It's all about finding the employees who are willing to sacrifice their life and time for the good of the company.
No one, and I mean no one can work themselves into an early grave for zero overtime pay quite like the average scared white male with an inadequacy complex. You don't have to worry about training them up and having a competitor hire them away to fill a quota. Their white skin and privilege is like kryptonite to any lawsuit they could bring against the company for discrimination, harassment, working conditions, or unfair treatment. They don't require maternity leave, and if their spouse gets pregnant they just freak out and work even harder than before. Most of them haven't had it rough before, so they are terrified of being unemployed, making them so much easier to control than someone who has come from a rough spot. They have very little dignity, so you can really mistreat them without severely affecting their performance. Also, if you push them too far and they lose their shit, they will go and shoot up a church, or a school, or a mall somewhere instead of their place of business. Well unless its the post office. Best of all, when they get older they tend to pop off with a sudden, unexpected massive heart attack or aneurysm, thereby saving the company millions in medical expenses. No weekly dialysis, no lingering diabetes, no years of fighting cancer. Just exploding hearts and brains and someone gets a new office.
So please, hire white males. It's the safe, economical choice for comprehensive corporate risk management.
Correct! You cannot compare a nutjob with a burlap marionette stuck in a loom.
The first one is completely unpredictable, an unknown quantity. A newcomer, unfamiliar with the centuries old entrenched extra-political infrastructure that molds, forms, and produces political candidates for the entertainment of the masses.
The second one is completely predictable, a known quantity, and beholden to so many interests, both foreign and domestic, that you can rest assured their behavior will be exactly what you expect. Well, maybe not you, a voter and therefore not privy to the machinations that create a major party candidate, but certainly the people who put her up to it and paid for it. Therein lies the problem with her. With all of those strings attached you would think that at least one of the ends terminated with US voters.
So yeah, we dodged a bullet but now were facing a feces-smeared naked madman with a machete. Swings and roundabouts.
Either way, either leader, either party: they would not be working for your interests. Don't take it so hard.
The Constitution is not a "living document." It is a self referential document with self described means for revision. The same level of authority that says it can be modified also says "gun ownership is legal."
If it can be revised it can also be revised to remove the provisions for revising it as well. You understand this, correct?
Not if you are inside the country. You need planning, secrecy, and coordination. You need to decapitate the tyranny, apply pressure to those who are working for the tyrannical leaders under duress, and motivate the indifferent to join against the tyrannical.
All of that can be done with hard noses, handguns, and hunting rifles.
Your post implies that once you are employed, appointed, or elected to the government you are immune from treason charges. You are so set against guns your brain has ceased to function logically. It is not a catch 22 invalidation you goofball.
One part of what you wrote is right though. If members of our political system attempt to circumvent the Constitution in a significant enough manner to engender a violent response from those of us who aren't as logically compromised as you are, you can be certain that those caught will be hung. Not so sure about the trial part though, as any government willing to violate the constitution in a flagrant enough manner to rile up the 2nd amendment loving crowd so much that they march on their own politicians would not give two shits about trials, evidence, attorneys, etc.
Well-regulated means "Well equipped" in today's language.
Militia means "18 or over and in good health" in today's language.
Just because you are too ill informed to understand the concepts being discussed does not allow you to create your own interpretation of the meaning and have it be valid.
Personally, I prefer the idea of universal military training followed by an optional reserve system with voluntary participation up to retirement age. It might look very similar to what you thought up from your horrible misunderstanding of the second amendment.
The difference between us is that I know that what I prefer is not supported in the Constitution and I would never argue that it is.
Oh they're not "doing nothing." They are overwrought and overrun with fighting the good fight. The only problem is their targets are designated by the government/media complex. Keeping the good among us overwhelmed, off balance, and strictly controlled is how our "leaders" stay in control.
Well, that, and killing them off in useless wars...
Do you know what they do with this information? I do. I got it from the proverbial horse's mouth.
