No they can't. You weren't listening. There is an imbalance of talent out there. They can't hire as many women as men. they do not exist with the requisite skills.
As I said, you can blame the colleges if you want.
They will blame the women for not taking the right courses.
And that will stop there... or if you want you can blame the high schools, grade schools, parents, and society instead.
Your choice. But the companies are utterly blameless.
If the women are not taking the right courses then that isn't the company's fault. That's just math. If you refuse to accept math then... I'm arguing with a crazy person.
Then by this logic women can't complain if there are a lot of men in the work place because that is not a violation of the dress code or social norms.
I set out two situations.
1. Either this is a non issue.
2. Or women need to start changing the way they do things to make men not feel insecure or uncomfortable around them in some situations.
You chose option 1 which is actually my preferred answer to this article and issue. This is an article about a women being uncomfortable around cock. Everywhere she looks she sees dick.
And that makes her feel uncomfortable. Well... what about the poor guy that sees nothing but vagina as far as the eye can see? Doubtless he feels uncomfortable in that situation on occasion... no one is going to bend over backwards for that guy. So don't see any reason to bend for this woman.
I'll say the same thing to her that I would say to the guy... be an adult and deal with it. Stop whining about your insecurities like a pathetic child.
Then a man feeling uncomfortable can be a sign he's being discriminated against.
Take my bullshit feelings seriously and I'll take your bullshit feelings seriously.
As to sexist jokes etc... simply saying "there is a lot of dick here" is not evidence of discrimination or sexist jokes. Sometimes you go to an all male work place and there are no jokes of any kind what so ever. Just work.
Trying to play on pathetic stereotypes and project them on every situation where you're not happy for some reason is not acceptable.
If you have an issue, show evidence please. The burden of proof is on you.
What you have is lots of cock in some places. An issue answered with the statistical graduation rates of women with skills required for those professions. So that was the only bit of evidence and it is countered.
I know you have nothing more then that. So you cannot make any further argument on this subject.
That's it.
When you have more we can continue. But until then you only have supposition which I can counter with my own stream of make believe unicorn riding bullshit.
There is this collection of what are known as "Third Wave, Sex Negative, Feminists" that are making the rounds. They went through the Atheist community, they went through Occupy, they went through the comic book world for some reason, and they've been pissing off gamers lately with that whole gamer gate thing.
Anyway... they're all over the place apparently agitated about the great vagina revolution.
They even went so far as to repeal due process in California universities with their "yes means yes" campaign. They even got the CDC to redefine what rape means so they could claim that 1 in 5 women are raped in college. Anywho... they're being humored in most places because no one wants to be called a bigot. Most communities are waiting for rational women to stand up and say "actually you don't represent me." Which has happened in a few situations. We'll see what happens.
But that's is what is going on. They're spamming the media with their nonsense.
A women feeling uncomfortable because there aren't a lot of women around is not a sign that I am discriminating against her or showing her disrespect.
That is merely her personal response to a situation.
You want to say people feel uncomfortable in given situations?
Okay, lets say I tell you that I am made uncomfortable by a woman that wears sexy clothing and yet doesn't want me to stare at her. She's sexy. I want to stare at her. But I can't because that would be rude and creepy. So she's walking around wearing this stuff and it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Now if I point this out, I am apparently slut shaming or victim blaming or some other stupid buzz word that means she isn't responsible for my impressions of things she's doing.
Okay.
Then I'm not responsible for her feeling uncomfortable by the mostly male work environment.
Either sort out the hypocrisy in this idiocy or concede that it doesn't make any god damn sense.
I am too logical and too rational to be distracted by this psychobabble. If you want to push this stuff... Go for it. I eagerly await the attempt.
Diversity of that kind has nothing to do with sex or race however. It has more to do with different ways of thinking about things.
Five white guys that are all between the ages of 35 and 45 are not necessarily similar.
They could for one thing be from very different cultures. They could also have completely different work backgrounds. They might have completely different beliefs about everything. They might has distinct psychologies.
This obessession with sex and race quotas are counter productive if your goal is better work. If you want greater diversity then look for a diversity of talent, mentality, and psychology.
