You don't need to "make a program for linux" anymore. All you need to do is "make a program that is cross-platform", and you get linux support for free. It's easier than ever to do this for most types of applications. It's arguably easier to use a cross-platform SDK (e.g. Qt), than it is to develop a native windows application.
The exceptions are applications that are coupled closely to hardware or OS specific features(e.g. games, disc burning software, etc)
Companies like microsoft could easily make their software run on linux. They might spend more time ensuring that they don't than it would take to allow them to.
The main reason for an application to not run on linux is that it is old and was developed on an old framework that doesn't support linux.
Linux is almost usable as a desktop right right now. The guy who ran the "linux sucks" presentations just had his last talk in 2017. Year after year, he'd bring up the same problems over and over, but eventually they did get fixed (albeit a lot later than promised). It's not as if every problem is currently fixed, but most have been and the few remaining have clear paths to being fixed. Or to put it another way, enough stuff has been fixed or almost fixed to no longer warrant further "linux sucks" presentations.
All that's really left is widespread integration of Wayland (and deprecation of xfree86, x.org), stable and high performance open source graphics drivers, game support.
While that's not that many things, those things are big and they are dealbreakers. I wouldn't recommend linux to a gamer now, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
That's a good thing. It will make linux more secure. (i.e. the opposite of security through obscurity). I would argue linux already gets a lot of attention from hackers, just not from people trying to hack desktops.
more rapid degradation of the operating system as it tries harder to cater to everybody.
Are you sure you're an avid linux user? Did you not notice the million different linux distributions that all cater to every possible individual? There doesn't need to be a one size fits all linux distribution that needs to cater to everyone.
Of all the problems linux has, you managed to cite 2 that it absolutely doesn't have.
I use so many Linux distros and so many UIs that I honestly don't know if I have ever used Gnome 3 or not. I think this has lead me to be ok with any UI that allows me to start my GUI apps (web browser, k3b, a terminal, etc), and all the other stuff not only doesn't matter to me, but I don't even notice it.
I can honestly say I don't know if I am typing this message to you from a web browser running on top of Gnome 3 right now. I could figure it out, but I've been using this install of centos 6.8 for half a year now, and I haven't yet.
I will admit I am not the right person to be giving my opinion on the merits of various UIs, but I am just curious if the things people hate about Gnome 3 are going to affect me or not. The things people hated about Unity (whatever they were) certainly didn't.
When you say they tried to turn your computer into a phone, what do you mean? The icons were bigger? It looked like windows metro? It had an app store?
Dell and HP do the exact same thing. They just don't change the name of windows and the "customizations" they add are bloatware and occasionally malware.
Personally I like that they change *the* name (even if I may not like *that* name), as it is a way to indicate and track what changes exist.
Me: WTF is Pop!_OS?
Internet: It's a derivative of ubuntu (which is a derivative of debian) made by System76 for the computers they sell
Me: Oh ok. That's kind of a stupid name. Oh well, now I know.
Trump attaches name to program that does something for somebody, in attempt to coverup ineptitude by throwing random shit at wall and seeing what sticks...
He couldn't cite one fact about the healthcare bill(s) he was pushing. He didn't know the difference between medicare and medicaid. He doesn't know the difference between health insurance and life insurance. He doesn't even know anything about the things he does care about, much less the things he doesn't care about. He'll still put his name on it, though.
He's not just an embarrassment to the United States. He's an embarrassment to all of humanity.
Huh? Why?.. What would the publishing of an inconclusive study have achieved?
I don't know if you are aware, but it is customary to publish inconclusive scientific studies. There is useful information in the final report, even if there is no conclusion. That's why the report exists in the first place. It probably shows things like their methodology, what data they collected, etc, and might be useful in future studies if even to avoid making some of the same mistakes. Sometimes people even go back to old "inconclusive" studies and find useful data in them after the initial flawed analysis.
Was the analysis flawed? Was the data truly inconclusive? No one would ever find out if it's not published.