About 2 years ago I was speaking with some of the marketing people at a very large retailer I am tangentially associated with. They were describing the extent of logging activity on their corporate website. They spoke about everything this article mentions, in addition to cross site tracking, data sharing with other sites, etc., ad nauseum. I was not surprised that there was this level of logging activity. However, I am surprised that this is a surprise to anyone else. I thought this was common knowledge, self evident from first principles.
What was fun to discuss was the level to which the gleaned information is analyzed. You can learn an incredible amount of "important" information about your website and, more importantly, your customers by tracing a customer interaction backwards through your records from a known completed outcome (sale, no-sale, etc.) to the initial instant of contact with your products. You can learn even more when you have a giant stack of "same outcomes" to compare.
For instance you could stack up all of your "sales" in one pile and all of your "no-sales" in another. Then compare something relatively simple and one dimensional, say like how they move their mouse on your web page. Did you know that many retailers can very quickly determine with a high degree of accuracy if you are going to end up in the "sale" bucket by how you use your mouse on their website? Apparently, people move their mouse differently when they are in a buying mode.
Keystrokes are also examined in a similar way. Not just what was typed, but when, and how. Again, comparing many different customers with known outcomes leads to a model that can predict the outcome of a website interaction from just a few bits of input.
These are just the obvious bits that come from analyzing the data. There are much deeper inferences that can be made from a multidimensional matrix of observed behaviors, and across multiple sites. One of the other things that was interesting was how the retailer was trying to get people to move, type, and ultimately look in a way that resembles modes and mannerisms which closely approximate the behaviors of known buyers. The logic being similar to the old "fake it till you make it" adage. Or more rigorously, if we can influence a site visitor who shows "non-buying" behavior to emulate "buyer" behavior it can influence them to actually purchase. This was just in the works when I had this conversation, but they indicated that there was substantive evidence to support this being a profitable practice.
After the conversation I will say that my determinism doomsday clock was advanced about 3 hours closer to midnight. The certainty and exuberance they had about their ability to influence behavior by informed application of stimulus was creepy as fuck. From what they revealed it was not born of hype, optimism, or marketing buzz. It was a direct result of processing the data, implementing reasoned changes, and observing the results. And this was years ago. Fuck, fuck, fuck!!!
I can only imagine what Facebook does with all of the data that people give them. The dimensions of their matrix must be immense, and their conclusions the stuff of nightmares.
Quire funny, but if you look at the posts below its like he Linus'ed everyone's brains. He just uploaded his ideas to the interwebs and now everyone is mirroring them! He doesn't even have to post anymore, we are doing it for him!
We're all brainwashed my offended little friend. One must learn to tiptoe through the brain stems, putting on the viewpoints of others as your own, especially those which seem offensive at first, if one is to successfully navigate the screaming chambers that are the online world and extract any value from them.
Try to be someone who is not addicted to their own point of view. Now find a way to do that and be internally consistent.
What I find most interesting is that Damore's memo is full of things that your run-of-the-mill, narrative toting, brainwashed SJW should be able to identify with and support.
Damore said, if you read with some clarity and intelligence, that the patriarchy has, at a fundamental level, influenced and controlled the structure of jobs in the tech sector. His position is that because of male domination in that industry the parts of the job that are not related to the actual work of being a software engineer are more easily tolerated by those with Y chromosomes.
Long hours, little time off, working weekends, high stress, and recognition based on being noisy and self promoting are all artifacts of a overtly male occupied industry, which is now permeated by decades of entrenched male-oriented business structures. His tentative proposal was to rearrange these parts of the business to better accommodate individuals that do not thrive in that environment.
I think it was in Google's best interests to tar and feather him. The changes he points to would severely alter the corporate business structure and cost Google an incredible amount of money. Working anyone, not just women, 6-7 days a week for 12 hour days (or more!) would become verboten. Promoting people would require taking a deeper look at each eligible candidate, rather than quickly sifting through the handful of shameless self promoters who constantly squak for promotion. Reducing stress would require redundancy in more positions and necessitate additional employees.