I am for example a white man. However, I have a very unusual psychological profile. I am literally 1 in 100,000. Am I unique or superior? No. But I am unusual. I experience the world in a different way. I interact with people in a different way. My value systems are different.
And on any project I am on, my distinctiveness arrives at options and conclusions that no one else considers. Are my ideas always good? No. Sometimes they're terrible. But they're different.
Now... how does dumping me for someone that is more normal then I am... but checks some bullshit diversity box helping anything?
It doesn't. Stop wasting society's time with this horseshit.
Discrimination is bad. Prejudice is bad. Bigotry is bad. And that includes judging people that you don't know by the color of their skin or their gender.
You don't know me. You don't get to say my work environment lacks diversity because there are too many white guys in it. You don't know what that even means.
I would literally change my race tomorrow to anything you like... so that everyone only saw that race when they looked at me. It would only help me. That's a fact. I am clever, educated, and have proven job skills. You give me some race or gender check box next to my resume and I'm a golden fucking god.
Simply having the pad download at a time other then the point of transaction makes it much harder to steal from them.
Lets say I download the pad at point "A" and that is intercepted by someone so they have the pad. The pad is only one factor of authentication. It doesn't include my account number, my pin, or even some biometric attribute that might be relevant.
Furthermore, you might have lots of pads being sent around so the context of the pad might not even be clear.
Furthermore again, who says the pad had to be unencrypted or easily sussed out from a communication?
By all means, secure that transaction. And if you want to get really paranoid... have the pad delivered by snail mail. Not secure enough? Armed courier riding an armored bear... with bad attitude and worse breath.
The point is that once you have the pad and they don't... they can't decode anything secured by the pad. As in literally impossible with anything ever. And that is pretty fucking amazing for an encoding system as old as dirt.
The only burden of the system is that it requires a significant amount of information to maintain the code.
A play on book codes might also be interesting. That is technically decodable. But it would be a pain in the ass to compare the file against every edition of every digital book ever.
The notion of just having something computationally difficult of decoding is not enough. The codes have to be randomized not only in seed but in the syntax of the encoding system itself. What is more, we should look at ideas to split information up into packets that route through different communications systems so that anyone tapping one of those systems would be unable to decoding the message even if they knew how. And even if they were tapping all communication systems it would at least be more complicated to connect the two bits of information to run the decoding properly.
Beyond that... and this always makes people furious... we need to seriously think about using digital equivalents of "one time pads" for high security applications.
For example, lets say you download a new onetime pad for your bank. That information sits on your phone or your laptop or where ever. And it lets you complete a set number of transactions or access a set amount of banking data before you need a fresh pad. Then when you want to do something with your digital wallet... you can let the NSA, chinese, all the Nigerians, the russians, etc all have access to your transaction... and lets assume they have quantum computers, alien super technology, and whatever else short of that fucking password breaker from Sleepers. And they're not going to be able to break it. It will remain secure.
That is the sort of security I want. I want security that is either so fucking hard to break that the governments or criminals don't even try to break it. Or that is literally impossible to break with any technology or amount of time... Ever.
One time pads for all their inconvenience are unbreakable. That is a huge.
I don't understand why you're trying to use two distinct systems that were not designed to work together when there is a very easy solution already there?
The solution you're looking for will have to be custom programmed and it doesn't exist yet.
That is the answer. if you're prepared to hire a programmer or programming house to do it for you... vaya con dios.
If that were my show, I would just install an exchange server. MS haters won't like that... but if you're going with an active directory already then what exactly is the beef here?
I think you should use the tech the way it is supposed to be used unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences of not doing that.
... teaching it are clueless and the textbooks are written by people that have somewhere along the way missed the objective of the text... which is to teach young people science.
The emphasis is on "teach" not list fucking facts, tell them to write them down, and say "there will be a test on THOR's Day". That is what they so often do and it is no wonder everyone gets bored and passes out. Do more experiments. Do more labs. Do more projects.
The problem with projects? They're more expensive. They're messy. They take up space. And some moron is going to burn his eyebrows off.
One problem... they work and are actually instructive as to why all those facts and equations are more then random doodles some twat wrote into the book just to fuck with people.
Do the experiments or don't even presume to teach science.
