haha true that. I would say at the end of the day it's not the methodology screwing everyone up, it's everyone that's a screw up as in, up into management that's screwing everyone up. PM's.. pfleh, what a waste of space, but then when you don't have enough skilled engineers on your team to keep everyone organized in the same direction, a good pm can help. Finding a good PM though is way harder than finding a good engineer, at least most engineers got into it because they liked coding, PM's got into it because they "like people or something, really wasn't sure what I wanted but tried a bunch of different things and this one kind of seemed to fit" (translation I got a job doing it and it paid better than the other jobs I'd gotten, even though I have no idea what I'm doing and don't plan to study any history or industry results about the job to get better)
Thankyou. Honestly, proper agile takes a lot of discipline and skill, at the end of the day I think you can't do proper agile without at least 50% of the involved team having completed the "Learn programming in 10 years" book rather than the 21 days version. You have to have seen all the shit that doesn't work over and over again for so long before you can even begin to do any of the stuff that works, and catch people trying to do the same tired crap, getting stuck in design meetings that spin forever or the alternative of just jamming out a bunch of garbage without talking to anyone, wasting everyone's time asking every step of the way how you should do each little thing or structuring an entire module according to your own hair brained ideas and never looking at the rest of the systems structure to see how crap yours will integrate, spending a week fulfilling requirements nobody wrote but you thought were just important for your little piddly irrelevant piece of the puzzle or not being thorough enough in seeing the big picture so as to catch the shit that needs to be done but wasn't written down or even mentioned. So many ways to eff it all up, so many ways. So yeah, "Learn programming in 10 years" then help a team be agile properly and it'll work out far better than some wankers "learn daily standups in 2 days to solve all your problems" garbage or "waterfall because it's worked for everyone since the 70s!", or "agile, as in, just go get it all done without the requirements or any help whatsoever, better be good because I heard agile is good!".
I think honestly the biggest cause though hands down of all this type of just-get-it-done crap comes from MBA's being too good to actually do any work, more less any work *for* lowly developers, it's supposed to be the other way around! Therefore they never generate specs or requirements because they're supposed to be telling other people to do work, not doing work themselves, why else did they go to school to become SOOO smart?? Between those schmucks and the "programming is cool, I'm going to be the next zuckerburg!" weeners, the industry is rife with people utterly clueless. But I guess that just mirrors the real world...
Which is the same "NO" we get from management when we ask for reqs because "Just make it do what I said, you know, be social and friendly looking with some feeds or something". If we SE's weren't so smart to begin with, this industry would honestly come crashing to it's bloody knees or rather, just run completely differently, you know, where other people do their jobs rather than us doing everyone's.
You forget the other part of the equation, the corporotocracies where they have BA staffs that don't write requirements either, I guess MBA's are above all that work mumbo jumbo and just hang out while telling the devs to do something useful without giving us any bloody specs at all ever. It's not just startups that are running without requirements, it's the entire industry anymore. I don't know why, this used to be a given expectation of a dev's job that they would get requirements, but I guess somebody at some point decided we could just generate wealth for our masters without the slightest bit of input at all.
I guess it doesn't help that enough of us are smart enough to actually do just that, but still, it's bloody annoying!
You think the word "googling" entered common culture only for geeks?
Non-geeks know exactly what google does: Find whatever piece of information they want when they enter it into a little box thingy and hit that search button. Only geeks like you are so cut-off from the real world as to not be able to see google through normal-people eyes and only see the megalithic insano-tech company that normal people could never begin to grasp. What they can grasp that you didn't realize is that it finds them anything they want to find, and they don't even think anything other then that. They were trusted for this reason. Plus all the geek friends of normals wet themselves when they hear about google so the normals trust them that much more.
I said maybe millions because I didn't feel inclined to do the math to figure out what 5-10 years ranges in hours and took a wild ass stab heh, 5-10 years being my other wild-ass stab of guessing how long it's been since their last real outage having not followed. Wasn't trying to be hyperbolic, but since it turned out I was, maybe I can become a pundit or something, sweet!
