Actually, part of his diatribe was about working conditions, and he commented that there were training opportunities that were only available to so-called "diversity" candidates. In their public response, Google made a point of acknowledging this, and saying that this was not why he was fired. He was fired for the parts of the message that weren't a discussion of working conditions.
Except the whole memo is a discussion about working conditions and how to improve them, which includes the culture that exists within the company.
Tesla is a good 60 plus years behind other auto makers in production tech.
Tesla makes one model per production line. The standard for other auto makers is eight. Meaning if one model bombs, the company is just fine if the other seven keep the line busy. Tesla can't even manage two.
Munsk is an amateur when it comes to building physical things ecenomically. Nobody copies him and for good reason.
My church does aid trips to Peru. The people who live there have dirt floors in their homes. Having a bed for every member of the family is a luxury. Where kids drink alcohol not to get drunk, but so the bacteria in the water doesn't kill them.
Even these people can read, sometimes better in English. In large part because the church brings books with and reading is the only entertainment they have after working a 12+ hour day. (Second hand in-country newspapers are also read.) Parents are of course thrilled at their kids learning good English.
Yet I bet they don't track down and fire the people who made this internal document public. Those are the people who caused this mess for Google, not the person who wrote it.
God forbid women do anything other than imitate men, right? Looking for a job you enjoy and provides you the flexibility you want is for suckers.
Women generally arn't interested in working 80 hour weeks at the office. Many want to be mothers and take on the task of raising the next generation so that society can continue.
That's fantastic and something just as important as the men mining coal and iron or working in the factory. Why do feminists hate that work that women do?
If we can silence and fire someone presenting scientific evidence just because it contradicts popular norms, then our society is in serious, serious trouble. I seem to recall something similar happening to Galileo when he claimed the Earth went around the Sun.
VERY bad example.
Nobody got in trouble back then for talking about heliocentrisim as a theory. Here is how the conversation went.
Galileo: The Earth revolves around the sun. That's a fact.
Fellow Scientists: Have you found answers to the evidence against that? Have you found an explanation for why we don't feel the Earth moving?
Galileo: Hell no.
Fellow Scientists: What about the lack of observed stellar parallax?
Galileo: Of course not.
Fellow Scientists: So what DO you have?
Galileo: The tides. They are caused by the water sloshing about as the Earth moves.
Fellow Scientists: That would require one tide a day, but there are two.
Galileo: Screw you guys, I'm gonna write a book calling all of you idiots and try to reinterpreted scripture. Even though I'm a total n00b on that subject.
Fellow Scientists: Ummmm, dude. We know that the pope is your friend, but he is also your boss. The church funds your research.
Galileo: He'll see it my way...
Galileo got in trouble because he couldn't prove heliocentrisim, yet demanded everyone drop everything and take up his point of view. Newtonian Physics didn't come along for another 50+ years and Stellar Parallax wasn't sucessfully observed until the 19th century.
There is a problem with your logic and it is thus....what are you gonna do with all those billions you no longer need?
This is the old Socialist "Lump of Labor" fallacy that was in vogue back when bloodletting was considered a valid medical treatment. You should be ashamed for hanging onto such antiquated thinking.
90% of the population used to be involved in agriculture. Today that is about 2%. Last I checked, we do not have 88% unemployment. Why is that? Because those workers got jobs doing other things. Building farm machinery, cars, TVs, and other things as time went on.
You might be thinking, "Yes, but manufacturing is gone from the US." I would reply, "Only because we choose it to be gone." The reason manufacturing has left is because the US is not competitive anymore compared to the rest of the world. Several top reasons are that our tax code is an absolute nightmare and our economy is over-regulated to the point of absurdity.
Yes, yes, you'll be dismissive of assertion of "over-regulations". How about I quote some actual research on the subject.
The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more
than $1.75 trillion in 2008. Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal
regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal
regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which
equaled $10,500 per household in 2008. While all citizens and businesses pay some
portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven. The
portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in
2008. Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the
largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual
regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory
cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees).