And, BTW, TFA alleges attempts to "bury" the study, but offers no evidence to support the allegations...
The author released the correspondence with the European Commission trying to gain access to the document and being given the run around. Is that "burying" the report? I guess it depends on your personal definition of "burying". But it seemed pretty clear to me that they were not enthusiastic about making this report public. I don't know that I would assume the motivation is deception (e.g. maybe they are unenthusiastic about everything), but I don't think the author's allegation is ridiculous, given the evidence she has presented.
If you spent half a million dollars of public money to get get a report, you should publish it even if it was inconclusive. The question of whether piracy is harmful may not yet have a conclusion, but the question of "what was the result of the $428 million euros spent investigating the harm of piracy?" certainly has a conclusion.
The people that "work like a donkey" (not exactly sure what you meant by this, but I'll just assume it means working hard, correct me if I'm wrong) are basically people who are attaining much more than the minimum skill level guaranteed by a degree. At least this is the case if the certificate is from a reputable learning institution. What I am saying is that some people manage to get degrees without putting in the effort into learning the skills the degree tries to guarantee. This can happen for a variety of reasons (e.g. cheating). Even cheaters need to have a minimum level of proficiency to be effective cheaters, and this is the "very low skill level" I was referring to that a degree actually guarantees.
I taught myself to code too. I also went to school and earned a computer science degree. Those are not the same thing. Just like earning an electrical engineering degree is not the same as teaching yourself to solder. I think I spent a few days total in university learning the basics of 2 or 3 languages, but for the message was basically "You can learn to code on your own time. Languages die, ideas are forever." We spent most of our time drawing boxes and arrows on paper and chalk boards and writing pseudocode and math equations.
Knowing how to design software and knowing how to code are both important skills. You can teach yourself both, but one you can teach yourself in a few hours, days, weeks, and they other I think spending tens of thousands of dollars to having knowledgeable people explain it to you over the course of many years, is totally worth it.
If a degree provides an assurance of a "very low" skill level then your schools are either not very good or then they're just letting students pass courses they have no right to pass with their knowledge and skill level.
I wouldn't say a school is necessarily "not very good" if it passes incompetent people. They could do a very good job of teaching, but a very poor job of things like testing, and detecting cheating. I guess it depends on what you thing the primary job of a school is. Some might want a school's primary job to be effectively teaching people who are willing and able to learn. Some (i.e. employers) might want a school's primary job to be weeding out cheaters and incompetent people with better testing, even if it comes at the expense of lower quality of education.
A degree is supposed to guarantee an at least halfway decent skill level and a versatile foundation to build additional skills on. If a degree doesn't do this, then it's clearly not worth even the paper it's printed on.
Indeed that is what it is supposed to do. But schools are for more than just handing out degrees. I went to a school where you could get a great education if you wanted one, or you could still get a degree without getting a great education, if you were willing to put your effort into getting a degree without knowing anything (e.g. cheating). I don't know how good my university is at mitigating cheating compared with other schools, but I know they were not perfect, and some incompetent people made it through.
A degree is worth more than the paper it's printed on. It may or may not be worth the cost of tuition. It gets you a lot more interviews than you would get otherwise. That's not nothing, but it's also not everything.
A degree provides an assurance of a *very low* skill level. Some people are very highly skilled at getting degrees they definitely don't deserve.
That said, the degree is not worth very much. Ideally the knowledge gained on the road to getting that degree is very valuable. Many people don't actually retain (or never acquired) this knowledge, and therefore are not getting a good return on investment.
I don't think anybody forced anybody to do anything. I see no violations of the freedom of association. All I see is some groups of people that no longer agree to mutually associate.
"Driving things underground" can mean a lot of things. I think one connotation is synonymous with making some kind of activity illegal. Many things on the dark web are indeed illegal, but this isn't one of those things. It *could* be on the real web if there were *any* tech companies willing to associate with them (including one they create themselves). My guess is that they probably could find a host on the real web if they really tried, but going on the dark web is easier for now.