Look, if the government studies how to kill things more effectively that could be used by a police state too. So should the government not study how to kill things? Well, that bridge was crossed... now everyone has to have the most kill capable government on earth just to keep the other governments from thinking about balancing next year's budget shortfall by killing everyone in your country and taking your stuff.
But how does this relate to this meme research? Well, they probably will come up with new ways to manipulate people. But then again, someone probably already knows everything they're going to find out, and if they find out... they're more likely to tell everyone about that thing then the guy making millions by tricking people into buying penis pills, beer, or whatever that shadowy theoretical entity is doing.
So I say bring it on. Yes, we'll learn another way in which human society can be manipulated. But knowing what that is will give us some ability to build defenses against it so that it doesn't actually work. Will that mean the end of viral videos? Maybe they'll get filtered by some anti manipulation system. I rather doubt we're getting rid of viral videos... its just too much fun watching some random person fall off their couch or whatever.
The assumption is that there is no diversity because of discrimination. An analysis of the women in college demonstrates that fewer are hired in tech because fewer train for that field.
Therefore the burden is on the college not the tech company.
The College will respond that the burden is not on them because the student chooses what they want to study.
Which either means women have to take responsibility for this or we regress back into their history blaming their high school, their grade school, their parents, or society...
And I wish you all a hilarious time with that little journey. I'll be over here in the real world just getting on with it.
Seems easier to just send a memo to the mangers "by the way, it is against company policy to be a bigot. Have a nice day."
I mean, by this logic, why can't HR be bigots? Because they had magical HR training that any fuckwit couldn't get in an afternoon of corporate trust falls? Give me a break.
Have all the managers watch a "don't be a bigot/murderer/rapist/asshole PSA" and then retire the concept of having HR do something they're never ever ever ever going to be competent at doing... EVER.
As to everyone getting together in an industry and agreeing on the correct price, that is quite literally illegal in literally every other industry. You will be sued or go to jail if you even try to do that anywhere else. It is a bad idea. It is anti competitive. What you should have is everyone undercutting each other's prices.
Here someone will say "but that will just lead to people cutting corners and half assing things"... well who says they're not going to do that regardless? Exactly so you've just accomplished making things more expensive and disincentivized people innovating efficiency without increasing quality. Terrible idea is terrible.
Not your fault the idea is terrible... it just is very bad.
As to giving people money for insurance and how that relates to single payer... I see no reason why single payer makes any sense in this concept. If we give people money to buy their own care then every one of those people would technically be a "payer" in the system. What is more, what they are given can't be explicitly known or the doctors will know what to charge. Its like expecting the local stores to make sense if they know exactly how many dollars are in each of your pockets. That is a buyer secret. Lets say I can afford 1 million dollars to buy this hamburger... lets say lots of people can do that. Do I want the guy selling me burgers to know that? Obviously not. I want him charging me as little as possible.
As to the emergency room, you seem to really want single payer. Well... I'm going to skip over what appear to be a verbal tick to me and just point out that simply empowering the nurse to send people to urgent care right next door would instantly solve this problem in 99.99 percent of cases without a need to do anything else. Which option is easier? Exactly.
As to medicare, that is part of the problem with putting the government in charge of these things. They're slow, have conflicts of interest, and aren't half as competent as you think. A much more responsive system would be to let insurance companies cover what they want to cover and pay what they want to pay. The customer signs a contract they like and then that is the coverage. Why get involved in this contract? Do this, and it is in the interest of the insurance company to cut out inefficient over priced healthcare options and recommend the most efficient policies possible. Now here someone will say "but they'll just be greedy and fuck you." Sure... and the guy that sells you a car, a house, or a pair of socks could do the same thing. The guy that makes you a sandwich could have replaced the mayonnaise with ejaculate. Except this is controlled generally by two things: 1. We notice these things and it is hard to stay in business if you do that. 2. Human decency is a real thing. I know most people don't think it is... but amongst the majority of humanity it is very real.
I don't see how inserting this confused bloated bureacracy into everything makes anyone's lives easier.
If the world were a static place. If there were no innovation. If everything always stayed the same... then your idea might be viable. The problem is that every time anything CAN change for the better it is stopped by your system because it is slow, disinterested in innovation, has no interest in containing costs because tax payers, and ultimately makes all its decisions on a political basis.
