconnected, tired of the politics, tired of the stupid hyperbolic 24 hour hysteria, and just want to ignore it.
And "half" is generous for the feminists because what "feminist" means is often a misrepresentation. You'll get feminists that will ask "do you believe in equal rights" and basically everyone will agree with that. And then you'll get hysterical #MeToo stuff that most women don't want anything to do with.
Progressives make up a very small and loud minority that have confused people ironically by exploiting privileged access to media, educational, and governmental institutions to megaphone their ideas, silence opposition, shut down debate, and by fiat make whatever they want law.
And the thing is that they can get away with that mostly because lots of people are not paying a lot of attention. You have this sleeping giant of lots and lots of disinterested people. And so long as the progressives maintain a stranglehold on these powerful institutions whilst not waking the giant... they can win political fights and institutional fights even if outnumbered.
However, if they believe their own propoganda... then they'll over play their hand. They'll piss off the sleepers. They'll wake the giant. And their political alliance is far too small and fragile to survive that.
As it stands, many within the DNC are already trying to marginalize the progressives because they see this coming. Those elements within the DNC are not fairing well however. They're losing control. We can see examples of this every day. You wanted data... I gave you two sets of data and don't be surprised if I can back every last bit up.
The progressives made the error of getting religious about their politics. This gave them a political zealotry in certain conflicts that allowed them to overwhelm their opposition with ferocity. But it comes at a price... and that is that you can't turn it off. You can't control it. It is the mad berserker rage leaves many progressives spiraling into purity tests to attack their own whenever they don't have a clear external enemy.
We've seen many such movements recently self destruct when they didn't have a few target of the day to burn.
And the funniest bit is that they don't see that Trump is literally provoking them on purpose to bait the madness... because it isn't in the interest of the progressives to move "now".
They can't do anything right now. They're out of power nationally and now should be a time of quiet rebuilding and preparation.
Instead they're spazing out at tweets.
I don't think the progressives are aware that all their political opponents are watching how to control them and manipulate them. This isn't going to stop.
This is the new normal. Until the progressives develop an immunity to this kind of "trolling" and "baiting"... it won't stop. And whether they can even resist that is questionable. The very nature of their ideology makes it unlikely they can refuse provocation even when it is very very stupid to rise to it.
The problem with challenging these things is that they're trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Sure, there are fringe problems with the layout. But those fringe issues don't matter to the majority. If you have a personal fringe problem, then fix it yourself.
there are lots of other options for you to use.
But the majority won't change because it doesn't matter.
Long story short, stop trying to project fringe issues on the majority. That is "your" problem. That isn't an insult. Own it. Then actually fix it. You can do it if you actually care.
If you don't care enough to do anything about it, then it didn't matter to you either.
This has been true for the last 50,000 years in human society.
If you render yourself logistically irrelevant... your political agency will wither to a similar irrelevance.
I strongly encourage those attracted to the idea of something for nothing to appreciate that a society that doesn't need you... won't miss you.
And whilst the current society for a lot of reasons won't push that line... probably not throughout all your life times... it may well in your children's or grand children's life times.
The agency we have now is a result of past generations logistical utility to the society. Go through the periods of time and find periods where people had more or less agency and you'll find that people had more personal logistical utility to the society.
The two variables correlate very strongly.
If you render yourself a net drain on society... then society will not prioritize your concerns. And if a situation comes up where the society can solve a problem by giving you less... it will... because there's no negative consequence to giving you less.
if you were doing something then giving you less would have a negative effect on whatever you were providing. But if you provide nothing... then there's no downside to shaving that to the bone.
I say all this as a father loves his children... as brother cares for his brothers... etc etc... Don't fall into this, people. It is a death pact.
You think you made me mad? You guys validate my arrogance every time you embarrass yourselves with these stupid stubborn arguments.
And that is if I care about you at all... the only impact you people have on me... is making me feel good about myself... mostly for being better than you.
That alone would justify an 85% bias to male hires in IT.
You can't blame the company for that. I wrote what follows before I found that... it remains valid... read it if you want. But I thought it reasonable to open with the death blow to your argument.
Simple explanations is not proof of anything.
Again, the burden of proof remains on you. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is not viable.