That's $8,000-$10,000 that YOU are paying ON TOP of any taxes you pay. You pay it indirectly and in a form you never normally see. Your employer sees it though and they have to pay it one way or another. The two most obvious ways are higher prices and lower wages. Since these regulations affect the entire economy, and they are enacted over time, the effects are gradual as the over growing rule-book of regulation pushes prices higher and higher and wages lower and lower. So low that many manufacturing companies had no choice but to leave.
Do you feel like you are getting $8,000-$10,000 worth of benefit from all these government rules?
As stated above, large companies pay a smaller burden than small companies, which is why large companies keep getting larger and larger the more regulation gets passed. Small companies can't compete with the government stacking the deck.
Now, this doesn't mean we go back to the days where you dumped untreated sewage into rivers. Government is like fire; little bit properly contained is a good thing to have. The fire in my furnace keeps me warm in the winter. Just because a little is good does not mean that more is better. My house being on fire is not a good and healthy thing.
The problem is too much government requiring too many things in too fine of detail. (On top of the whole debasing the currency shenanigans that the Fed is doing.) We have children's lemonade stands getting shut down and government fining people for their toilets being half an inch too low. On top of a tax code that not even the IRS understands. Nearly $2 trillion a year in regulations. How much more before people question their religious belief in government?
Stefan Molyneux is a libertarian in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church is Christian. It just a front to either make money and/or acquire fame and power, which is why Molyneux finds it necessary to isolate his "followers" from critics. This is starkly opposed to other Libertarian groups who spend considerable time discussing how to engage constructively with critics.
I would also contest the idea that Molyneux is "one of the most popular". He is one of the most visible, there is a difference. He catches a lot of well deserved criticism from other Libertarian individuals and even philosophers for the faulty logic and thinking he uses.
Just a little bit hypocritical on your part to say that they do not get to define what a libertarian is, then promptly proceed to define what a libertarian is.
83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll (2009).
1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
38.6 percent of Western Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified. Gallup (2011).
45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (Forty-three percent disagree.) The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
Nearly one-third of Muslim-Americans agree that violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran is acceptable. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
51 percent of Muslim-Americans say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Shariah courts rather than courts of the United States (only 39 percent disagree). The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeera poll (2015).
"Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and the moderate Muslim: Even as we hear of the occasional sighting, most reasonable people remain skeptical as to whether, in reality, these mysterious creatures even exist."
Can you imagine if Christians has similar views of violence towards things it's philosophy doesn't like? Like Abortion? Abortion clinics would have military detachments guarding them 24/7 and abortion clinic bombings would be a daily event in the US, and have the support of a significant portion of the population, rather than the once a decade or so event that they are by people acting alone with no support network to hide and protect them.
Sorry, reading the passages in context doesn't help the Koran.
The passages go from peaceful, when Mohammad had no political power, to violent as he gains more and more political power. This is painfully obvious when you read the Suras in chronological order. "A Simple Koran" available on Amazon does this. His biggest body count was when he had 800 people killed in one afternoon, according to MUSLIM sources. (Jesus, by contrast, never kills anyone or calls his followers to kill anyone.)
Of course you are also correct in that the Koran is largely incomprehensible without commentaries. Commentaries written HUNDREDS of years after Mohammad. Heck, even Mohammad's biography isn't written for over two centuries after his death.
What is actually funny is that while Christianity has weathered 300 years of textual and archaeological criticism stringer than ever, the secular history it records having been effectively verified by many who started out to discredit it, Islam is failing those same tests miserably. Much of the Koran, we now know, is copied and edited from 2nd and 3rd century Jewish and Christian apocrypha (non-cannon) writings. What is written of Jesus in the Koran is lifted from 3rd/4th gnostic writings. The story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is the most blatant example of copying, but there is plenty more.
Even if you ignore the copying, you have no early manuscripts that agree with the Koran today and Muslim tradition itself mentions that there were competing versions of the Koran until Uthman, who then ordered all competing copies destroyed except the version he had made. The earliest copies we have show significant editing and don't match todays text. The earliest manuscript, the Sana'a manuscript, the Yemenis government won't let anyone examine anymore. All we have is microfilms of it from the Germans who first examined it. So we have something delivered by a "prophet" who did no miracles except the "miracle" of the Koran itself... which was such a "miracle" it had many early variants that took political bludgeoning by a non-prophet to attempt to whittle down to one variant.