Imagine for a moment if the sandwich you ate every day was determined by politics. Not what you want. Not what the current price of ham is or the how much mustard is available. But rather what some committee of douche bags decided 1000 miles away 20 years ago in a single afternoon.
Imagine that world. That is what you're trying to do to medicine. It is a bad idea.
Liability is understood, however that has to be addressed in another way because this non-functional.
As to bad managers... I strongly believe in making it very easy for incompetence is be detected. I see no reason to hide it.
And as to training... one of the most unforgivable things about the modern American work place is the lack of continuous formal training. This causes all sorts of needless skill shortages as well as causing good employees to become obsolete over time because the stupid company didn't keep them current.
You could argue that it is the employee's job to keep himself current but how exactly is that working out for everyone? Exactly. And what is cheaper... doing some in house training or sending them off on occasion or giving them some reading assignments... or having them get obsolete, going through HR's incompetence, getting someone that has the skill you now need but not the skills the last guy had, etc etc etc.
Its a dumb idea.
HR should manage employee paper work. Company health plans, pensions, make sure payroll is happening, maybe keep track of who has gotten the routine "don't rape people" PSA, etc. Beyond that... waste of fucking time.
You saw an argument you didn't have a counter to and instead of accepting that or struggling to deal with something that was hard, you instead intentionally misrepresented someone else's argument.
You lied in an obvious and crude manner. I am right here. Did you think I wouldn't notice you moving my pieces on the game board?
That isn't how the game works. You move your pieces. I move mine.
When you move my pieces that is cheating.
Strawman is cheating. You do not get to define my argument. My argument is my argument.
What I did was slap your hand away from the game board and tell you to move YOUR pieces and leave mine alone. I asked you to play by the rules and not cheat.
I also assumed that you were a petulent child and would throw a temper tantrum when disallowed from cheating. I assume this because people that cheat in this manner are typically a mix of stupid and dishonest. Stupid because they don't know how to cheat more effectively and dishonest because they'd cheat in the first place.
And here you are... whining that you are being held to standards and being forbidden from just changing the rules whenever it suits you.
Managers should be the ones hiring and firing people. HR's job should be managing employee paperwork. The actual task for hiring people should be done by the managers themselves.
Will this mean that hiring practices become much more chaotic and lack uniformity? Yep. Guess what... when you get hired your managers are going to be different and the jobs you're getting hired for are going to be different. So why pretend that the hiring process has to be uniform when the work environments you're applying for are not uniform?
Now some will argue "this will take time from the manager's other jobs etc"... well that means either you don't have enough managers or you're over complicating the process.
Ultimately, the manager should get some face time with whomever is applying for the job. He/she should ask the new potential hire some questions to get to know them... and then go from there.
I seriously don't understand why we even bother with HR in regards to hires? Anyone actually know?
Give department heads budgets for their departments as well as responsibilities they must fulfill by given deadlines. If they're competent they'll work it out. If not then they won't. HR is not doing anything to make that process easier. If anything what they're doing is putting an artificial barrier between the manager and the potential employee. Possibly screening out people the manager might otherwise want to hire.
And if these stupid job apps are just ruses so they can hire someone specific then why even go through that game? Just let the manager hire his friend or whatever. Cut to the chase please and stop polluting job listings with bullcrap jobs that aren't actually open.
The saddest thing on the internet is being subjected to the seemingly endless hordes of fuckwits that don't know how to process a logical argument or think.
I mean... you're failing basic rhetoric here. Its sad. Try harder.
Slashdot Mirror
No they can't. You weren't listening. There is an imbalance of talent out there. They can't hire as many women as men. they do not exist with the requisite skills.
As I said, you can blame the colleges if you want.
They will blame the women for not taking the right courses.
And that will stop there... or if you want you can blame the high schools, grade schools, parents, and society instead.
Your choice. But the companies are utterly blameless.
If the women are not taking the right courses then that isn't the company's fault. That's just math. If you refuse to accept math then... I'm arguing with a crazy person.
Then by this logic women can't complain if there are a lot of men in the work place because that is not a violation of the dress code or social norms.
I set out two situations.
1. Either this is a non issue.
2. Or women need to start changing the way they do things to make men not feel insecure or uncomfortable around them in some situations.