I am totally opposed to literally forcing them onto the dark web (i.e. by criminalizing the speech itself).
If some company came along and offered to host any kind of speech (no matter hoe reprehensible) in the name of free speech (e.g. EFF or someone similar, etc), I would not be opposed to that. In fact I'd probably support them. We don't need the 1st amendment for popular speech.
But I also support the rights of private organizations who do not want to make freedom of speech their priority.
And yeah, I get the difference between government suppression of speech vs private/personal/business censorship... but I didn't bring that up. Since you did, though, my view is that freedom of expression is as much a cultural construct as it is a legal one, and that they reinforce each other; therefore, both are worth defending.
I agree they are worth defending. If GoDaddy or Google had decided to (continue to) host/link to the site in the name of free speech using your argument, I would have supported that. But I think that public opinion should be used to sway Google who should have the ultimate decision, as opposed to using public opinion to sway legislators into forcing Google to do something they don't want to (either forcing them to take down the site, or publish it)
ISPs are basically utilities, and there are/should be rules that treat them as semi-public institutions. Any person may or may not have access to choices of ISPs, but in most places there are restrictions to starting your own ISP. As a private business you are not able to start digging up the streets to lay down your own fiber lines.
If network neutrality is vital to a free and open internet, then at some point *all* infrastructure services -- web hosts, DNS, SSL providers, search engines -- should be held to the same standard. If Google decided to remove your site from search results, is it reasonable to say, "just use Bing"?
Yes! it is! There is nothing sopping anybody from starting their own search engine, and lot's of people have done exactly that. Google is simply the most successful one. Google is a private business, providing a private service. They don't require any special privileges to do this (unlike ISPs).
Who gets to decide what should be excluded from your internet?
No one. Google is not "the internet". Google is part of the internet that is owned and controlled by Google.
If it's hard then it will be harder to keep tabs on them, but it will also be harder for them to get their message out to their own idiot followers. Sounds like a wash to me.
Or, using Tor is easy, in which case nothing really changes except that they have been demoted to the dark web and lose some legitimacy.
I think I would also prefer to just have people be free to say whatever they want in a public forum, but I don't support forcing private web hosting companies/domain services to participate in spreading content they are opposed to.
As far as I can tell these neo nazis still have freedom of speech for the time being. So the government can't legally stop them from being on the internet. They just need to find services that are willing to do business with them, or develop some better IT skills and set up their own domain service/web host, and they can refuse service to all the dirty Jews trying to use it.
In America you have freedom of speech. You don't have the right to anyone's help in spreading your speech.
He's basically saying "diversity" candidates are dumber without giving any proof.
He is saying that. I don't think it is that much of a stretch to say that lower standards will lead to lower results. Is that proof? No, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable hypothesis. Students at community college aren't as strong as students from Ivy league schools. This is basically a result of their higher admissions requirements. If they lowered requirements for white men, they would get dumber white men.
Does Google actually lower requirements for women and minorities? I don't know. If Google doesn't, then showing this assumption to be false would be a good way to refute his conclusions.
He's also implying that some of his colleagues are there in Google because of lower standards and not merit.
Seems like a pretty logical conclusion based on his premise. A pro-diversity argument would be that the benefits of diversity outweigh the disadvantages of having minor deficit in proficiency.
If that is not anti-diversity, what is?
Well for one thing, you could say "Diversity is bad for social cohesion. Teams are more efficient and successful if the individuals that comprise them are homogeneous. Studies show that homogeneous groups have more empathy for each other. Etc" I'm not even presenting these as inherently bad arguments.
I think a very good case can be made for homogeneity. I think the author of the memo is right that the diversity of ideology is more significant than the superficial diversity of skin color. But maybe that's what makes diversity of skin color so easy for a team to overcome. Maybe diversity of ideology is not a viable model for a team. Maybe the Google team works better if everyone holds a progressive ideology.