People need to quit looking at whole numbers and think about this in real terms.
One hour. That's all, they lost business for one hour, they're still up for many thousands (maybe millions) of other hours incurring the revenues consistently.
As for everyone who says "but it's so much money!" you're missing the point, absolutely no reasonable business anywhere is spending so much on just running their business that one hour of lost revenues is actually going to cause so much as a blip on their books.
Think of it like this, if one day to another can fluctuate 5% just through pure randomness not even counting cyclicalness, their revenues fluctuate 1.2 hours worth at random. Do you think to any company 5% less business on one day is enough to stir any real bother? That's.7% of the business they do in one week.
Suddenly losing one hour of business among the countless in uptime they've had doesn't seem like such a big deal, if you want to report "wow amazing amazon makes X hourly" great maybe it's interesting to somebody, but "amazing amazon was down for an hour and lost X" is just dumb because one hours loss doesn't mean anything in real terms to the business or it's shareholders.
You just said the magic word, Amazon. Yes the duopoly can be broken, and there's only one company in position to break it anytime within the next hand full of years.
People tend to forget (or maybe this is just/.) that these are consumer devices, and you know what the most important part of a buying decision is in the wildly large majority of people who buy them? Perception of the company. Why do you think Android overtook RIM? With sufficient continued revenue RIM would have continued to innovate, but instead Android was made by Google ever coveted of companies that consumers abound thought was some kind of genius company they liked and trusted, while RIM was the company that helped business people do work, and corporations keep their employees on a leash, not a very positive perception to consumers.
So, Amazon. Yep, people the country over are constantly buying every other thing from them, my wife gets all our toilet paper/paper towels/diapers from them, and they make it easy for her (non-technical) and affordable. If they made a move on this market, consumers would be nothing but excited about the opportunities, and not a few consumers that know of them, all consumers because we all know of them, and nearly all of us like them.
You think they're above that? These are people after money, it would be extremely easy fraud to get away with as well when you consider mega has gone out of it's way to ensure the original uploaders may not be identified.
Catapult designs are an application of engineering, physics shouldn't be patentable, but the productive result of applied engineering is: a technique for accomplishing something (your catapult design is one technique for flinging pianos i.e.)
These should by all means patentable, but the physics equations used to prove it does what it does? Those have no reason to be patentable.
I think you hit the nail on the head but have the wrong idea. Yes, hardware is patentable; the way in which your hardware did something may be patented by all means. If it's something stupidly simple there will be a million ways to do it so good luck having a patent that matters. The thing you're doing being just math should be unpatentable, but the way you do it in the physical world should be.
Think about it like this, if nvidia comes up with some phenomenal new shader technique in the hardware that blows everything else away, they should be able to patent that hardware technique, chances are if it was easy to come up with ATI would have done it so this patent is worthwhile. ATI can surely do the same thing less efficiently or in software, but the patent gives advantage how it should while not stifling completition because ATI's software that does the same shader technique less efficiently wouldn't land them in court, even a less efficient hardware design (or a more efficient hardware design, which ATI should then patent!). As soon as you take the die apart and find the identical circuit implementation in both chips you have a patent violation.
Very well said. I couldn't agree more, it's unfortunate but true. For my case, I have a wife and kid with a disease of monstrous costs thanks to our countries corporations-first approach. I have had all hopes or dreams of taking risks removed completely by the fact that my wife and kid live only due to money I make to pay to insurance and medical specialists. To be responsible to them I mustn't act in ways that risks this income-flow, how many others have similar responsibilities that ensures they turn the other cheek as well? My rights have been removed by debt, I do not have a right to free speech for saying many things would sincerely risk my wife and child's life. I do not have a right to create or own a business for without a group-rate insurance I am risking my wife and child's life. I do not have a right to own a home for medical debt collectors would take it from me. I do not have a right to protest for my company may run background-checks periodically as well as any future job would, and such activity would show up.