He is right though. If the tech industry were to change these antiquated ideas of what it takes to make it big at Google, more women would find working there attractive. Lowering standards wouldn't be necessary to increase female participation in their workforce. The drawbacks of the industry that have the best and brightest women choosing other fields would no longer be a barrier. I also think that more men would want to work there too, but as there has been no shortage of men who are willing to sacrifice their entire lives to the company for 70 hours a week plus, this is irrelevant. If the objective is to attract a more diverse pool of qualified candidates, and to keep the ones you already have happy, these changes would certainly do it.
So yeah, Google dodged a bullet there. Damore's changes would certainly accomplish the goal of attracting more diverse qualified candidates. Unfortunately, Google is too attached to a patriarchal system that preys on the "bread-winner" drive of males for profitability and market dominance. If exploiting their employees wasn't such a big part of their successful business model they could easily change their business structures to make their company more attractive to women.
Google also got really lucky that there are so many "feminists" that took the "he's a sexist" bait and ran with it. If they had bothered to actually think about what he said, rather than using it as an opportunity to rant and scold, his points could have spurred a debate that may have ultimately become an important turning point in the all too silent war that has been simmering between workers and corporate America. Alas, useful idiots are available by the millions and they are always looking for an opportunity to be offended in a loud and public voice. The end result is that Google gets to maintain their antiquated, male-centric, patriarchal business structure and at the same time receive the support of women everywhere.
Part of our salvation is already present in the soil. Mycelium fixes CO2 while pumping necessary nutrients (like nitrogen and phosphorus) directly into plants. There are fungus strains currently under investigation as natural symbiotic growth enhancers for food crops. This technology could enable farmers to turn vast areas currently dedicated to agriculture into CO2 sinks, all while reducing the use of fertilizers. There have already been experiments performed which show inoculating seedlings with certain fungal spores before planting results in higher growth rates than fertilizing, even in nutrient poor soils.
Data supporting this hypothesis. - You don't have to pay anything to play LoL. Ever. There is no "pay to win" component either. - Grinding is irrelevant in LoL. There is no gear. Mods are not allowed. Recreation benefits the human species. Also, some of the people playing LoL should stay inside as much as possible. By playing LoL for hours on end they are benefiting the human species. - Mutability of language is one of the characteristics of language. Development of jargon is proof of advanced use of language, not the opposite.
How you play is strongly correlated to whether or not you win.
I have found that many people feel they "deserve" something out of the game they are playing. Minion kills, champion kills, a certain territory, a certain behavior from their teammates, etc., ad nauseum.
If you also feel you "deserve" something you will, most likely, create friction as the things you think you "deserve" will come into conflict with those that your teammates think they "deserve." The result is *you* will create trolls and bad attitudes by not recognizing the needs, desires, and objectives of your team mates. The result is will lose more often.
If you take certain actions that serve the interests of your teammates and show you recognize what they think they "deserve" you will find you create games where quid pro quo is the initial state, quickly progressing to true teamwork where the "I deserve" motivation is replaced by a feeling of accomplishment when your teammates succeed with your assistance. This is the essence of teamwork.
Well said, person. The term "narrative" is just another way of saying "blatant historical lies designed to agitate and motivate the mindless." As complacency and partisanship firmly sink into the great vacuum that is the American common consciousness, lies like these become the only way to manufacture consent. Facts are distasteful to the majority because they have staked their identity on falsehoods. Only more lies, and continually more extreme ones, will suffice to activate their self-defense instinct when those lies threaten their false identity. As a result, they are relatively immune to reason, logic, and real self interest and incredibly susceptible to manipulation by those who know the "narrative" (lies) they have internalized.
If you need any further explanation why America is as fucked up as it is you are just looking for me to lie to you.
Damore said, if you read with some clarity and intelligence, that the patriarchy has, at a fundamental level, influenced and controlled the structure of jobs in the tech sector. His position is that because of male domination in that industry the parts of the job that are not related to the actual work of being a software engineer are more easily tolerated by those with Y chromosomes.
Long hours, little time off, working weekends, high stress, and recognition based on being noisy and self promoting are all artifacts of a overtly male occupied industry, which is now permeated by decades of entrenched male-oriented business structures. His tentative proposal was to rearrange these parts of the business to better accommodate individuals that do not thrive in that environment.