Unless he produces statistical proof that this is the case at Google, then this is an anti-diversity opinion.
That's not true either. You can still be right even with no proof. You can also be wrong and not still not be anti-diversity.
An American general with a completely terrible idea for defeating ISIS that would just get a bunch of US soldiers killed is not pro-ISIS or anti-American. He/she is just wrong.
Which is why I don't understand the rationale for lying about it. The lie is transparent for all to see.
Women are more neurotic and male gender roles are inflexible in the same list about ways to reduce the gender discrimination.
I didn't say the memo wasn't sexist. I said it wasn't anti-diversity. You can be both sexist and pro-diversity. In fact, being a sexist affords some opportunities to be even more pro-diversity than someone who does not believe in as many innate gender differences, if the sexist welcomes these differences.
Then there is a huge dose of semi-political rants like PC-authoritarians, alienating conservatives etc.
There sure is
There is even a footnote that says, "men are judged on status and women on beauty" for why women do not go for leadership positions as only men seek status.
I have actually heard many feminists say nearly the exact same thing, though they would probably attribute the causes of this observation to the patriarchy rather than biology
The memo is a terrible rant in a PDF. It makes it look like those scientific papers. If it was in e-mail text format, everyone would think it is a sexist rant.
I thought it was a sexist rant even in it's fancy pdf format.
Now, all we need is a biological racial differences memo. Feel like all this heading to saying white males are biologically superior.
He actually seemed to be saying the exact opposite of this. He was criticizing the existing diversity metrics for focusing only on superficial diversity like race (i.e. implying he did not believe there are any non-superficial differences in race).
I am not criticizing the critics of this memo as a conservative who is on the same team as the memo writer. I am criticizing the people on my own team who I do not think are playing the game fairly, and I think it is destroying our reputation as honest players.
The left for my entire adult life has had a near monopoly on intellectual honesty. The right basically decided they didn't want to play the game of intellectual honesty. They decided lying, and pretending to be intellectually honest, was a better strategy to winning. Now part of the right has gone one step further and decided that they don't even need to pretend to be honest anymore. I am disappointed that the left, rather than taking this opportunity to be a shining alternative counter-example, seems to have decided to try to beat the right at their own game and race to the bottom.
I hope this is not a sign of a lasting trend, and people on the left eventually come to their senses.
He even starts with "I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity", the typical "I'm not racist but..."
How do *you* frame a statement that you think is true, but you think might be misinterpreted?
The harm of Google's biases: A high priority queue and special treatment of "diversity" candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative ratio...
Disagreeing with the method by which Google is trying to achieve diversity is not anti-diversity. Offering alternate methods of achieving diversity (even if they turn out not to work) is not anti-diversity.
According to ISIS they are a country (i.e. an islamic state). We don't recognize their statehood, but it seems a little too convenient to deny a country's right to nuclear weapons by simply refusing to recognize their statehood.
Sure nobody should have nuclear weapons. But as long as the US has them, you support ISIS also having them? I don't think they have the technology to create them, but they can just buy them, from north korea perhaps.
Really? And what if the author is actually incredibly anti-diversity, and the memo were carefully designed to be a trojan horse to normalize views that naturally lead to less diversity, would it still be intellectually dishonest to call the memo anti-diversity?
Yes. For a few reasons. In the theoretical, a claim's merit is not dependent on who presented it or why. In a practical sense, you don't know what their true intentions are anyway.
I think in that case, calling it anti-diversity would be the MOST intellectually honest description in under 10 words. You'd be accurately describing the nature and roll of the memo as a cultural artefact. (even though that intellectually honest description doesn't jibe with the face-value text).
I don't get the arbitrary 10 word limit. But "Memo with misogynist subtext" is only 4 words. Maybe there are some situations where you just don't have enough words to honestly convey the objective truth as best as you can in the length limit of a headline. But I don't think that's what is going on here.