IF you find someone with a blood stained knife in their hand and a dead body under them... they have the presumption of innocence. That is how the legal system works. I know that barbarians just tie rocks to the person with knife, don't have a trial, don't do lawyers, don't look into what might have otherwise happened... and just go right to execution. I mean, that's just typical barbarian behavior.
Look, if you want to be a barbarian, that's cool. A lot of people are... it is a trending world view.
But your belief system doesn't build or sustain highly organized societies. When you embrace that stuff you limit the scale and complexity of the sorts of social organizations you can sustain. That has implications for the largest size of your political, economic, and social units. Basically, barbarians rarely can sustain populations over a couple million. And that's why you tend to see large social and political systems break into smaller units as barbarism rises. They are embracing a system that cannot substantially organize large numbers of people.
Barbarians ultimately lose out in competition because they have a hard time competing with large highly organized civilized population groups.
It is a recipe to be dominated. If you want to do that... do it.
As to me viewing sexism as a feature, negative. I favor being blind to sex in the hiring process. If a hiring imbalance occurs when the sex of the applicants is not considered in the hiring process... then the sex imbalance is due to something which may correlate with sex but which is not sex itself.
For example, if I had a minimum height requirement, that would correlate with sex as women are generally shorter than men. But that is not a sexual discrimination. It is a height discrimination.
If I can justify that height discrimination then I'm solid... maybe I've got high shelves that have to be reached by employees and ladders aren't very practical. Whatever.
As to women in tech... not as many women have the skills in tech as men.
That right there lowers the number of women that will be able to apply for the job. Here is where I spent 1 minute finding the evidence... which is more time than you spent before you formed your strongly held but very poorly informed opinions.
Seriously... don't accuse people of being sexist or racist without evidence. You have none. How dare you.
Until you audit the code by at least sending it test data, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Have you ever programmed, bub? You think a news article is going to sum up what happened to your code or one of your projects with any accuracy or breadth?
Machine learning is not appropriate for a political and legally vulnerable task like HR.
Machine learning is unreliable and you can't audit it cleanly. It is not appropriate for tasks where the politicians and lawyers are coming at you with the anal probes.
So you use a rules based system that is very clear and auditable. You can cite the code in court. Machine learning doesn't give you that ability.
You can cite the code but you still won't know why it is doing that.
Also machine learning is vulnerable to accusations of "internalized sexism/racism" where as a rules based system is not.
Why would I use a computer that leaves me in the same political and legal bind as the old system?
I want a rules based system so there can be no accusation of racism or sexism.
I can cite the criteria, defend each one, and then explain that applications were filtered on that basis by the computer.
Test data can be sent at it and the correct output comes out. You can add and remove rules easily.
Machine learning doesn't let you do that.
Machine learning is good for some things. It is bad for others.
A rules based expert system is what should be used for HR automation... not machine learning.
The goal of Amazon's thing was to take all the names and boil it down to 5 names or something.
That's overly ambitious.
An expert system could easily cut a list in half or possibly remove 75% of applicants.
That leaves you with 25% left to manually audit.
That's not bad.
The dream of not having to do anything because the robots do it all for you is unreasonable at this juncture.However, if you curb your ambition to the limitations of the technology, then you'll find it works quite well.
I've read recent ones where if you factor for everything it reduces to.05 percent or something and the remainder is well within the margin of error... therefore effectively zero.
Negative, you're asserting sexism. The case is yours to make.
You're simply saying that the company is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Look, I'm okay with us being a society where guilt is presumed.
Just understand that I'm going to accuse you of pedophilia and you're going to be put on a sex offender list.
This is how witch trials stop. You need a certain amount of human sacrifice for the barbarians to understand the consequences of barbarism.
So, push that button. We're already seeing this with the MeToo movement. It is mostly burning the people dumb enough to play lip service to barbarism. And it won't stop until they learn or everyone that didn't is destroyed.
Very happy for people that question the premise. The consequences are the very definition of justice.
I see no reason to use a system that I can't audit in HR when HR has gotten political and litigious.
Do you want to get sued?
Because if you don't have transparency in your hiring process at least in a court room... with proper documentation... you're basically begging to get sued.
I like machine learning for some things... not for political and litigious tasks like HR.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither disengaged nor tired implies participation. Look at the definition in the dictionary. Neither has any connotation of participation.