I think it was in Google's best interests to tar and feather him. The changes he points to would severely alter the corporate business structure and cost Google an incredible amount of money. Working anyone, not just women, 6-7 days a week for 12 hour days (or more!) would become verboten. Promoting people would require taking a deeper look at each eligible candidate, rather than quickly sifting through the handful of shameless self promoters who constantly squak for promotion. Reducing stress would require redundancy in more positions and necessitate additional employees.
He is right though. If the tech industry were to change these antiquated ideas of what it takes to make it big at Google, more women would find working there attractive. Lowering standards wouldn't be necessary to increase female participation in their workforce. The drawbacks of the industry that have the best and brightest women choosing other fields would no longer be a barrier. I also think that more men would want to work there too, but as there has been no shortage of men who are willing to sacrifice their entire lives to the company for 70 hours a week plus, this is irrelevant. If the objective is to attract a more diverse pool of qualified candidates, and to keep the ones you already have happy, these changes would certainly do it.
So yeah, Google dodged a bullet there. Damore's changes would certainly accomplish the goal of attracting more diverse qualified candidates. Unfortunately, Google is too attached to a patriarchal system that preys on the "bread-winner" drive of males for profitability and market dominance. If exploiting their employees wasn't such a big part of their successful business model they could easily change their business structures to make their company more attractive to women.
Google also got really lucky that there are so many "feminists" that took the "he's a sexist" bait and ran with it. If they had bothered to actually think about what he said, rather than using it as an opportunity to rant and scold, his points could have spurred a debate that may have ultimately become an important turning point in the all too silent war that has been simmering between workers and corporate America. Alas, useful idiots are available by the millions and they are always looking for an opportunity to be offended in a loud and public voice. The end result is that Google gets to maintain their antiquated, male-centric, patriarchal business structure and at the same time receive the support of women everywhere.
Its not like the National Automobile Dealers Association hasn't tried to get laws changed to prevent Tesla from selling their cars. I wouldn't put it past them to arrange some shit like this.
No one seems to mention that the sample for this study has no control.
They only tested people with epilepsy.
I would like to see this repeated in a group without epilepsy, and in a group of people who self report sleeping 1-3 hours a night without experiencing sleep deprivation issues.
Why are you discussing a caricature of a "conservative snowflake" in a discussion about a liberal's heartfelt desire to make the workplace more inclusive of women?
Do you not have the intelligence to understand what Damore was writing?
If you believe in sin, then you know that all humans are sin-filled degenerates. Especially yourself, for calling out the sins of someone else when you are so riddled with it. You have a rotting and fetid black soul with no redeeming qualities, and while you wallow there in your own festering putrescence, you have the unmitigated gall to point to someone else and say "Hey, you smell bad."
Do you think your God will deal lightly with you for making a mockery of Him? He is powerful, so much so that He removed the penalties of sin for all mankind. And here you are, bringing it up, that thing that only God can remove, making an issue of it when God has told you that ALL sin is against God, not against man.
You do realize that when you judge others for what you consider sins you are, in essence, telling God that you are more important than He is. Furthermore, you are, for lack of a better analogy, shitting in Jesus's mouth while He was on the cross. He worked really hard to remove the penalty for sin, and here you are, pointing our that he didn't do a good enough job, because sin is still an issue with you, even though Jesus has said it is no longer one with Him.
If you are going to buy into the whole idea of sin, you should really consider what that means in the context of where the concept actually came from. If you don't, you end up looking like a silly self-righteous fool with no regard for the God you profess to believe in; laughable on one level, and detestable on many others.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all about finding the employees who are willing to sacrifice their life and time for the good of the company.