You chose option 1 which is actually my preferred answer to this article and issue. This is an article about a women being uncomfortable around cock. Everywhere she looks she sees dick.
And that makes her feel uncomfortable. Well... what about the poor guy that sees nothing but vagina as far as the eye can see? Doubtless he feels uncomfortable in that situation on occasion... no one is going to bend over backwards for that guy. So don't see any reason to bend for this woman.
I'll say the same thing to her that I would say to the guy... be an adult and deal with it. Stop whining about your insecurities like a pathetic child.
Then a man feeling uncomfortable can be a sign he's being discriminated against.
Take my bullshit feelings seriously and I'll take your bullshit feelings seriously.
As to sexist jokes etc... simply saying "there is a lot of dick here" is not evidence of discrimination or sexist jokes. Sometimes you go to an all male work place and there are no jokes of any kind what so ever. Just work.
Trying to play on pathetic stereotypes and project them on every situation where you're not happy for some reason is not acceptable.
If you have an issue, show evidence please. The burden of proof is on you.
What you have is lots of cock in some places. An issue answered with the statistical graduation rates of women with skills required for those professions. So that was the only bit of evidence and it is countered.
I know you have nothing more then that. So you cannot make any further argument on this subject.
That's it.
When you have more we can continue. But until then you only have supposition which I can counter with my own stream of make believe unicorn riding bullshit.
Oh you didn't know?
Hillary Clinton apparently.
There is this collection of what are known as "Third Wave, Sex Negative, Feminists" that are making the rounds. They went through the Atheist community, they went through Occupy, they went through the comic book world for some reason, and they've been pissing off gamers lately with that whole gamer gate thing.
Anyway... they're all over the place apparently agitated about the great vagina revolution.
They even went so far as to repeal due process in California universities with their "yes means yes" campaign. They even got the CDC to redefine what rape means so they could claim that 1 in 5 women are raped in college. Anywho... they're being humored in most places because no one wants to be called a bigot. Most communities are waiting for rational women to stand up and say "actually you don't represent me." Which has happened in a few situations. We'll see what happens.
But that's is what is going on. They're spamming the media with their nonsense.
A women feeling uncomfortable because there aren't a lot of women around is not a sign that I am discriminating against her or showing her disrespect.
That is merely her personal response to a situation.
You want to say people feel uncomfortable in given situations?
Okay, lets say I tell you that I am made uncomfortable by a woman that wears sexy clothing and yet doesn't want me to stare at her. She's sexy. I want to stare at her. But I can't because that would be rude and creepy. So she's walking around wearing this stuff and it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Now if I point this out, I am apparently slut shaming or victim blaming or some other stupid buzz word that means she isn't responsible for my impressions of things she's doing.
Okay.
Then I'm not responsible for her feeling uncomfortable by the mostly male work environment.
Either sort out the hypocrisy in this idiocy or concede that it doesn't make any god damn sense.
I am too logical and too rational to be distracted by this psychobabble. If you want to push this stuff... Go for it. I eagerly await the attempt.
Diversity of that kind has nothing to do with sex or race however. It has more to do with different ways of thinking about things.
Five white guys that are all between the ages of 35 and 45 are not necessarily similar.
They could for one thing be from very different cultures. They could also have completely different work backgrounds. They might have completely different beliefs about everything. They might has distinct psychologies.
This obessession with sex and race quotas are counter productive if your goal is better work. If you want greater diversity then look for a diversity of talent, mentality, and psychology.
I am for example a white man. However, I have a very unusual psychological profile. I am literally 1 in 100,000. Am I unique or superior? No. But I am unusual. I experience the world in a different way. I interact with people in a different way. My value systems are different.
And on any project I am on, my distinctiveness arrives at options and conclusions that no one else considers. Are my ideas always good? No. Sometimes they're terrible. But they're different.
Now... how does dumping me for someone that is more normal then I am... but checks some bullshit diversity box helping anything?
It doesn't. Stop wasting society's time with this horseshit.
Discrimination is bad. Prejudice is bad. Bigotry is bad. And that includes judging people that you don't know by the color of their skin or their gender.
You don't know me. You don't get to say my work environment lacks diversity because there are too many white guys in it. You don't know what that even means.