So that's just false.
As to the numbers, I said 70 percent were disengaged/tired. The wings are not activists.
You are now saying 100% of people that identify as progressives are activists and 100% that identify with some flavor conservativism are activists.
So wrong again.
As to me calling you a pedant, that was an error on my part apparently.
What you are instead is someone that thinks the word "tired" means participating.
And someone that thinks is that anyone that is politically engaged is an "activist".
What this boils down to is that you don't know what words mean. Full stop. And given that you're apparently somewhat arrogant about your position... there is no productive way to correct you.
This can only end in a pointless exchange of insults where neither of us will be persuaded by the other.
I've made my case pretty clearly. I feel you've also made it very clear what you believe. I do not find it credible that any able bodied person in their right mind could agree with you. That is "my" position and we're leaving it there.
Good day, sir.
What is the difference in your opinion between people that have disengaged from politics and people that tired of it?
Indifferent to anything... its not really important. It is 6 of one and half a dozen of another.
I cited my source which came within the margin of error of an off the cuff statement.
If you want to imply I haven't backed up my position within reason then I'm going to just say "good day, sir".
I have no patience for this sort of pedantry.
"""exhausted majority" - which includes plenty of people who do identify with political doctrines of some flavor - you only get to 67%. ""
I said most people were tired of it... you got within 3 percent of my off the cuff statement.
As to political affiliation, that wasn't a 70 percent number... that's conflating the disconnected with a specific ideology.
I did not cite a number for affiliation regarding that beyond suggesting the numbers were not in the progressive's favor... which that study supports.
There's the "hidden tribes" study:
https://static1.squarespace.co...
Page 6
You can also say things about the relative sizes of the wings but that's not an argument worth having. The clear observation that is beyond reproach is that the overwhelming majority are disaffected, disconnected, tired of the politics, tired of the stupid hyperbolic 24 hour hysteria, and just want to ignore it.
There is a lot of proxy data for this...
Another is younger women that identify as feminists:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyl...
And "half" is generous for the feminists because what "feminist" means is often a misrepresentation. You'll get feminists that will ask "do you believe in equal rights" and basically everyone will agree with that. And then you'll get hysterical #MeToo stuff that most women don't want anything to do with.
Progressives make up a very small and loud minority that have confused people ironically by exploiting privileged access to media, educational, and governmental institutions to megaphone their ideas, silence opposition, shut down debate, and by fiat make whatever they want law.
And the thing is that they can get away with that mostly because lots of people are not paying a lot of attention. You have this sleeping giant of lots and lots of disinterested people. And so long as the progressives maintain a stranglehold on these powerful institutions whilst not waking the giant... they can win political fights and institutional fights even if outnumbered.
However, if they believe their own propoganda... then they'll over play their hand. They'll piss off the sleepers. They'll wake the giant. And their political alliance is far too small and fragile to survive that.
As it stands, many within the DNC are already trying to marginalize the progressives because they see this coming. Those elements within the DNC are not fairing well however. They're losing control. We can see examples of this every day. You wanted data... I gave you two sets of data and don't be surprised if I can back every last bit up.
The progressives made the error of getting religious about their politics. This gave them a political zealotry in certain conflicts that allowed them to overwhelm their opposition with ferocity. But it comes at a price... and that is that you can't turn it off. You can't control it. It is the mad berserker rage leaves many progressives spiraling into purity tests to attack their own whenever they don't have a clear external enemy.
We've seen many such movements recently self destruct when they didn't have a few target of the day to burn.
And the funniest bit is that they don't see that Trump is literally provoking them on purpose to bait the madness... because it isn't in the interest of the progressives to move "now".
They can't do anything right now. They're out of power nationally and now should be a time of quiet rebuilding and preparation.
Instead they're spazing out at tweets.
I don't think the progressives are aware that all their political opponents are watching how to control them and manipulate them. This isn't going to stop.
This is the new normal. Until the progressives develop an immunity to this kind of "trolling" and "baiting"... it won't stop. And whether they can even resist that is questionable. The very nature of their ideology makes it unlikely they can refuse provocation even when it is very very stupid to rise to it.