I'm not sure what are the goalposts here. Is the memo's cultural role more or less important than the face-value of its words?
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. It's not hard to do both. Omitting certain important facts is intellectually dishonest even if those facts are less important than other facts you did not omit. And I would say that the intent of the author and the cultural role are arguably not even "facts" as they are undoubtedly more subjective in nature than what is literally written. That's not to say that they are not important.
If you believe the cultural role is more important, then you'd pick a description that fits your understanding of that. If the face value of its words is more important, you'd pick a description that fits your understanding of that.
I don't know how this discussion shifted to be about only the title of a hypothetical article, but I was referring to people presenting their sense of the subtext and intent someone else's claims as if it were literally presented that way.
When Breitbart describes it as a "manifesto defending viewpoint diversity" they've got a description that represents some fraction of the words, somewhere between 0 and 100% of the subtext, and half of its received cultural role. When Slate describes it as an "anti-diversity memo" they've got a description that represents none of the words, somewhere between 0 and 100% of the subtext, and the other half of its received cultural role
No-one is precluded them from making it clear in the actual article that the text of the memo is not anti-diversity. I am not talking about just the headline. If this were the trojan horse memo example, and breitbart knowingly presents it as a pro-diversity memo, that is also intellectual dishonesty even if it is literally accurate.
I think your "subtext as text" criticism presumes that headline writers should pick a description that matches the face value of the words.
My criticism is not about headlines. It is about people presenting this article as anti-diversity without mentioning anywhere in the body of their statement that the text itself is not anti-diversity, but rather the subtext.
Here is my point. If you feel that the subtext, or the intent, or the "cultural role" of the memo is anti-diversity, then say that. Omitting this and simply referring to it as a anti-diversity memo, and allowing me to infer that the literal contents of the memo were anti-diversity, is intellectually dishonest, even if the I would have hypothetically come to that conclusion anyway.
And I should point out that I want to hear reasonable an legitimate criticisms of this memo. The fact that so many seem unwilling to criticize this memo on it's merit is very troubling to me. I don't want to see the left resorting to winning argu
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to "make a program for linux" anymore. All you need to do is "make a program that is cross-platform", and you get linux support for free. It's easier than ever to do this for most types of applications. It's arguably easier to use a cross-platform SDK (e.g. Qt), than it is to develop a native windows application.
The exceptions are applications that are coupled closely to hardware or OS specific features(e.g. games, disc burning software, etc)
Companies like microsoft could easily make their software run on linux. They might spend more time ensuring that they don't than it would take to allow them to.
The main reason for an application to not run on linux is that it is old and was developed on an old framework that doesn't support linux.
Linux is almost usable as a desktop right right now. The guy who ran the "linux sucks" presentations just had his last talk in 2017. Year after year, he'd bring up the same problems over and over, but eventually they did get fixed (albeit a lot later than promised). It's not as if every problem is currently fixed, but most have been and the few remaining have clear paths to being fixed. Or to put it another way, enough stuff has been fixed or almost fixed to no longer warrant further "linux sucks" presentations.
All that's really left is widespread integration of Wayland (and deprecation of xfree86, x.org), stable and high performance open source graphics drivers, game support.
While that's not that many things, those things are big and they are dealbreakers. I wouldn't recommend linux to a gamer now, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
"Linux Sucks... For the Last Time" - 2017
more attention from hackers,
That's a good thing. It will make linux more secure. (i.e. the opposite of security through obscurity). I would argue linux already gets a lot of attention from hackers, just not from people trying to hack desktops.
more rapid degradation of the operating system as it tries harder to cater to everybody.
Are you sure you're an avid linux user? Did you not notice the million different linux distributions that all cater to every possible individual? There doesn't need to be a one size fits all linux distribution that needs to cater to everyone.
Of all the problems linux has, you managed to cite 2 that it absolutely doesn't have.