How many others are strapped by responsibility pushed onto them by corporations enslaving them such as the insurance companies have me? Single mothers who need to pay for daycare and mustn't risk their ability to meet responsibility to their child, they have no fallback after all (their parents haven't retired, how could they? In this day and age such is impossible for most.). People tricked into bad mortgages, and every other combination of misfortune that makes doing anything but turning the cheek, simply irresponsible.
I would love to act, but would such not be simply cruel to those who depend on me? So yes, I cannot look myself in the mirror knowing I violate my own principles every day, knowing any sense of hope or dream is to be ignored completely, knowing terrible things will happen to others due to my not acting but terrible things will happen to those I love if I do.
Life is suffering, and in this country it's everything we can do just to ensure it's not our own suffering while folks act corruptedly in this same vein and one can't help but identify with those people while simultaneously being disgusted by them, and glad when they don't commit their actions upon us while constantly afraid they might. Constant fear, this is the steady state of an American. For the right wing it's fear of the government, for the left it's fear of corporations, but for all of us it keeps us repressed by our own minds, by our own world we have created where we speak of limitless possibilities but live in fear of any of them.
shit, corporate jobs are easy without a degree with just skills, it's the fun ones that have engineers lining up outside the doors that you really need a degree for (hint, corporate jobs aren't the fun ones engineers jump at). He's already got his undergrad, great; go get that masters and or PhD in crazy math and become a quant or work for google. The money you'll make with the PhD will pay off the cost of the extra education more quickly than the money made off an undergrad cs pays off an undergrad cs.
I'm sorry but you're a dunce and a crappy hiring manager it sounds like. How is a fresh college grad going to do 2 or 4? No freeging way, fresh college grads only write garbage code; sorry we all know it's true. They need the job with the mentoring before they can become good programmers, if you think you saw something written by a fresh undergrad that was good you need to get your own technical skills rechecked. Fresh undergrads don't know enough to contribute meaningfully or even correctly to SO, moreover no one in their right mind lets a fresh undergrad work on their open-source project with them unless it's some throw-away trash.
Yep. Just, yep. I really really wish I had gone to school and gotten a PhD in math/cs, the hardcore math stuff *is* truly awesome to see, I just had no idea it existed until I was already in the game of life and past college season. So I'm relegated to being asked to monkey plate code from A to B with an extra textbox in B, and competing with less skilled workers who ask much less money, to which companies don't see value in skill when they can save money.
I have no degree and have contiguously worked at large (tens of thousands) companies. These types have to fight to get their hands on someone who seems to know anything so they look at degrees less. They have to fight so hard because good engineers know better, these places are terribly inefficient wastes of time with 10 year old technology implemented backwards to begin with, good engineers get jobs at places using proper modern technologies and techniques. Those of us with less degrees are relegated to these dregs where the majority of your colleagues hardly know how a CD works and do have degrees in basket-weaving.
If I had it to do over again I would totally get a degree just because without it I am immediately ignored by any company doing anything cool (because they have good engineers who do have degrees lining up to work there).
the reason it's so hard to conquer the country of Afghanistan is because it's not a country. It's like trying to conquer the ocean, unless you get rid of every last drop it's still going to be Afghanistan and you're just going to be standing in a puddle.
Make no mistake; I am a liberal and hate immoral people. I'm just pointing out immorality is part and parcel of conservatism, and pointing out that doesn't make conservatism bad, just different from it's counterpart.
Not surprising about the political leanings there, and I don't say that because of allegiance, I'm sure there's plenty of corruption on both sides, but the whole idea of conservatism is based on acting on ones own behalf. So if cheating benefits you, a conservative will probably be more likely to jump at it immediately thinking they are acting for the good of themselves; this mentality is altogether beneficial in government where someone recognizes themself as their country and so they're willing to take unweildy lengths towards benefitting their country(aka themself). It's not a mentality I would say should be overpoweringly filling a government, but that mentality can be beneficial to a country, sometimes having your government trying to find ways to effectively cheat for the benefit of your country is a good thing for instance the steps FDR took to cheat his way out of neutrality and get us into WWII was beneficial for the economy as well as, you know, all of Europe. Sometimes going to whatever lengths in attempt to benefit one's country is however not so good, I'm looking at you Iraq. So in conclusion: the reformation was a good version of people trying to act only for themselves (the dukes etc tossing out the churches so more of the loot went to them), but the enormous portions of the worlds wealth being lost to corruption via bribery etc is a bad version.
