It does say that they adjusted for location. It doesn't say specifically that they adjusted for hours worked, but that's one of the standard ones, so I'd expect it.
Something vague and hard to measure, like your idea that women are putting family needs ahead of work needs, could account for a portion of the difference. But it would have to be unique to tech - are women in programming putting a greater emphasis on family than women in other fields? Of course not. So that doesn't explain the 5% to 28% disparity.
Even if you could come up with something like that, it's not going to account for the full difference. 23% is a big number, and some portion of that must come down to bias. Not necessarily discrimination (though that's certainly in their somewhere) but somewhere in the back of some HR manager's head is the expectation that men are going to be better than women in a male-dominated field, and this will influence their decisions in subtle ways.
You're suggesting that nothing short of convictions should be reported? Maybe that's for the best. The argument is that this invites corruption of the judicial system, but perhaps reporting on the corruption of the judicial system when and if it happens is a better solution than reporting on a whole bunch of stuff which might possibly be evidence of corruption somewhere down the line.
Especially given the harmful nature of throwing around these sorts of accusations and the mandate of protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty.
I realize that this is faint praise, but I'd just like to say how delighted I am to see phrases like "They allege he is guilty of "spoofing" - [here's what spoofing is]" and, "Mr Sarao's spoofing netted him a profit of $40m (£28m), they argue."
I've grown accustomed to things like this reported as, "Mr Sarao's spoofing netted him a profit of $40m (£28m)." or, "He has been arrested for "spoofing" - [here's what spoofing is]". It doesn't seem like a big difference but it really is, and this should be a minimum for responsible reporting. Is this thanks to Britain's harsh libel laws? Maybe they're actually good for something.
Their merchant fees are not in lockstep. You don't hear about those because merchants are required by the card companies to absorb all of those costs themselves, they're not allowed to charge extra for credit payments. That's the biggest reason why some merchants will accept certain cards and not others though.
What, we're being serious? Okay. I can compare Gitmo to Auschwitz if I want, I can compare Auschwitz to a delicious Honeycrisp apple if I want. Watch:
Auschwitz has very little in common with a delicious Honeycrip Apple.
Bam. Done. That phrase, "You can't compare X to Y!" is just a means of stifling conversation. Yes, the Nazi comparison is hyperbole. No, it isn't very reasonable but there are a few parallels and people love them some Godwin.
Gitmo is, for all intents and purposes, a concentration camp. Auschwitz was also a concentration camp, but is most famous for its death camp add-on, and a Nazi concentration camp is not the same as every other concentration camp. The greater point though, "concentrations camps are bad," that still applies.
It's an interesting comparison. You might also think about how speech is handled in the US vs Europe - in both places speech is "free" but both places put limits on libelous speech, while European countries (mostly) additionally put limits on hate speech. Broadcasts are also censored in both places to a greater degree than other forms of media distribution, and there are obscenity laws in both places - though exactly what qualifies as "obscene" is poorly defined and largely up to the subjective interpretation of judges.
The fact that hate speech is allowed in the US is a point of pride for many Americans, even though they themselves may not be hateful people. Taking what they consider to be an absolutest stance on free speech is seen as a pillar of Freedom (TM), Liberty (TM), and so on. There's a lot of absolutism in the US. It requires a curious degree of double-think to take this view of absolutist free speech while at the same time condoning all of the censorship, obscenity laws, laws against libel, etc., and when confronted on this point a person who has defined their stance to be one of free speech absolutism has to make a call whether to backpedal or double-down. Naturally, they almost always double-down and say that they think those things shouldn't be prohibited either. And yet. Those things still exist and enjoy considerable popular support, as does the ability to disseminate hate speech.
It's easy to see how that parallels with weapons - pillar of Freedom (TM), etc. It's vitally important to protecting stuff that weapons not be restricted in any way, because tyranny, except for the sort of weapons which would actually be effective against a modern army. (I have a sad hole in my gun cabinet in the shape of a surface-to-air missile.)
So how about encryption and information security? All things being equal, I expect we'll go down the same road with this one. We're already doing that with personal information and privacy - lots of lip service to how important it is, and that's all. Encryption is complicated by the fact that it can't be controlled, any individual with root access to a device can encrypt it in an unbreakable way, but nevertheless it can still be prohibited. This approach would be almost as effective.
So, to answer your question: I don't know. When absolutism is sincerely believed and acted upon it is very seldom beneficial, but the American mindset seems to be "absolutism or nothing" and in that context it does help to prevent the further erosion of rights. Even if it may require a little double-think.