What the politicos don't seem to grasp is that about 70ish percent of the population is politically disengaged by choice.
If you do things that piss people off then you're suddenly going to find people angry with you that previously were politically invisible.
Don't get me wrong... I know they're not going to stop and I don't want them to stop. This is just funny.
I know, you really got me when I said 1+1=2... and you refuted me by saying "No, 1+1=2, you fool!".
You guys are funny. Thanks for the laughs.
You didn't understand what I said or what you said. If you tell me I'm wrong when I say 1+1=2 because 1+1=2... then I can't help you.
Your logistical irrelevance argument validates my agency argument.
Are you really that stupid? Apparently.
Kindly, log in so that people can associate your dumb statements with a name. You idiots need to be identified and counted.
The problem with challenging these things is that they're trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Sure, there are fringe problems with the layout. But those fringe issues don't matter to the majority. If you have a personal fringe problem, then fix it yourself.
there are lots of other options for you to use.
But the majority won't change because it doesn't matter.
Long story short, stop trying to project fringe issues on the majority. That is "your" problem. That isn't an insult. Own it. Then actually fix it. You can do it if you actually care.
If you don't care enough to do anything about it, then it didn't matter to you either.
This has been true for the last 50,000 years in human society.
If you render yourself logistically irrelevant... your political agency will wither to a similar irrelevance.
I strongly encourage those attracted to the idea of something for nothing to appreciate that a society that doesn't need you... won't miss you.
And whilst the current society for a lot of reasons won't push that line... probably not throughout all your life times... it may well in your children's or grand children's life times.
The agency we have now is a result of past generations logistical utility to the society. Go through the periods of time and find periods where people had more or less agency and you'll find that people had more personal logistical utility to the society.
The two variables correlate very strongly.
If you render yourself a net drain on society... then society will not prioritize your concerns. And if a situation comes up where the society can solve a problem by giving you less... it will... because there's no negative consequence to giving you less.
if you were doing something then giving you less would have a negative effect on whatever you were providing. But if you provide nothing... then there's no downside to shaving that to the bone.
I say all this as a father loves his children... as brother cares for his brothers... etc etc... Don't fall into this, people. It is a death pact.
I proved he was wrong, you hapless clown. :-D
You think you made me mad? You guys validate my arrogance every time you embarrass yourselves with these stupid stubborn arguments.
And that is if I care about you at all... the only impact you people have on me... is making me feel good about myself... mostly for being better than you.
Just, fyi, spud.
I regretted the challenge because it came off as aggressive... wasn't my intention but they don't let you edit your posts :)
So yeah, we're on the same page. :)
I cited a source.
Cite something to support your AC troll position.
Again, I cited a source with information.
You're either going to post a source of your own that contradicts my position or you're just being a bad sport.
doesn't matter... that figure alone casts shade on the gender bias argument.
Drops mic.
Before anything, I found this:
https://www.payscale.com/caree...
Computer Science degrees
85% male
That alone would justify an 85% bias to male hires in IT.
You can't blame the company for that. I wrote what follows before I found that... it remains valid... read it if you want. But I thought it reasonable to open with the death blow to your argument.
Simple explanations is not proof of anything.
Again, the burden of proof remains on you. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is not viable.
IF you find someone with a blood stained knife in their hand and a dead body under them... they have the presumption of innocence. That is how the legal system works. I know that barbarians just tie rocks to the person with knife, don't have a trial, don't do lawyers, don't look into what might have otherwise happened... and just go right to execution. I mean, that's just typical barbarian behavior.
Look, if you want to be a barbarian, that's cool. A lot of people are... it is a trending world view.
But your belief system doesn't build or sustain highly organized societies. When you embrace that stuff you limit the scale and complexity of the sorts of social organizations you can sustain. That has implications for the largest size of your political, economic, and social units. Basically, barbarians rarely can sustain populations over a couple million. And that's why you tend to see large social and political systems break into smaller units as barbarism rises. They are embracing a system that cannot substantially organize large numbers of people.
Barbarians ultimately lose out in competition because they have a hard time competing with large highly organized civilized population groups.
It is a recipe to be dominated. If you want to do that... do it.