I use so many Linux distros and so many UIs that I honestly don't know if I have ever used Gnome 3 or not. I think this has lead me to be ok with any UI that allows me to start my GUI apps (web browser, k3b, a terminal, etc), and all the other stuff not only doesn't matter to me, but I don't even notice it.
I can honestly say I don't know if I am typing this message to you from a web browser running on top of Gnome 3 right now. I could figure it out, but I've been using this install of centos 6.8 for half a year now, and I haven't yet.
I will admit I am not the right person to be giving my opinion on the merits of various UIs, but I am just curious if the things people hate about Gnome 3 are going to affect me or not. The things people hated about Unity (whatever they were) certainly didn't.
When you say they tried to turn your computer into a phone, what do you mean? The icons were bigger? It looked like windows metro? It had an app store?
Dell and HP do the exact same thing. They just don't change the name of windows and the "customizations" they add are bloatware and occasionally malware.
Personally I like that they change *the* name (even if I may not like *that* name), as it is a way to indicate and track what changes exist.
Me: WTF is Pop!_OS?
Internet: It's a derivative of ubuntu (which is a derivative of debian) made by System76 for the computers they sell
Me: Oh ok. That's kind of a stupid name. Oh well, now I know.
What's wrong with gnome 3?
Trump attaches name to program that does something for somebody, in attempt to coverup ineptitude by throwing random shit at wall and seeing what sticks...
He couldn't cite one fact about the healthcare bill(s) he was pushing. He didn't know the difference between medicare and medicaid. He doesn't know the difference between health insurance and life insurance. He doesn't even know anything about the things he does care about, much less the things he doesn't care about. He'll still put his name on it, though.
He's not just an embarrassment to the United States. He's an embarrassment to all of humanity.
Huh? Why?.. What would the publishing of an inconclusive study have achieved?
I don't know if you are aware, but it is customary to publish inconclusive scientific studies. There is useful information in the final report, even if there is no conclusion. That's why the report exists in the first place. It probably shows things like their methodology, what data they collected, etc, and might be useful in future studies if even to avoid making some of the same mistakes. Sometimes people even go back to old "inconclusive" studies and find useful data in them after the initial flawed analysis.
Was the analysis flawed? Was the data truly inconclusive? No one would ever find out if it's not published.
And, BTW, TFA alleges attempts to "bury" the study, but offers no evidence to support the allegations...
The author released the correspondence with the European Commission trying to gain access to the document and being given the run around. Is that "burying" the report? I guess it depends on your personal definition of "burying". But it seemed pretty clear to me that they were not enthusiastic about making this report public. I don't know that I would assume the motivation is deception (e.g. maybe they are unenthusiastic about everything), but I don't think the author's allegation is ridiculous, given the evidence she has presented.
If you spent half a million dollars of public money to get get a report, you should publish it even if it was inconclusive. The question of whether piracy is harmful may not yet have a conclusion, but the question of "what was the result of the $428 million euros spent investigating the harm of piracy?" certainly has a conclusion.
The people that "work like a donkey" (not exactly sure what you meant by this, but I'll just assume it means working hard, correct me if I'm wrong) are basically people who are attaining much more than the minimum skill level guaranteed by a degree. At least this is the case if the certificate is from a reputable learning institution. What I am saying is that some people manage to get degrees without putting in the effort into learning the skills the degree tries to guarantee. This can happen for a variety of reasons (e.g. cheating). Even cheaters need to have a minimum level of proficiency to be effective cheaters, and this is the "very low skill level" I was referring to that a degree actually guarantees.
I taught myself to code too. I also went to school and earned a computer science degree. Those are not the same thing. Just like earning an electrical engineering degree is not the same as teaching yourself to solder. I think I spent a few days total in university learning the basics of 2 or 3 languages, but for the message was basically "You can learn to code on your own time. Languages die, ideas are forever." We spent most of our time drawing boxes and arrows on paper and chalk boards and writing pseudocode and math equations.