Oh for gods' sake. I wrote a whole comment saying basically, "I don't see the problem here," based on the worthless summary, and then looked at the article. It's not about source code, it's about the signing key. It acknowledges that right in the article title, but whoever submitted this got their head on backwards.
Apparently it's the country, state, or city of Googleville-stan-illvania which gets to decide. Don't try to spin this as allowing the matter to "take its natural course" or that we have more freedom or some such BS by just avoiding all legislation on this. Somebody is making these decisions right now, as we speak. The question at hand is who that should be.
I'm still trying to parse your second sentence. Are you trying to suggest that instead of doing anything about this we should just cross our fingers and hope that suddenly everyone will collectively know better?
I... can't imagine that's what the GP is suggesting. I don't know the details of all of these, but the ones that I recognize are all "bi-partisan" - meaning that they had significant support from both parties - however, if you look at the actual votes it's pretty clear that these are really Republican bills with support from Democrats. The Patriot Act, for example, while receiving bipartisan support was/is more Republican than not. Passed by a Republican controlled Congress and President and defended by Republicans when it came time for renewal.
Eh... You're probably right, but I don't like the idea of the erosion of public land either. Those stadiums, etc., which they build on the public land are not dedicated to public use, they're usually taken over by private companies. Mostly professional sports teams, though I think the water dome in Beijing got turned into a water park.
My understanding is that Sochi was so expensive thanks to massive corruption, rather than from any requirements of the games themselves. Or accommodations, etc. I think that's a big part of what's going on in Rio as well, London apparently cost about $15 billion.
I'm sure there's more to it than that though, there seems to be a lot of variability.
If you're trying to suggest that the continued existence of conflict means that every effort at peace has been for nothing... That's just dumb. The Olympics isn't "the solution" to violence, but it is a non-violent thing that the whole world pays attention to for a couple of weeks. It forces us, in a small way, to acknowledge the existence of people in the world who are not like us, and to recognize that we are not the best at everything. That's to our benefit.
China also worked its butt off to at least appear cooperative enough to get the Olympics. That's something. It's a step.
This would counter the point of the Olympics. The Olympics are supposed to be a means to encourage international unity, they are not about one country throwing a party every four years. They're are not even really about watching a bunch of athletes compete. Like the World's Fair, the Olympics moves between countries for this reason. And, for this reason, the Olympics needs to be hosted by poorer countries now and then. It couldn't do its job if it were just a rich people party.
That said, there are countries poorer than Brazil which could probably have handled this better.
I don't know what you're talking about, that thing's freaking awesome. It's a concept car, so if it ever goes to production it's going to be focused grouped down to another boring run-of-the-mill sedan, but the picture in the article looks pretty unique and interesting.
Of course Fascism is right-wing. Is that joke? The term comes from the French Revolution, where supporters of the king (the state) stood at his right and the revolutionaries at his left. Fascism holds supporting the state as the highest virtue and so is placed at the rightmost extreme of the left-right scale.
Your confusion might be coming from libertarianism and the odd way that it's treated in the US... American libertarians tend to advocate for property rights and against the state simultaneously, while somehow double-thinking their way around that discrepancy. So they manage to be both right and left at the same time.
Look, I get that everyone's tired about the pedantry surrounding that word, but it only stems from the fact people keep abusing it. Just take half a second to think to yourself before you say "literally": is the really true? Is it literally literally? Even if the answer is no, that doesn't have to cripple your argument. There are other perfectly acceptable words which can impart emphasis.
Why would law makers staple bills into a binder? That's not what binders are for. The whole reason you use binder is so that you don't have to staple.
Don't read too much into a context-free presentation slide, it's meaningless without the rest of the presentation. For all you know the white women who she's talking about are Sally and Marsha - people whose desks are so poorly positioned that they're blocking a hallway.
Really, even without the corruption angle there'd be nothing to get up in arms about here. Maybe Hawaii does need a ferry service, but that doesn't necessarily mean that setting up a ferry service is a good idea. That's the whole point behind requiring environmental studies.
Well that's one part of it, but this is also about preventing people from having children in a case where they might pass along something harmful. Nowadays, ever since the Nazis really, folks get all up in arms about that sort of thing. Go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
It does say that they adjusted for location. It doesn't say specifically that they adjusted for hours worked, but that's one of the standard ones, so I'd expect it.
Something vague and hard to measure, like your idea that women are putting family needs ahead of work needs, could account for a portion of the difference. But it would have to be unique to tech - are women in programming putting a greater emphasis on family than women in other fields? Of course not. So that doesn't explain the 5% to 28% disparity.