Cheating plagiarizing your doctorate? Some of those politicians may have actually done real good for the people, and the harm of their cheating was actually only the harm some of the politicians caused accidentally out of stupidity where non-plagiarism would have kept them out of office. Immoral sure, but harmful? Meh. Sometimes the government needs immoral people, just keep it to a minimum. Non-lying-cheating people would have maintained the US neutrality during WWII.
This. If this perfect economy ever happened and nobody had to work anymore, it would just mean tons of purposeless people wandering around drinking doping and violenting up on eachother. The citizenship has been trained through generations not to follow their internal drive for curiosity but rather to do as they're told, and in the words of william blake:
Those who restrain desire, do so
because theirs is weak enough to be
restrained; and the restrainer or
reason usurps its place and governs
the unwilling. And being restrained, it by degrees
becomes passive, till it is only the
shadow of desire.
That fire has been tamped out in the majority of americans long back, without purpose given to them they cannot drive themselves anymore and will feel purposeless just galavanting like the whole world's a frat party; to disastrous ends.
They controlled for percentage being men vs. woman in saying woman proportionate to their percentage in the field did one third of what men did proportionate to their percentage in the field.
However, I would posit there is a cruicial missing control here: Authority. Misconduct is far more likely to be committed by folks in authority than those who aren't, I would like to see the percentage of woman committing misconduct proportionate to their percentage in *authority roles* rather than just their percentage in the whole field, likewise mens misconduct proportionate to their percentage in authority roles. I think this would be much more balanced, as it is a very relevant control they're missing from their statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
haha true that. I would say at the end of the day it's not the methodology screwing everyone up, it's everyone that's a screw up as in, up into management that's screwing everyone up. PM's.. pfleh, what a waste of space, but then when you don't have enough skilled engineers on your team to keep everyone organized in the same direction, a good pm can help. Finding a good PM though is way harder than finding a good engineer, at least most engineers got into it because they liked coding, PM's got into it because they "like people or something, really wasn't sure what I wanted but tried a bunch of different things and this one kind of seemed to fit" (translation I got a job doing it and it paid better than the other jobs I'd gotten, even though I have no idea what I'm doing and don't plan to study any history or industry results about the job to get better)
Thankyou. Honestly, proper agile takes a lot of discipline and skill, at the end of the day I think you can't do proper agile without at least 50% of the involved team having completed the "Learn programming in 10 years" book rather than the 21 days version. You have to have seen all the shit that doesn't work over and over again for so long before you can even begin to do any of the stuff that works, and catch people trying to do the same tired crap, getting stuck in design meetings that spin forever or the alternative of just jamming out a bunch of garbage without talking to anyone, wasting everyone's time asking every step of the way how you should do each little thing or structuring an entire module according to your own hair brained ideas and never looking at the rest of the systems structure to see how crap yours will integrate, spending a week fulfilling requirements nobody wrote but you thought were just important for your little piddly irrelevant piece of the puzzle or not being thorough enough in seeing the big picture so as to catch the shit that needs to be done but wasn't written down or even mentioned. So many ways to eff it all up, so many ways. So yeah, "Learn programming in 10 years" then help a team be agile properly and it'll work out far better than some wankers "learn daily standups in 2 days to solve all your problems" garbage or "waterfall because it's worked for everyone since the 70s!", or "agile, as in, just go get it all done without the requirements or any help whatsoever, better be good because I heard agile is good!".
I think honestly the biggest cause though hands down of all this type of just-get-it-done crap comes from MBA's being too good to actually do any work, more less any work *for* lowly developers, it's supposed to be the other way around! Therefore they never generate specs or requirements because they're supposed to be telling other people to do work, not doing work themselves, why else did they go to school to become SOOO smart?? Between those schmucks and the "programming is cool, I'm going to be the next zuckerburg!" weeners, the industry is rife with people utterly clueless. But I guess that just mirrors the real world...