I would literally change my race tomorrow to anything you like... so that everyone only saw that race when they looked at me. It would only help me. That's a fact. I am clever, educated, and have proven job skills. You give me some race or gender check box next to my resume and I'm a golden fucking god.
Okay, so I hear you're mad at the Sun because... physics?
How is any of this my problem?
You're mad that your parents didn't encourage you to do things you ultimately didn't do because you showed no interest in them later in life?
Okay... so you're saying feminism is just a giant political movement built around toxic daddy issues?
Explain again why I'm not supposed to laugh at you? Because it is really really hard.
Simply having the pad download at a time other then the point of transaction makes it much harder to steal from them.
Lets say I download the pad at point "A" and that is intercepted by someone so they have the pad. The pad is only one factor of authentication. It doesn't include my account number, my pin, or even some biometric attribute that might be relevant.
Furthermore, you might have lots of pads being sent around so the context of the pad might not even be clear.
Furthermore again, who says the pad had to be unencrypted or easily sussed out from a communication?
By all means, secure that transaction. And if you want to get really paranoid... have the pad delivered by snail mail. Not secure enough? Armed courier riding an armored bear... with bad attitude and worse breath.
The point is that once you have the pad and they don't... they can't decode anything secured by the pad. As in literally impossible with anything ever. And that is pretty fucking amazing for an encoding system as old as dirt.
The only burden of the system is that it requires a significant amount of information to maintain the code.
A play on book codes might also be interesting. That is technically decodable. But it would be a pain in the ass to compare the file against every edition of every digital book ever.
I stand corrected. I still don't quite seem why anyone would bother. But since someone else did bother for whatever reason... that's great.
Again, thank you for the correction.
*tips hat*
Which means you agree it isn't the tech company's fault that the whole industry is a giant sausage fest.
Just keep stocked up on mustard and throw bread rolls at anyone that complains.
The notion of just having something computationally difficult of decoding is not enough. The codes have to be randomized not only in seed but in the syntax of the encoding system itself. What is more, we should look at ideas to split information up into packets that route through different communications systems so that anyone tapping one of those systems would be unable to decoding the message even if they knew how. And even if they were tapping all communication systems it would at least be more complicated to connect the two bits of information to run the decoding properly.
Beyond that... and this always makes people furious... we need to seriously think about using digital equivalents of "one time pads" for high security applications.
For example, lets say you download a new onetime pad for your bank. That information sits on your phone or your laptop or where ever. And it lets you complete a set number of transactions or access a set amount of banking data before you need a fresh pad. Then when you want to do something with your digital wallet... you can let the NSA, chinese, all the Nigerians, the russians, etc all have access to your transaction... and lets assume they have quantum computers, alien super technology, and whatever else short of that fucking password breaker from Sleepers. And they're not going to be able to break it. It will remain secure.
That is the sort of security I want. I want security that is either so fucking hard to break that the governments or criminals don't even try to break it. Or that is literally impossible to break with any technology or amount of time... Ever.
One time pads for all their inconvenience are unbreakable. That is a huge.
I don't understand why you're trying to use two distinct systems that were not designed to work together when there is a very easy solution already there?
The solution you're looking for will have to be custom programmed and it doesn't exist yet.
That is the answer. if you're prepared to hire a programmer or programming house to do it for you... vaya con dios.
If that were my show, I would just install an exchange server. MS haters won't like that... but if you're going with an active directory already then what exactly is the beef here?
I think you should use the tech the way it is supposed to be used unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences of not doing that.
... teaching it are clueless and the textbooks are written by people that have somewhere along the way missed the objective of the text... which is to teach young people science.
The emphasis is on "teach" not list fucking facts, tell them to write them down, and say "there will be a test on THOR's Day". That is what they so often do and it is no wonder everyone gets bored and passes out. Do more experiments. Do more labs. Do more projects.
The problem with projects? They're more expensive. They're messy. They take up space. And some moron is going to burn his eyebrows off.
One problem... they work and are actually instructive as to why all those facts and equations are more then random doodles some twat wrote into the book just to fuck with people.
Do the experiments or don't even presume to teach science.