No one, and I mean no one can work themselves into an early grave for zero overtime pay quite like the average scared white male with an inadequacy complex. You don't have to worry about training them up and having a competitor hire them away to fill a quota. Their white skin and privilege is like kryptonite to any lawsuit they could bring against the company for discrimination, harassment, working conditions, or unfair treatment. They don't require maternity leave, and if their spouse gets pregnant they just freak out and work even harder than before. Most of them haven't had it rough before, so they are terrified of being unemployed, making them so much easier to control than someone who has come from a rough spot. They have very little dignity, so you can really mistreat them without severely affecting their performance. Also, if you push them too far and they lose their shit, they will go and shoot up a church, or a school, or a mall somewhere instead of their place of business. Well unless its the post office. Best of all, when they get older they tend to pop off with a sudden, unexpected massive heart attack or aneurysm, thereby saving the company millions in medical expenses. No weekly dialysis, no lingering diabetes, no years of fighting cancer. Just exploding hearts and brains and someone gets a new office.
So please, hire white males. It's the safe, economical choice for comprehensive corporate risk management.
Correct! You cannot compare a nutjob with a burlap marionette stuck in a loom.
The first one is completely unpredictable, an unknown quantity. A newcomer, unfamiliar with the centuries old entrenched extra-political infrastructure that molds, forms, and produces political candidates for the entertainment of the masses.
The second one is completely predictable, a known quantity, and beholden to so many interests, both foreign and domestic, that you can rest assured their behavior will be exactly what you expect. Well, maybe not you, a voter and therefore not privy to the machinations that create a major party candidate, but certainly the people who put her up to it and paid for it. Therein lies the problem with her. With all of those strings attached you would think that at least one of the ends terminated with US voters.
So yeah, we dodged a bullet but now were facing a feces-smeared naked madman with a machete. Swings and roundabouts.
Either way, either leader, either party: they would not be working for your interests. Don't take it so hard.
The Constitution is not a "living document." It is a self referential document with self described means for revision. The same level of authority that says it can be modified also says "gun ownership is legal."
If it can be revised it can also be revised to remove the provisions for revising it as well. You understand this, correct?
Not if you are inside the country. You need planning, secrecy, and coordination. You need to decapitate the tyranny, apply pressure to those who are working for the tyrannical leaders under duress, and motivate the indifferent to join against the tyrannical.
All of that can be done with hard noses, handguns, and hunting rifles.
Your post implies that once you are employed, appointed, or elected to the government you are immune from treason charges. You are so set against guns your brain has ceased to function logically. It is not a catch 22 invalidation you goofball.
One part of what you wrote is right though. If members of our political system attempt to circumvent the Constitution in a significant enough manner to engender a violent response from those of us who aren't as logically compromised as you are, you can be certain that those caught will be hung. Not so sure about the trial part though, as any government willing to violate the constitution in a flagrant enough manner to rile up the 2nd amendment loving crowd so much that they march on their own politicians would not give two shits about trials, evidence, attorneys, etc.
And this is why we have the second amendment.
Well-regulated means "Well equipped" in today's language.
Militia means "18 or over and in good health" in today's language.
Just because you are too ill informed to understand the concepts being discussed does not allow you to create your own interpretation of the meaning and have it be valid.
Personally, I prefer the idea of universal military training followed by an optional reserve system with voluntary participation up to retirement age. It might look very similar to what you thought up from your horrible misunderstanding of the second amendment.
The difference between us is that I know that what I prefer is not supported in the Constitution and I would never argue that it is.
Oh they're not "doing nothing." They are overwrought and overrun with fighting the good fight. The only problem is their targets are designated by the government/media complex. Keeping the good among us overwhelmed, off balance, and strictly controlled is how our "leaders" stay in control.
Well, that, and killing them off in useless wars...
The "militia," at the time the Constitution was written, was defined as all able bodied men age 17 and older.
Training was not required, nor was registration or membership. By existing as such a person you were considered militia.
So rape is now vagina theft?
Do you know what they do with this information? I do. I got it from the proverbial horse's mouth.
About 2 years ago I was speaking with some of the marketing people at a very large retailer I am tangentially associated with. They were describing the extent of logging activity on their corporate website. They spoke about everything this article mentions, in addition to cross site tracking, data sharing with other sites, etc., ad nauseum. I was not surprised that there was this level of logging activity. However, I am surprised that this is a surprise to anyone else. I thought this was common knowledge, self evident from first principles.