As to me viewing sexism as a feature, negative. I favor being blind to sex in the hiring process. If a hiring imbalance occurs when the sex of the applicants is not considered in the hiring process... then the sex imbalance is due to something which may correlate with sex but which is not sex itself.
For example, if I had a minimum height requirement, that would correlate with sex as women are generally shorter than men. But that is not a sexual discrimination. It is a height discrimination.
If I can justify that height discrimination then I'm solid... maybe I've got high shelves that have to be reached by employees and ladders aren't very practical. Whatever.
As to women in tech... not as many women have the skills in tech as men.
That right there lowers the number of women that will be able to apply for the job. Here is where I spent 1 minute finding the evidence... which is more time than you spent before you formed your strongly held but very poorly informed opinions.
Seriously... don't accuse people of being sexist or racist without evidence. You have none. How dare you.
I understand how machine learning works.
I answered this element.
Keep what you like... IQ scores were unlikely to be factored by the Amazon hiring software as IQ score is not often included in resumes.
Until you audit the code by at least sending it test data, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Have you ever programmed, bub? You think a news article is going to sum up what happened to your code or one of your projects with any accuracy or breadth?
Come now.
Machine learning is not appropriate for a political and legally vulnerable task like HR.
Machine learning is unreliable and you can't audit it cleanly. It is not appropriate for tasks where the politicians and lawyers are coming at you with the anal probes.
So you use a rules based system that is very clear and auditable. You can cite the code in court. Machine learning doesn't give you that ability.
You can cite the code but you still won't know why it is doing that.
Also machine learning is vulnerable to accusations of "internalized sexism/racism" where as a rules based system is not.
Why would I use a computer that leaves me in the same political and legal bind as the old system?
I want a rules based system so there can be no accusation of racism or sexism.
I can cite the criteria, defend each one, and then explain that applications were filtered on that basis by the computer.
Test data can be sent at it and the correct output comes out. You can add and remove rules easily.
Machine learning doesn't let you do that.
Machine learning is good for some things. It is bad for others.
A rules based expert system is what should be used for HR automation... not machine learning.
Eh, curb your ambitions.
The goal of Amazon's thing was to take all the names and boil it down to 5 names or something.
That's overly ambitious.
An expert system could easily cut a list in half or possibly remove 75% of applicants.
That leaves you with 25% left to manually audit.
That's not bad.
The dream of not having to do anything because the robots do it all for you is unreasonable at this juncture.However, if you curb your ambition to the limitations of the technology, then you'll find it works quite well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I've read recent ones where if you factor for everything it reduces to .05 percent or something and the remainder is well within the margin of error... therefore effectively zero.
We can compare studies if you want.
Negative, you're asserting sexism. The case is yours to make.
You're simply saying that the company is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Look, I'm okay with us being a society where guilt is presumed.
Just understand that I'm going to accuse you of pedophilia and you're going to be put on a sex offender list.
This is how witch trials stop. You need a certain amount of human sacrifice for the barbarians to understand the consequences of barbarism.
So, push that button. We're already seeing this with the MeToo movement. It is mostly burning the people dumb enough to play lip service to barbarism. And it won't stop until they learn or everyone that didn't is destroyed.
Very happy for people that question the premise. The consequences are the very definition of justice.
I see no reason to use a system that I can't audit in HR when HR has gotten political and litigious.
Do you want to get sued?
Because if you don't have transparency in your hiring process at least in a court room... with proper documentation... you're basically begging to get sued.
I like machine learning for some things... not for political and litigious tasks like HR.
no, you just don't do machine learning in this application.
you use a clear audit-able rules based system.
And when you're doing that you do not use gender as a hiring criteria.
Then you're not using gender.
If AFTER that you want a bunch of diversity hires, then so be it. But the core hires should be on merit.
Don't confuse your diversity hires with your merit hires. That way lies madness.
The point is to test the computer program. I could take submissions that were accepted and fill in bits that said male with female.
if they were still accepted then it isn't rejecting women. It is rejecting something else.
Test it.
What we have here is another equality of outcome argument.
If 50/50 men/women aren't accepted to whatever then they presume sexism.
That is illogical. There are many variables that could correlate with gender that are legitimate reasons for job selection.
Until that has been tested the burden of proof rests on the people suggesting it is sexism.
Or have we reversed burden of proof?