It gets worse when you go to archaeology. Turns out Mecca's history doesn't go back further than the 4th century AD. To add to that, Mecca doesn't match the geography of the Koran and the traditions. (Anyone see any Olive trees in Mecca?) The icing on the cake is that mosques for the first HUNDRED YEARS of Islam don't point towards Mecca, but Petra. Petra also matches the geography in the Koran and the traditions. If Muslim history has been so heavily edited that the story of Mecca and the location of the Kaaba isn't reliable, how much of the rest of the Koran and Islamic scriptures can we trust?
That video is just one of many that could be posted on the subject.
Contrast this with the Christian texts. Unlike the Koran, the documents that make up the bible are not considered the literal "Word of God". While Christians call it the "Word of God" for convenience, it is more accurately described as "The History of the Word of God". It is the message it contains that is important, not the fact that we have the exact wording of every document 100% correct. (Textual criticism has the New Testament down to 99.6% accuracy, with no variants affecting essential doctrines.)
Jesus, has FOUR biographies written about him within 70 years of his death, two by eyewitnesses and two from people who were in close association with eyewitnesses, on top of Jesus being mentioned by several non-Christian sources. The church was a persecuted organisation for nearly 300 years after its founding. It had no authority to wipe out competing variants en-mass until around the year 800 at the earliest. In modern days, what this means is that we have thousands of complete or partial texts from the times the church had no or extremely limited p
Slashdot Mirror
Raspberry?
Actually, part of his diatribe was about working conditions, and he commented that there were training opportunities that were only available to so-called "diversity" candidates. In their public response, Google made a point of acknowledging this, and saying that this was not why he was fired. He was fired for the parts of the message that weren't a discussion of working conditions.
Except the whole memo is a discussion about working conditions and how to improve them, which includes the culture that exists within the company.
You clearly don't live in the Northern Midwest.
Handling cold is FAR more difficult than heat for humans.
There is a reason the DOT talks about winter survival kits and not summer survival kits.
They could just frac their own. Relatives out in western ND who held onto their mineral rights are doing well and I heat my house with cheap NG.
People trusted Bernie Madoff with their money too and got fantastic returns.
I think I finally see a use for the "no fly" list...
No they don't. Not with Gasoline.
Work.
To customers sites to repair and replace equipment. 500 miles a day is a frequent occurrence and I have done 1,000 miles in 24 hours a couple times.
My work pickup, a 2010 Toyota, had 200 miles on it when we got it. It now has 345,000 and change.
I had to buy an aftermarket brand battery for my phone on Amazon because all the "OEM" batteries were obviously fakes.
Tesla is a good 60 plus years behind other auto makers in production tech.
Tesla makes one model per production line. The standard for other auto makers is eight. Meaning if one model bombs, the company is just fine if the other seven keep the line busy. Tesla can't even manage two.
Munsk is an amateur when it comes to building physical things ecenomically. Nobody copies him and for good reason.
My church does aid trips to Peru. The people who live there have dirt floors in their homes. Having a bed for every member of the family is a luxury. Where kids drink alcohol not to get drunk, but so the bacteria in the water doesn't kill them.
Even these people can read, sometimes better in English. In large part because the church brings books with and reading is the only entertainment they have after working a 12+ hour day. (Second hand in-country newspapers are also read.) Parents are of course thrilled at their kids learning good English.
Except NK doesn't have the logistics to sustain a campaign. Also, counterbattery fire is a bugger.
That's because apparently us whites don't care about what happens to black people.
Meanwhile, I bet they make no effort to find out who leaked this internal document.
Where does it say that?
Except he isn't the one who made the document public.
Yet I bet they don't track down and fire the people who made this internal document public. Those are the people who caused this mess for Google, not the person who wrote it.
He didn't embarrass Google in public. Whoever leaked his internal memo to the public did that.
God forbid women do anything other than imitate men, right? Looking for a job you enjoy and provides you the flexibility you want is for suckers.
Women generally arn't interested in working 80 hour weeks at the office. Many want to be mothers and take on the task of raising the next generation so that society can continue.
That's fantastic and something just as important as the men mining coal and iron or working in the factory. Why do feminists hate that work that women do?