What was fun to discuss was the level to which the gleaned information is analyzed. You can learn an incredible amount of "important" information about your website and, more importantly, your customers by tracing a customer interaction backwards through your records from a known completed outcome (sale, no-sale, etc.) to the initial instant of contact with your products. You can learn even more when you have a giant stack of "same outcomes" to compare.
For instance you could stack up all of your "sales" in one pile and all of your "no-sales" in another. Then compare something relatively simple and one dimensional, say like how they move their mouse on your web page. Did you know that many retailers can very quickly determine with a high degree of accuracy if you are going to end up in the "sale" bucket by how you use your mouse on their website? Apparently, people move their mouse differently when they are in a buying mode.
Keystrokes are also examined in a similar way. Not just what was typed, but when, and how. Again, comparing many different customers with known outcomes leads to a model that can predict the outcome of a website interaction from just a few bits of input.
These are just the obvious bits that come from analyzing the data. There are much deeper inferences that can be made from a multidimensional matrix of observed behaviors, and across multiple sites. One of the other things that was interesting was how the retailer was trying to get people to move, type, and ultimately look in a way that resembles modes and mannerisms which closely approximate the behaviors of known buyers. The logic being similar to the old "fake it till you make it" adage. Or more rigorously, if we can influence a site visitor who shows "non-buying" behavior to emulate "buyer" behavior it can influence them to actually purchase. This was just in the works when I had this conversation, but they indicated that there was substantive evidence to support this being a profitable practice.
After the conversation I will say that my determinism doomsday clock was advanced about 3 hours closer to midnight. The certainty and exuberance they had about their ability to influence behavior by informed application of stimulus was creepy as fuck. From what they revealed it was not born of hype, optimism, or marketing buzz. It was a direct result of processing the data, implementing reasoned changes, and observing the results. And this was years ago. Fuck, fuck, fuck!!!
I can only imagine what Facebook does with all of the data that people give them. The dimensions of their matrix must be immense, and their conclusions the stuff of nightmares.
Quire funny, but if you look at the posts below its like he Linus'ed everyone's brains. He just uploaded his ideas to the interwebs and now everyone is mirroring them! He doesn't even have to post anymore, we are doing it for him!
Well done APK, well done.
We're all brainwashed my offended little friend. One must learn to tiptoe through the brain stems, putting on the viewpoints of others as your own, especially those which seem offensive at first, if one is to successfully navigate the screaming chambers that are the online world and extract any value from them.
Try to be someone who is not addicted to their own point of view. Now find a way to do that and be internally consistent.
What I find most interesting is that Damore's memo is full of things that your run-of-the-mill, narrative toting, brainwashed SJW should be able to identify with and support.
Damore said, if you read with some clarity and intelligence, that the patriarchy has, at a fundamental level, influenced and controlled the structure of jobs in the tech sector. His position is that because of male domination in that industry the parts of the job that are not related to the actual work of being a software engineer are more easily tolerated by those with Y chromosomes.
Long hours, little time off, working weekends, high stress, and recognition based on being noisy and self promoting are all artifacts of a overtly male occupied industry, which is now permeated by decades of entrenched male-oriented business structures. His tentative proposal was to rearrange these parts of the business to better accommodate individuals that do not thrive in that environment.
I think it was in Google's best interests to tar and feather him. The changes he points to would severely alter the corporate business structure and cost Google an incredible amount of money. Working anyone, not just women, 6-7 days a week for 12 hour days (or more!) would become verboten. Promoting people would require taking a deeper look at each eligible candidate, rather than quickly sifting through the handful of shameless self promoters who constantly squak for promotion. Reducing stress would require redundancy in more positions and necessitate additional employees.