Knowing how to design software and knowing how to code are both important skills. You can teach yourself both, but one you can teach yourself in a few hours, days, weeks, and they other I think spending tens of thousands of dollars to having knowledgeable people explain it to you over the course of many years, is totally worth it.
I'm counting "ability to learn complex skills" as a skill.
If a degree provides an assurance of a "very low" skill level then your schools are either not very good or then they're just letting students pass courses they have no right to pass with their knowledge and skill level.
I wouldn't say a school is necessarily "not very good" if it passes incompetent people. They could do a very good job of teaching, but a very poor job of things like testing, and detecting cheating. I guess it depends on what you thing the primary job of a school is. Some might want a school's primary job to be effectively teaching people who are willing and able to learn. Some (i.e. employers) might want a school's primary job to be weeding out cheaters and incompetent people with better testing, even if it comes at the expense of lower quality of education.
A degree is supposed to guarantee an at least halfway decent skill level and a versatile foundation to build additional skills on. If a degree doesn't do this, then it's clearly not worth even the paper it's printed on.
Indeed that is what it is supposed to do. But schools are for more than just handing out degrees. I went to a school where you could get a great education if you wanted one, or you could still get a degree without getting a great education, if you were willing to put your effort into getting a degree without knowing anything (e.g. cheating). I don't know how good my university is at mitigating cheating compared with other schools, but I know they were not perfect, and some incompetent people made it through.
A degree is worth more than the paper it's printed on. It may or may not be worth the cost of tuition. It gets you a lot more interviews than you would get otherwise. That's not nothing, but it's also not everything.
A degree provides an assurance of a *very low* skill level. Some people are very highly skilled at getting degrees they definitely don't deserve.
That said, the degree is not worth very much. Ideally the knowledge gained on the road to getting that degree is very valuable. Many people don't actually retain (or never acquired) this knowledge, and therefore are not getting a good return on investment.
First of all being an X major is not the same as completing a degree in X.
Secondly completing a degree in X at some shitty for-profit scam school is not the same as completing a degree in X at a reputable university.
Thirdly, what do you think computer science is? I'll give you a hint, it's not coding for the same reason electrical engineering isn't soldering.
This is going to be hilarious.
I don't think anybody forced anybody to do anything. I see no violations of the freedom of association. All I see is some groups of people that no longer agree to mutually associate.
"Driving things underground" can mean a lot of things. I think one connotation is synonymous with making some kind of activity illegal. Many things on the dark web are indeed illegal, but this isn't one of those things. It *could* be on the real web if there were *any* tech companies willing to associate with them (including one they create themselves). My guess is that they probably could find a host on the real web if they really tried, but going on the dark web is easier for now.
I am totally opposed to literally forcing them onto the dark web (i.e. by criminalizing the speech itself).
If some company came along and offered to host any kind of speech (no matter hoe reprehensible) in the name of free speech (e.g. EFF or someone similar, etc), I would not be opposed to that. In fact I'd probably support them. We don't need the 1st amendment for popular speech.
But I also support the rights of private organizations who do not want to make freedom of speech their priority.
And yeah, I get the difference between government suppression of speech vs private/personal/business censorship... but I didn't bring that up. Since you did, though, my view is that freedom of expression is as much a cultural construct as it is a legal one, and that they reinforce each other; therefore, both are worth defending.
I agree they are worth defending. If GoDaddy or Google had decided to (continue to) host/link to the site in the name of free speech using your argument, I would have supported that. But I think that public opinion should be used to sway Google who should have the ultimate decision, as opposed to using public opinion to sway legislators into forcing Google to do something they don't want to (either forcing them to take down the site, or publish it)
I think it is both. The 2 scenarios I presented are 2 extremes on a continuum.
Unless it's Verizon, Comcast, Charter, or AT&T?
ISPs are basically utilities, and there are/should be rules that treat them as semi-public institutions. Any person may or may not have access to choices of ISPs, but in most places there are restrictions to starting your own ISP. As a private business you are not able to start digging up the streets to lay down your own fiber lines.