Even if you could come up with something like that, it's not going to account for the full difference. 23% is a big number, and some portion of that must come down to bias. Not necessarily discrimination (though that's certainly in their somewhere) but somewhere in the back of some HR manager's head is the expectation that men are going to be better than women in a male-dominated field, and this will influence their decisions in subtle ways.
You're suggesting that nothing short of convictions should be reported? Maybe that's for the best. The argument is that this invites corruption of the judicial system, but perhaps reporting on the corruption of the judicial system when and if it happens is a better solution than reporting on a whole bunch of stuff which might possibly be evidence of corruption somewhere down the line.
Especially given the harmful nature of throwing around these sorts of accusations and the mandate of protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty.
I realize that this is faint praise, but I'd just like to say how delighted I am to see phrases like "They allege he is guilty of "spoofing" - [here's what spoofing is]" and, "Mr Sarao's spoofing netted him a profit of $40m (£28m), they argue."
I've grown accustomed to things like this reported as, "Mr Sarao's spoofing netted him a profit of $40m (£28m)." or, "He has been arrested for "spoofing" - [here's what spoofing is]". It doesn't seem like a big difference but it really is, and this should be a minimum for responsible reporting. Is this thanks to Britain's harsh libel laws? Maybe they're actually good for something.
Their merchant fees are not in lockstep. You don't hear about those because merchants are required by the card companies to absorb all of those costs themselves, they're not allowed to charge extra for credit payments. That's the biggest reason why some merchants will accept certain cards and not others though.
Auschwitz has very little in common with a delicious Honeycrip Apple.
Bam. Done. That phrase, "You can't compare X to Y!" is just a means of stifling conversation. Yes, the Nazi comparison is hyperbole. No, it isn't very reasonable but there are a few parallels and people love them some Godwin.
Gitmo is, for all intents and purposes, a concentration camp. Auschwitz was also a concentration camp, but is most famous for its death camp add-on, and a Nazi concentration camp is not the same as every other concentration camp. The greater point though, "concentrations camps are bad," that still applies.
It's an interesting comparison. You might also think about how speech is handled in the US vs Europe - in both places speech is "free" but both places put limits on libelous speech, while European countries (mostly) additionally put limits on hate speech. Broadcasts are also censored in both places to a greater degree than other forms of media distribution, and there are obscenity laws in both places - though exactly what qualifies as "obscene" is poorly defined and largely up to the subjective interpretation of judges.
The fact that hate speech is allowed in the US is a point of pride for many Americans, even though they themselves may not be hateful people. Taking what they consider to be an absolutest stance on free speech is seen as a pillar of Freedom (TM), Liberty (TM), and so on. There's a lot of absolutism in the US. It requires a curious degree of double-think to take this view of absolutist free speech while at the same time condoning all of the censorship, obscenity laws, laws against libel, etc., and when confronted on this point a person who has defined their stance to be one of free speech absolutism has to make a call whether to backpedal or double-down. Naturally, they almost always double-down and say that they think those things shouldn't be prohibited either. And yet. Those things still exist and enjoy considerable popular support, as does the ability to disseminate hate speech.
It's easy to see how that parallels with weapons - pillar of Freedom (TM), etc. It's vitally important to protecting stuff that weapons not be restricted in any way, because tyranny, except for the sort of weapons which would actually be effective against a modern army. (I have a sad hole in my gun cabinet in the shape of a surface-to-air missile.)
So how about encryption and information security? All things being equal, I expect we'll go down the same road with this one. We're already doing that with personal information and privacy - lots of lip service to how important it is, and that's all. Encryption is complicated by the fact that it can't be controlled, any individual with root access to a device can encrypt it in an unbreakable way, but nevertheless it can still be prohibited. This approach would be almost as effective.
So, to answer your question: I don't know. When absolutism is sincerely believed and acted upon it is very seldom beneficial, but the American mindset seems to be "absolutism or nothing" and in that context it does help to prevent the further erosion of rights. Even if it may require a little double-think.
Oh for gods' sake. I wrote a whole comment saying basically, "I don't see the problem here," based on the worthless summary, and then looked at the article. It's not about source code, it's about the signing key. It acknowledges that right in the article title, but whoever submitted this got their head on backwards.
My fault, I suppose, for being lazy.
I am amused that you would say this with a sig advertising your availability for hire.
What? There's a fourth Star Wars movie? Isn't it just three, plus a remake?
Apparently it's the country, state, or city of Googleville-stan-illvania which gets to decide. Don't try to spin this as allowing the matter to "take its natural course" or that we have more freedom or some such BS by just avoiding all legislation on this. Somebody is making these decisions right now, as we speak. The question at hand is who that should be.