He is right though. If the tech industry were to change these antiquated ideas of what it takes to make it big at Google, more women would find working there attractive. Lowering standards wouldn't be necessary to increase female participation in their workforce. The drawbacks of the industry that have the best and brightest women choosing other fields would no longer be a barrier. I also think that more men would want to work there too, but as there has been no shortage of men who are willing to sacrifice their entire lives to the company for 70 hours a week plus, this is irrelevant. If the objective is to attract a more diverse pool of qualified candidates, and to keep the ones you already have happy, these changes would certainly do it.
So yeah, Google dodged a bullet there. Damore's changes would certainly accomplish the goal of attracting more diverse qualified candidates. Unfortunately, Google is too attached to a patriarchal system that preys on the "bread-winner" drive of males for profitability and market dominance. If exploiting their employees wasn't such a big part of their successful business model they could easily change their business structures to make their company more attractive to women.
Google also got really lucky that there are so many "feminists" that took the "he's a sexist" bait and ran with it. If they had bothered to actually think about what he said, rather than using it as an opportunity to rant and scold, his points could have spurred a debate that may have ultimately become an important turning point in the all too silent war that has been simmering between workers and corporate America. Alas, useful idiots are available by the millions and they are always looking for an opportunity to be offended in a loud and public voice. The end result is that Google gets to maintain their antiquated, male-centric, patriarchal business structure and at the same time receive the support of women everywhere.
What a damn shame.
Part of our salvation is already present in the soil. Mycelium fixes CO2 while pumping necessary nutrients (like nitrogen and phosphorus) directly into plants. There are fungus strains currently under investigation as natural symbiotic growth enhancers for food crops. This technology could enable farmers to turn vast areas currently dedicated to agriculture into CO2 sinks, all while reducing the use of fertilizers. There have already been experiments performed which show inoculating seedlings with certain fungal spores before planting results in higher growth rates than fertilizing, even in nutrient poor soils.
You are wrong and therefore stupid.
Data supporting this hypothesis.
- You don't have to pay anything to play LoL. Ever. There is no "pay to win" component either.
- Grinding is irrelevant in LoL. There is no gear. Mods are not allowed. Recreation benefits the human species. Also, some of the people playing LoL should stay inside as much as possible. By playing LoL for hours on end they are benefiting the human species.
- Mutability of language is one of the characteristics of language. Development of jargon is proof of advanced use of language, not the opposite.
How you play is strongly correlated to whether or not you win.
I have found that many people feel they "deserve" something out of the game they are playing. Minion kills, champion kills, a certain territory, a certain behavior from their teammates, etc., ad nauseum.
If you also feel you "deserve" something you will, most likely, create friction as the things you think you "deserve" will come into conflict with those that your teammates think they "deserve." The result is *you* will create trolls and bad attitudes by not recognizing the needs, desires, and objectives of your team mates. The result is will lose more often.
If you take certain actions that serve the interests of your teammates and show you recognize what they think they "deserve" you will find you create games where quid pro quo is the initial state, quickly progressing to true teamwork where the "I deserve" motivation is replaced by a feeling of accomplishment when your teammates succeed with your assistance. This is the essence of teamwork.
Well said, person. The term "narrative" is just another way of saying "blatant historical lies designed to agitate and motivate the mindless." As complacency and partisanship firmly sink into the great vacuum that is the American common consciousness, lies like these become the only way to manufacture consent. Facts are distasteful to the majority because they have staked their identity on falsehoods. Only more lies, and continually more extreme ones, will suffice to activate their self-defense instinct when those lies threaten their false identity. As a result, they are relatively immune to reason, logic, and real self interest and incredibly susceptible to manipulation by those who know the "narrative" (lies) they have internalized.
If you need any further explanation why America is as fucked up as it is you are just looking for me to lie to you.
Damore said, if you read with some clarity and intelligence, that the patriarchy has, at a fundamental level, influenced and controlled the structure of jobs in the tech sector. His position is that because of male domination in that industry the parts of the job that are not related to the actual work of being a software engineer are more easily tolerated by those with Y chromosomes.
Long hours, little time off, working weekends, high stress, and recognition based on being noisy and self promoting are all artifacts of a overtly male occupied industry, which is now permeated by decades of entrenched male-oriented business structures. His tentative proposal was to rearrange these parts of the business to better accommodate individuals that do not thrive in that environment.