If we can silence and fire someone presenting scientific evidence just because it contradicts popular norms, then our society is in serious, serious trouble. I seem to recall something similar happening to Galileo when he claimed the Earth went around the Sun.
VERY bad example.
Nobody got in trouble back then for talking about heliocentrisim as a theory. Here is how the conversation went.
Galileo: The Earth revolves around the sun. That's a fact.
Fellow Scientists: Have you found answers to the evidence against that? Have you found an explanation for why we don't feel the Earth moving?
Galileo: Hell no.
Fellow Scientists: What about the lack of observed stellar parallax?
Galileo: Of course not.
Fellow Scientists: So what DO you have? Galileo: The tides. They are caused by the water sloshing about as the Earth moves.
Fellow Scientists: That would require one tide a day, but there are two. Galileo: Screw you guys, I'm gonna write a book calling all of you idiots and try to reinterpreted scripture. Even though I'm a total n00b on that subject.
Fellow Scientists: Ummmm, dude. We know that the pope is your friend, but he is also your boss. The church funds your research.
Galileo: He'll see it my way...
Galileo got in trouble because he couldn't prove heliocentrisim, yet demanded everyone drop everything and take up his point of view. Newtonian Physics didn't come along for another 50+ years and Stellar Parallax wasn't sucessfully observed until the 19th century.
He didn't make this public. He published it internally. Someone else leaked it to the public. I await the firing of whoever that person is...
There is a problem with your logic and it is thus....what are you gonna do with all those billions you no longer need?
This is the old Socialist "Lump of Labor" fallacy that was in vogue back when bloodletting was considered a valid medical treatment. You should be ashamed for hanging onto such antiquated thinking.
90% of the population used to be involved in agriculture. Today that is about 2%. Last I checked, we do not have 88% unemployment. Why is that? Because those workers got jobs doing other things. Building farm machinery, cars, TVs, and other things as time went on.
You might be thinking, "Yes, but manufacturing is gone from the US." I would reply, "Only because we choose it to be gone." The reason manufacturing has left is because the US is not competitive anymore compared to the rest of the world. Several top reasons are that our tax code is an absolute nightmare and our economy is over-regulated to the point of absurdity.
Yes, yes, you'll be dismissive of assertion of "over-regulations". How about I quote some actual research on the subject.
https://www.sba.gov/sites/defa...
The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008. Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which equaled $10,500 per household in 2008. While all citizens and businesses pay some portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven. The portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in 2008. Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees).
That's $8,000-$10,000 that YOU are paying ON TOP of any taxes you pay. You pay it indirectly and in a form you never normally see. Your employer sees it though and they have to pay it one way or another. The two most obvious ways are higher prices and lower wages. Since these regulations affect the entire economy, and they are enacted over time, the effects are gradual as the over growing rule-book of regulation pushes prices higher and higher and wages lower and lower. So low that many manufacturing companies had no choice but to leave.
Do you feel like you are getting $8,000-$10,000 worth of benefit from all these government rules?
As stated above, large companies pay a smaller burden than small companies, which is why large companies keep getting larger and larger the more regulation gets passed. Small companies can't compete with the government stacking the deck.
Now, this doesn't mean we go back to the days where you dumped untreated sewage into rivers. Government is like fire; little bit properly contained is a good thing to have. The fire in my furnace keeps me warm in the winter. Just because a little is good does not mean that more is better. My house being on fire is not a good and healthy thing.
The problem is too much government requiring too many things in too fine of detail. (On top of the whole debasing the currency shenanigans that the Fed is doing.) We have children's lemonade stands getting shut down and government fining people for their toilets being half an inch too low. On top of a tax code that not even the IRS understands. Nearly $2 trillion a year in regulations. How much more before people question their religious belief in government?
Stefan Molyneux is a libertarian in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church is Christian. It just a front to either make money and/or acquire fame and power, which is why Molyneux finds it necessary to isolate his "followers" from critics. This is starkly opposed to other Libertarian groups who spend considerable time discussing how to engage constructively with critics.
I would also contest the idea that Molyneux is "one of the most popular". He is one of the most visible, there is a difference. He catches a lot of well deserved criticism from other Libertarian individuals and even philosophers for the faulty logic and thinking he uses.