I'm still trying to parse your second sentence. Are you trying to suggest that instead of doing anything about this we should just cross our fingers and hope that suddenly everyone will collectively know better?
I... can't imagine that's what the GP is suggesting. I don't know the details of all of these, but the ones that I recognize are all "bi-partisan" - meaning that they had significant support from both parties - however, if you look at the actual votes it's pretty clear that these are really Republican bills with support from Democrats. The Patriot Act, for example, while receiving bipartisan support was/is more Republican than not. Passed by a Republican controlled Congress and President and defended by Republicans when it came time for renewal.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley was Republican (in addition to the vote, all of the bill's sponsors were Republican), NAFTA was Republican.
The exception that I can spot is TARP, which was mostly Democratic. So... I don't know where the GP is going with this.
Eh... You're probably right, but I don't like the idea of the erosion of public land either. Those stadiums, etc., which they build on the public land are not dedicated to public use, they're usually taken over by private companies. Mostly professional sports teams, though I think the water dome in Beijing got turned into a water park.
My understanding is that Sochi was so expensive thanks to massive corruption, rather than from any requirements of the games themselves. Or accommodations, etc. I think that's a big part of what's going on in Rio as well, London apparently cost about $15 billion.
I'm sure there's more to it than that though, there seems to be a lot of variability.
If you're trying to suggest that the continued existence of conflict means that every effort at peace has been for nothing... That's just dumb. The Olympics isn't "the solution" to violence, but it is a non-violent thing that the whole world pays attention to for a couple of weeks. It forces us, in a small way, to acknowledge the existence of people in the world who are not like us, and to recognize that we are not the best at everything. That's to our benefit.
China also worked its butt off to at least appear cooperative enough to get the Olympics. That's something. It's a step.
This would counter the point of the Olympics. The Olympics are supposed to be a means to encourage international unity, they are not about one country throwing a party every four years. They're are not even really about watching a bunch of athletes compete. Like the World's Fair, the Olympics moves between countries for this reason. And, for this reason, the Olympics needs to be hosted by poorer countries now and then. It couldn't do its job if it were just a rich people party.
That said, there are countries poorer than Brazil which could probably have handled this better.
I didn't think that. You couldn't use the payphones for 911 calls (since the phones didn't work) so it's nice to see another useful feature.
I don't know what you're talking about, that thing's freaking awesome. It's a concept car, so if it ever goes to production it's going to be focused grouped down to another boring run-of-the-mill sedan, but the picture in the article looks pretty unique and interesting.
I've read through the comments hoping that someone would explain what a bag lady is. No luck. Apparently it's just a homeless person.
I'd kinda like to read what got people so up in arms about that, but not enough to actually go to Twitter and find out for myself.
Of course Fascism is right-wing. Is that joke? The term comes from the French Revolution, where supporters of the king (the state) stood at his right and the revolutionaries at his left. Fascism holds supporting the state as the highest virtue and so is placed at the rightmost extreme of the left-right scale.
Your confusion might be coming from libertarianism and the odd way that it's treated in the US... American libertarians tend to advocate for property rights and against the state simultaneously, while somehow double-thinking their way around that discrepancy. So they manage to be both right and left at the same time.
this is literally how it woks these days.
Look, I get that everyone's tired about the pedantry surrounding that word, but it only stems from the fact people keep abusing it. Just take half a second to think to yourself before you say "literally": is the really true? Is it literally literally? Even if the answer is no, that doesn't have to cripple your argument. There are other perfectly acceptable words which can impart emphasis.
Why would law makers staple bills into a binder? That's not what binders are for. The whole reason you use binder is so that you don't have to staple.
Don't read too much into a context-free presentation slide, it's meaningless without the rest of the presentation. For all you know the white women who she's talking about are Sally and Marsha - people whose desks are so poorly positioned that they're blocking a hallway.
Really, even without the corruption angle there'd be nothing to get up in arms about here. Maybe Hawaii does need a ferry service, but that doesn't necessarily mean that setting up a ferry service is a good idea. That's the whole point behind requiring environmental studies.
That's a joke, right? You're pointing out the lack of competition between ISPs in the US? Yes. You are. Ha ha. Good joke.
Well that's one part of it, but this is also about preventing people from having children in a case where they might pass along something harmful. Nowadays, ever since the Nazis really, folks get all up in arms about that sort of thing. Go figure.
Is there some basis to be saying this, or are you just trolling for karma?
A quick search for BIZX wasn't very informative - could you elaborate? In what way are they the same as the old boss?