Which is the same "NO" we get from management when we ask for reqs because "Just make it do what I said, you know, be social and friendly looking with some feeds or something". If we SE's weren't so smart to begin with, this industry would honestly come crashing to it's bloody knees or rather, just run completely differently, you know, where other people do their jobs rather than us doing everyone's.
You forget the other part of the equation, the corporotocracies where they have BA staffs that don't write requirements either, I guess MBA's are above all that work mumbo jumbo and just hang out while telling the devs to do something useful without giving us any bloody specs at all ever. It's not just startups that are running without requirements, it's the entire industry anymore. I don't know why, this used to be a given expectation of a dev's job that they would get requirements, but I guess somebody at some point decided we could just generate wealth for our masters without the slightest bit of input at all.
I guess it doesn't help that enough of us are smart enough to actually do just that, but still, it's bloody annoying!
Wrong.
You think the word "googling" entered common culture only for geeks?
Non-geeks know exactly what google does: Find whatever piece of information they want when they enter it into a little box thingy and hit that search button. Only geeks like you are so cut-off from the real world as to not be able to see google through normal-people eyes and only see the megalithic insano-tech company that normal people could never begin to grasp. What they can grasp that you didn't realize is that it finds them anything they want to find, and they don't even think anything other then that. They were trusted for this reason. Plus all the geek friends of normals wet themselves when they hear about google so the normals trust them that much more.
I said maybe millions because I didn't feel inclined to do the math to figure out what 5-10 years ranges in hours and took a wild ass stab heh, 5-10 years being my other wild-ass stab of guessing how long it's been since their last real outage having not followed. Wasn't trying to be hyperbolic, but since it turned out I was, maybe I can become a pundit or something, sweet!
People need to quit looking at whole numbers and think about this in real terms.
.7% of the business they do in one week.
One hour. That's all, they lost business for one hour, they're still up for many thousands (maybe millions) of other hours incurring the revenues consistently.
As for everyone who says "but it's so much money!" you're missing the point, absolutely no reasonable business anywhere is spending so much on just running their business that one hour of lost revenues is actually going to cause so much as a blip on their books.
Think of it like this, if one day to another can fluctuate 5% just through pure randomness not even counting cyclicalness, their revenues fluctuate 1.2 hours worth at random. Do you think to any company 5% less business on one day is enough to stir any real bother? That's
Suddenly losing one hour of business among the countless in uptime they've had doesn't seem like such a big deal, if you want to report "wow amazing amazon makes X hourly" great maybe it's interesting to somebody, but "amazing amazon was down for an hour and lost X" is just dumb because one hours loss doesn't mean anything in real terms to the business or it's shareholders.
You just said the magic word, Amazon. Yes the duopoly can be broken, and there's only one company in position to break it anytime within the next hand full of years.
/.) that these are consumer devices, and you know what the most important part of a buying decision is in the wildly large majority of people who buy them? Perception of the company. Why do you think Android overtook RIM? With sufficient continued revenue RIM would have continued to innovate, but instead Android was made by Google ever coveted of companies that consumers abound thought was some kind of genius company they liked and trusted, while RIM was the company that helped business people do work, and corporations keep their employees on a leash, not a very positive perception to consumers.
People tend to forget (or maybe this is just
So, Amazon. Yep, people the country over are constantly buying every other thing from them, my wife gets all our toilet paper/paper towels/diapers from them, and they make it easy for her (non-technical) and affordable. If they made a move on this market, consumers would be nothing but excited about the opportunities, and not a few consumers that know of them, all consumers because we all know of them, and nearly all of us like them.
That's because they make so much more to eat when they fall
Yes, this is exactly why I agree there should be hardware patents but not software patents.
You think they're above that? These are people after money, it would be extremely easy fraud to get away with as well when you consider mega has gone out of it's way to ensure the original uploaders may not be identified.