I think it was in Google's best interests to tar and feather him. The changes he points to would severely alter the corporate business structure and cost Google an incredible amount of money. Working anyone, not just women, 6-7 days a week for 12 hour days (or more!) would become verboten. Promoting people would require taking a deeper look at each eligible candidate, rather than quickly sifting through the handful of shameless self promoters who constantly squak for promotion. Reducing stress would require redundancy in more positions and necessitate additional employees.
He is right though. If the tech industry were to change these antiquated ideas of what it takes to make it big at Google, more women would find working there attractive. Lowering standards wouldn't be necessary to increase female participation in their workforce. The drawbacks of the industry that have the best and brightest women choosing other fields would no longer be a barrier. I also think that more men would want to work there too, but as there has been no shortage of men who are willing to sacrifice their entire lives to the company for 70 hours a week plus, this is irrelevant. If the objective is to attract a more diverse pool of qualified candidates, and to keep the ones you already have happy, these changes would certainly do it.
So yeah, Google dodged a bullet there. Damore's changes would certainly accomplish the goal of attracting more diverse qualified candidates. Unfortunately, Google is too attached to a patriarchal system that preys on the "bread-winner" drive of males for profitability and market dominance. If exploiting their employees wasn't such a big part of their successful business model they could easily change their business structures to make their company more attractive to women.
Google also got really lucky that there are so many "feminists" that took the "he's a sexist" bait and ran with it. If they had bothered to actually think about what he said, rather than using it as an opportunity to rant and scold, his points could have spurred a debate that may have ultimately become an important turning point in the all too silent war that has been simmering between workers and corporate America. Alas, useful idiots are available by the millions and they are always looking for an opportunity to be offended in a loud and public voice. The end result is that Google gets to maintain their antiquated, male-centric, patriarchal business structure and at the same time receive the support of women everywhere.
What a damn shame.
SCVonSteroids is absolutely correct. Racism is everywhere. Just look how white people are treated in this country by minorities.
Its not like the National Automobile Dealers Association hasn't tried to get laws changed to prevent Tesla from selling their cars. I wouldn't put it past them to arrange some shit like this.
It's not a "controlled" study. There is no "control" group. All of the participants have epilepsy.
You left out:
* Amphetamines
* Hallucinogens
* Cocaine
* An infinite series of read-headed sex partners, arranged in sequence of increasingly exquisite physical beauty.
No one seems to mention that the sample for this study has no control.
They only tested people with epilepsy.
I would like to see this repeated in a group without epilepsy, and in a group of people who self report sleeping 1-3 hours a night without experiencing sleep deprivation issues.
After that we might have something to talk about.
Why are you discussing a caricature of a "conservative snowflake" in a discussion about a liberal's heartfelt desire to make the workplace more inclusive of women?
Do you not have the intelligence to understand what Damore was writing?
If you believe in sin, then you know that all humans are sin-filled degenerates. Especially yourself, for calling out the sins of someone else when you are so riddled with it. You have a rotting and fetid black soul with no redeeming qualities, and while you wallow there in your own festering putrescence, you have the unmitigated gall to point to someone else and say "Hey, you smell bad."
Do you think your God will deal lightly with you for making a mockery of Him? He is powerful, so much so that He removed the penalties of sin for all mankind. And here you are, bringing it up, that thing that only God can remove, making an issue of it when God has told you that ALL sin is against God, not against man.
You do realize that when you judge others for what you consider sins you are, in essence, telling God that you are more important than He is. Furthermore, you are, for lack of a better analogy, shitting in Jesus's mouth while He was on the cross. He worked really hard to remove the penalty for sin, and here you are, pointing our that he didn't do a good enough job, because sin is still an issue with you, even though Jesus has said it is no longer one with Him.
If you are going to buy into the whole idea of sin, you should really consider what that means in the context of where the concept actually came from. If you don't, you end up looking like a silly self-righteous fool with no regard for the God you profess to believe in; laughable on one level, and detestable on many others.