*drops mike and walks out*
Look, if the government studies how to kill things more effectively that could be used by a police state too. So should the government not study how to kill things? Well, that bridge was crossed... now everyone has to have the most kill capable government on earth just to keep the other governments from thinking about balancing next year's budget shortfall by killing everyone in your country and taking your stuff.
But how does this relate to this meme research? Well, they probably will come up with new ways to manipulate people. But then again, someone probably already knows everything they're going to find out, and if they find out... they're more likely to tell everyone about that thing then the guy making millions by tricking people into buying penis pills, beer, or whatever that shadowy theoretical entity is doing.
So I say bring it on. Yes, we'll learn another way in which human society can be manipulated. But knowing what that is will give us some ability to build defenses against it so that it doesn't actually work. Will that mean the end of viral videos? Maybe they'll get filtered by some anti manipulation system. I rather doubt we're getting rid of viral videos... its just too much fun watching some random person fall off their couch or whatever.
The assumption is that there is no diversity because of discrimination. An analysis of the women in college demonstrates that fewer are hired in tech because fewer train for that field.
Therefore the burden is on the college not the tech company.
The College will respond that the burden is not on them because the student chooses what they want to study.
Which either means women have to take responsibility for this or we regress back into their history blaming their high school, their grade school, their parents, or society...
And I wish you all a hilarious time with that little journey. I'll be over here in the real world just getting on with it.
*rolls up window and drives on*
I addressed this in my post.
"Either you don't have enough managers"
OR
"You have over complicated the process"
Pick one.
Seems easier to just send a memo to the mangers "by the way, it is against company policy to be a bigot. Have a nice day."
I mean, by this logic, why can't HR be bigots? Because they had magical HR training that any fuckwit couldn't get in an afternoon of corporate trust falls? Give me a break.
Have all the managers watch a "don't be a bigot/murderer/rapist/asshole PSA" and then retire the concept of having HR do something they're never ever ever ever going to be competent at doing... EVER.
Nah, I just got a label maker... it is awesome. I typed apple into it, and labeled all my apples.
Then I typed "this conversation is done because you were never actually arguing with my thesis" and posted that on this conversation.
It was sort of a long tag... but it needed a label.
As to everyone getting together in an industry and agreeing on the correct price, that is quite literally illegal in literally every other industry. You will be sued or go to jail if you even try to do that anywhere else. It is a bad idea. It is anti competitive. What you should have is everyone undercutting each other's prices.
Here someone will say "but that will just lead to people cutting corners and half assing things"... well who says they're not going to do that regardless? Exactly so you've just accomplished making things more expensive and disincentivized people innovating efficiency without increasing quality. Terrible idea is terrible.
Not your fault the idea is terrible... it just is very bad.
As to giving people money for insurance and how that relates to single payer... I see no reason why single payer makes any sense in this concept. If we give people money to buy their own care then every one of those people would technically be a "payer" in the system. What is more, what they are given can't be explicitly known or the doctors will know what to charge. Its like expecting the local stores to make sense if they know exactly how many dollars are in each of your pockets. That is a buyer secret. Lets say I can afford 1 million dollars to buy this hamburger... lets say lots of people can do that. Do I want the guy selling me burgers to know that? Obviously not. I want him charging me as little as possible.
As to the emergency room, you seem to really want single payer. Well... I'm going to skip over what appear to be a verbal tick to me and just point out that simply empowering the nurse to send people to urgent care right next door would instantly solve this problem in 99.99 percent of cases without a need to do anything else. Which option is easier? Exactly.
As to medicare, that is part of the problem with putting the government in charge of these things. They're slow, have conflicts of interest, and aren't half as competent as you think. A much more responsive system would be to let insurance companies cover what they want to cover and pay what they want to pay. The customer signs a contract they like and then that is the coverage. Why get involved in this contract? Do this, and it is in the interest of the insurance company to cut out inefficient over priced healthcare options and recommend the most efficient policies possible. Now here someone will say "but they'll just be greedy and fuck you." Sure... and the guy that sells you a car, a house, or a pair of socks could do the same thing. The guy that makes you a sandwich could have replaced the mayonnaise with ejaculate. Except this is controlled generally by two things:
1. We notice these things and it is hard to stay in business if you do that.
2. Human decency is a real thing. I know most people don't think it is... but amongst the majority of humanity it is very real.