No, they will be screwed when your twist to insert patent is approved.
Catapult designs are an application of engineering, physics shouldn't be patentable, but the productive result of applied engineering is: a technique for accomplishing something (your catapult design is one technique for flinging pianos i.e.)
These should by all means patentable, but the physics equations used to prove it does what it does? Those have no reason to be patentable.
I think you hit the nail on the head but have the wrong idea. Yes, hardware is patentable; the way in which your hardware did something may be patented by all means. If it's something stupidly simple there will be a million ways to do it so good luck having a patent that matters. The thing you're doing being just math should be unpatentable, but the way you do it in the physical world should be.
Think about it like this, if nvidia comes up with some phenomenal new shader technique in the hardware that blows everything else away, they should be able to patent that hardware technique, chances are if it was easy to come up with ATI would have done it so this patent is worthwhile. ATI can surely do the same thing less efficiently or in software, but the patent gives advantage how it should while not stifling completition because ATI's software that does the same shader technique less efficiently wouldn't land them in court, even a less efficient hardware design (or a more efficient hardware design, which ATI should then patent!). As soon as you take the die apart and find the identical circuit implementation in both chips you have a patent violation.
Very well said. I couldn't agree more, it's unfortunate but true. For my case, I have a wife and kid with a disease of monstrous costs thanks to our countries corporations-first approach. I have had all hopes or dreams of taking risks removed completely by the fact that my wife and kid live only due to money I make to pay to insurance and medical specialists. To be responsible to them I mustn't act in ways that risks this income-flow, how many others have similar responsibilities that ensures they turn the other cheek as well? My rights have been removed by debt, I do not have a right to free speech for saying many things would sincerely risk my wife and child's life. I do not have a right to create or own a business for without a group-rate insurance I am risking my wife and child's life. I do not have a right to own a home for medical debt collectors would take it from me. I do not have a right to protest for my company may run background-checks periodically as well as any future job would, and such activity would show up.
How many others are strapped by responsibility pushed onto them by corporations enslaving them such as the insurance companies have me? Single mothers who need to pay for daycare and mustn't risk their ability to meet responsibility to their child, they have no fallback after all (their parents haven't retired, how could they? In this day and age such is impossible for most.). People tricked into bad mortgages, and every other combination of misfortune that makes doing anything but turning the cheek, simply irresponsible.
I would love to act, but would such not be simply cruel to those who depend on me? So yes, I cannot look myself in the mirror knowing I violate my own principles every day, knowing any sense of hope or dream is to be ignored completely, knowing terrible things will happen to others due to my not acting but terrible things will happen to those I love if I do.
Life is suffering, and in this country it's everything we can do just to ensure it's not our own suffering while folks act corruptedly in this same vein and one can't help but identify with those people while simultaneously being disgusted by them, and glad when they don't commit their actions upon us while constantly afraid they might. Constant fear, this is the steady state of an American. For the right wing it's fear of the government, for the left it's fear of corporations, but for all of us it keeps us repressed by our own minds, by our own world we have created where we speak of limitless possibilities but live in fear of any of them.
shit, corporate jobs are easy without a degree with just skills, it's the fun ones that have engineers lining up outside the doors that you really need a degree for (hint, corporate jobs aren't the fun ones engineers jump at). He's already got his undergrad, great; go get that masters and or PhD in crazy math and become a quant or work for google. The money you'll make with the PhD will pay off the cost of the extra education more quickly than the money made off an undergrad cs pays off an undergrad cs.
I'm sorry but you're a dunce and a crappy hiring manager it sounds like. How is a fresh college grad going to do 2 or 4? No freeging way, fresh college grads only write garbage code; sorry we all know it's true. They need the job with the mentoring before they can become good programmers, if you think you saw something written by a fresh undergrad that was good you need to get your own technical skills rechecked. Fresh undergrads don't know enough to contribute meaningfully or even correctly to SO, moreover no one in their right mind lets a fresh undergrad work on their open-source project with them unless it's some throw-away trash.