Just a little bit hypocritical on your part to say that they do not get to define what a libertarian is, then promptly proceed to define what a libertarian is.
"Oh and don't bother with the tired "the majority is peaceful" because a silent majority DOES NOT MATTER."
Actually, the majority are sympathetic to many things ISIS believes.
The Myth of Moderate Muslims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll (2009).
1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
38.6 percent of Western Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified. Gallup (2011).
45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (Forty-three percent disagree.) The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
Nearly one-third of Muslim-Americans agree that violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran is acceptable. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
51 percent of Muslim-Americans say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Shariah courts rather than courts of the United States (only 39 percent disagree). The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeera poll (2015).
"Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and the moderate Muslim: Even as we hear of the occasional sighting, most reasonable people remain skeptical as to whether, in reality, these mysterious creatures even exist."
Can you imagine if Christians has similar views of violence towards things it's philosophy doesn't like? Like Abortion? Abortion clinics would have military detachments guarding them 24/7 and abortion clinic bombings would be a daily event in the US, and have the support of a significant portion of the population, rather than the once a decade or so event that they are by people acting alone with no support network to hide and protect them.
Sorry, reading the passages in context doesn't help the Koran.
The passages go from peaceful, when Mohammad had no political power, to violent as he gains more and more political power. This is painfully obvious when you read the Suras in chronological order. "A Simple Koran" available on Amazon does this. His biggest body count was when he had 800 people killed in one afternoon, according to MUSLIM sources. (Jesus, by contrast, never kills anyone or calls his followers to kill anyone.)
Of course you are also correct in that the Koran is largely incomprehensible without commentaries. Commentaries written HUNDREDS of years after Mohammad. Heck, even Mohammad's biography isn't written for over two centuries after his death.
What is actually funny is that while Christianity has weathered 300 years of textual and archaeological criticism stringer than ever, the secular history it records having been effectively verified by many who started out to discredit it, Islam is failing those same tests miserably. Much of the Koran, we now know, is copied and edited from 2nd and 3rd century Jewish and Christian apocrypha (non-cannon) writings. What is written of Jesus in the Koran is lifted from 3rd/4th gnostic writings. The story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is the most blatant example of copying, but there is plenty more.
Even if you ignore the copying, you have no early manuscripts that agree with the Koran today and Muslim tradition itself mentions that there were competing versions of the Koran until Uthman, who then ordered all competing copies destroyed except the version he had made. The earliest copies we have show significant editing and don't match todays text. The earliest manuscript, the Sana'a manuscript, the Yemenis government won't let anyone examine anymore. All we have is microfilms of it from the Germans who first examined it. So we have something delivered by a "prophet" who did no miracles except the "miracle" of the Koran itself... which was such a "miracle" it had many early variants that took political bludgeoning by a non-prophet to attempt to whittle down to one variant.
It gets worse when you go to archaeology. Turns out Mecca's history doesn't go back further than the 4th century AD. To add to that, Mecca doesn't match the geography of the Koran and the traditions. (Anyone see any Olive trees in Mecca?) The icing on the cake is that mosques for the first HUNDRED YEARS of Islam don't point towards Mecca, but Petra. Petra also matches the geography in the Koran and the traditions. If Muslim history has been so heavily edited that the story of Mecca and the location of the Kaaba isn't reliable, how much of the rest of the Koran and Islamic scriptures can we trust?
An Historical Critique of Islam's Beginnings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That video is just one of many that could be posted on the subject.
Contrast this with the Christian texts. Unlike the Koran, the documents that make up the bible are not considered the literal "Word of God". While Christians call it the "Word of God" for convenience, it is more accurately described as "The History of the Word of God". It is the message it contains that is important, not the fact that we have the exact wording of every document 100% correct. (Textual criticism has the New Testament down to 99.6% accuracy, with no variants affecting essential doctrines.)
Jesus, has FOUR biographies written about him within 70 years of his death, two by eyewitnesses and two from people who were in close association with eyewitnesses, on top of Jesus being mentioned by several non-Christian sources. The church was a persecuted organisation for nearly 300 years after its founding. It had no authority to wipe out competing variants en-mass until around the year 800 at the earliest. In modern days, what this means is that we have thousands of complete or partial texts from the times the church had no or extremely limited p