I don't see how inserting this confused bloated bureacracy into everything makes anyone's lives easier.
If the world were a static place. If there were no innovation. If everything always stayed the same... then your idea might be viable. The problem is that every time anything CAN change for the better it is stopped by your system because it is slow, disinterested in innovation, has no interest in containing costs because tax payers, and ultimately makes all its decisions on a political basis.
Imagine for a moment if the sandwich you ate every day was determined by politics. Not what you want. Not what the current price of ham is or the how much mustard is available. But rather what some committee of douche bags decided 1000 miles away 20 years ago in a single afternoon.
Imagine that world. That is what you're trying to do to medicine. It is a bad idea.
No one can possibly know less about what you need in that job then an HR monkey working off some list you half assed into an excel spreadsheet.
I'm glad you agreed with everything I said then...
Good day.
Liability is understood, however that has to be addressed in another way because this non-functional.
As to bad managers... I strongly believe in making it very easy for incompetence is be detected. I see no reason to hide it.
And as to training... one of the most unforgivable things about the modern American work place is the lack of continuous formal training. This causes all sorts of needless skill shortages as well as causing good employees to become obsolete over time because the stupid company didn't keep them current.
You could argue that it is the employee's job to keep himself current but how exactly is that working out for everyone? Exactly. And what is cheaper... doing some in house training or sending them off on occasion or giving them some reading assignments... or having them get obsolete, going through HR's incompetence, getting someone that has the skill you now need but not the skills the last guy had, etc etc etc.
Its a dumb idea.
HR should manage employee paper work. Company health plans, pensions, make sure payroll is happening, maybe keep track of who has gotten the routine "don't rape people" PSA, etc. Beyond that... waste of fucking time.
Wrong.
You saw an argument you didn't have a counter to and instead of accepting that or struggling to deal with something that was hard, you instead intentionally misrepresented someone else's argument.
You lied in an obvious and crude manner. I am right here. Did you think I wouldn't notice you moving my pieces on the game board?
That isn't how the game works. You move your pieces. I move mine.
When you move my pieces that is cheating.
Strawman is cheating. You do not get to define my argument. My argument is my argument.
What I did was slap your hand away from the game board and tell you to move YOUR pieces and leave mine alone. I asked you to play by the rules and not cheat.
I also assumed that you were a petulent child and would throw a temper tantrum when disallowed from cheating. I assume this because people that cheat in this manner are typically a mix of stupid and dishonest. Stupid because they don't know how to cheat more effectively and dishonest because they'd cheat in the first place.
And here you are... whining that you are being held to standards and being forbidden from just changing the rules whenever it suits you.
Tough shit, you whiny piece of shit.
Either play by the rules or fuck off.
Managers should be the ones hiring and firing people. HR's job should be managing employee paperwork. The actual task for hiring people should be done by the managers themselves.
Will this mean that hiring practices become much more chaotic and lack uniformity? Yep. Guess what... when you get hired your managers are going to be different and the jobs you're getting hired for are going to be different. So why pretend that the hiring process has to be uniform when the work environments you're applying for are not uniform?
Now some will argue "this will take time from the manager's other jobs etc"... well that means either you don't have enough managers or you're over complicating the process.
Ultimately, the manager should get some face time with whomever is applying for the job. He/she should ask the new potential hire some questions to get to know them... and then go from there.
I seriously don't understand why we even bother with HR in regards to hires? Anyone actually know?
Give department heads budgets for their departments as well as responsibilities they must fulfill by given deadlines. If they're competent they'll work it out. If not then they won't. HR is not doing anything to make that process easier. If anything what they're doing is putting an artificial barrier between the manager and the potential employee. Possibly screening out people the manager might otherwise want to hire.
And if these stupid job apps are just ruses so they can hire someone specific then why even go through that game? Just let the manager hire his friend or whatever. Cut to the chase please and stop polluting job listings with bullcrap jobs that aren't actually open.
No. Strawman rejected for being a strawman.
Try again.
The saddest thing on the internet is being subjected to the seemingly endless hordes of fuckwits that don't know how to process a logical argument or think.
I mean... you're failing basic rhetoric here. Its sad. Try harder.