Yep. Just, yep. I really really wish I had gone to school and gotten a PhD in math/cs, the hardcore math stuff *is* truly awesome to see, I just had no idea it existed until I was already in the game of life and past college season. So I'm relegated to being asked to monkey plate code from A to B with an extra textbox in B, and competing with less skilled workers who ask much less money, to which companies don't see value in skill when they can save money.
Yep.
I have no degree and have contiguously worked at large (tens of thousands) companies. These types have to fight to get their hands on someone who seems to know anything so they look at degrees less. They have to fight so hard because good engineers know better, these places are terribly inefficient wastes of time with 10 year old technology implemented backwards to begin with, good engineers get jobs at places using proper modern technologies and techniques. Those of us with less degrees are relegated to these dregs where the majority of your colleagues hardly know how a CD works and do have degrees in basket-weaving.
If I had it to do over again I would totally get a degree just because without it I am immediately ignored by any company doing anything cool (because they have good engineers who do have degrees lining up to work there).
but its not going any where
Just like the job. He better be ready to be done progressing altogether if he takes a job like that.
the reason it's so hard to conquer the country of Afghanistan is because it's not a country. It's like trying to conquer the ocean, unless you get rid of every last drop it's still going to be Afghanistan and you're just going to be standing in a puddle.
Make no mistake; I am a liberal and hate immoral people. I'm just pointing out immorality is part and parcel of conservatism, and pointing out that doesn't make conservatism bad, just different from it's counterpart.
Not surprising about the political leanings there, and I don't say that because of allegiance, I'm sure there's plenty of corruption on both sides, but the whole idea of conservatism is based on acting on ones own behalf. So if cheating benefits you, a conservative will probably be more likely to jump at it immediately thinking they are acting for the good of themselves; this mentality is altogether beneficial in government where someone recognizes themself as their country and so they're willing to take unweildy lengths towards benefitting their country(aka themself). It's not a mentality I would say should be overpoweringly filling a government, but that mentality can be beneficial to a country, sometimes having your government trying to find ways to effectively cheat for the benefit of your country is a good thing for instance the steps FDR took to cheat his way out of neutrality and get us into WWII was beneficial for the economy as well as, you know, all of Europe. Sometimes going to whatever lengths in attempt to benefit one's country is however not so good, I'm looking at you Iraq. So in conclusion: the reformation was a good version of people trying to act only for themselves (the dukes etc tossing out the churches so more of the loot went to them), but the enormous portions of the worlds wealth being lost to corruption via bribery etc is a bad version.
Cheating plagiarizing your doctorate? Some of those politicians may have actually done real good for the people, and the harm of their cheating was actually only the harm some of the politicians caused accidentally out of stupidity where non-plagiarism would have kept them out of office. Immoral sure, but harmful? Meh. Sometimes the government needs immoral people, just keep it to a minimum. Non-lying-cheating people would have maintained the US neutrality during WWII.
This. If this perfect economy ever happened and nobody had to work anymore, it would just mean tons of purposeless people wandering around drinking doping and violenting up on eachother. The citizenship has been trained through generations not to follow their internal drive for curiosity but rather to do as they're told, and in the words of william blake:
Those who restrain desire, do so
because theirs is weak enough to be
restrained; and the restrainer or
reason usurps its place and governs
the unwilling.
And being restrained, it by degrees
becomes passive, till it is only the
shadow of desire.
That fire has been tamped out in the majority of americans long back, without purpose given to them they cannot drive themselves anymore and will feel purposeless just galavanting like the whole world's a frat party; to disastrous ends.
They controlled for percentage being men vs. woman in saying woman proportionate to their percentage in the field did one third of what men did proportionate to their percentage in the field.
However, I would posit there is a cruicial missing control here: Authority. Misconduct is far more likely to be committed by folks in authority than those who aren't, I would like to see the percentage of woman committing misconduct proportionate to their percentage in *authority roles* rather than just their percentage in the whole field, likewise mens misconduct proportionate to their percentage in authority roles. I think this would be much more balanced, as it is a very relevant control they're missing from their statistics.