If network neutrality is vital to a free and open internet, then at some point *all* infrastructure services -- web hosts, DNS, SSL providers, search engines -- should be held to the same standard. If Google decided to remove your site from search results, is it reasonable to say, "just use Bing"?
Yes! it is! There is nothing sopping anybody from starting their own search engine, and lot's of people have done exactly that. Google is simply the most successful one. Google is a private business, providing a private service. They don't require any special privileges to do this (unlike ISPs).
Who gets to decide what should be excluded from your internet?
No one. Google is not "the internet". Google is part of the internet that is owned and controlled by Google.
Either it's hard to use Tor or it isn't.
If it's hard then it will be harder to keep tabs on them, but it will also be harder for them to get their message out to their own idiot followers. Sounds like a wash to me.
Or, using Tor is easy, in which case nothing really changes except that they have been demoted to the dark web and lose some legitimacy.
I think I would also prefer to just have people be free to say whatever they want in a public forum, but I don't support forcing private web hosting companies/domain services to participate in spreading content they are opposed to.
As far as I can tell these neo nazis still have freedom of speech for the time being. So the government can't legally stop them from being on the internet. They just need to find services that are willing to do business with them, or develop some better IT skills and set up their own domain service/web host, and they can refuse service to all the dirty Jews trying to use it.
In America you have freedom of speech. You don't have the right to anyone's help in spreading your speech.
yep that's the one. Thanks for filling in my citation for me.
He's basically saying "diversity" candidates are dumber without giving any proof.
He is saying that. I don't think it is that much of a stretch to say that lower standards will lead to lower results. Is that proof? No, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable hypothesis. Students at community college aren't as strong as students from Ivy league schools. This is basically a result of their higher admissions requirements. If they lowered requirements for white men, they would get dumber white men.
Does Google actually lower requirements for women and minorities? I don't know. If Google doesn't, then showing this assumption to be false would be a good way to refute his conclusions.
He's also implying that some of his colleagues are there in Google because of lower standards and not merit.
Seems like a pretty logical conclusion based on his premise. A pro-diversity argument would be that the benefits of diversity outweigh the disadvantages of having minor deficit in proficiency.
If that is not anti-diversity, what is?
Well for one thing, you could say "Diversity is bad for social cohesion. Teams are more efficient and successful if the individuals that comprise them are homogeneous. Studies show that homogeneous groups have more empathy for each other. Etc" I'm not even presenting these as inherently bad arguments.
I think a very good case can be made for homogeneity. I think the author of the memo is right that the diversity of ideology is more significant than the superficial diversity of skin color. But maybe that's what makes diversity of skin color so easy for a team to overcome. Maybe diversity of ideology is not a viable model for a team. Maybe the Google team works better if everyone holds a progressive ideology.
Unless he produces statistical proof that this is the case at Google, then this is an anti-diversity opinion.
That's not true either. You can still be right even with no proof. You can also be wrong and not still not be anti-diversity.
An American general with a completely terrible idea for defeating ISIS that would just get a bunch of US soldiers killed is not pro-ISIS or anti-American. He/she is just wrong.
What? That memo is all over the place.
Which is why I don't understand the rationale for lying about it. The lie is transparent for all to see.
Women are more neurotic and male gender roles are inflexible in the same list about ways to reduce the gender discrimination.
I didn't say the memo wasn't sexist. I said it wasn't anti-diversity. You can be both sexist and pro-diversity. In fact, being a sexist affords some opportunities to be even more pro-diversity than someone who does not believe in as many innate gender differences, if the sexist welcomes these differences.
Then there is a huge dose of semi-political rants like PC-authoritarians, alienating conservatives etc.
There sure is
There is even a footnote that says, "men are judged on status and women on beauty" for why women do not go for leadership positions as only men seek status.
I have actually heard many feminists say nearly the exact same thing, though they would probably attribute the causes of this observation to the patriarchy rather than biology
The memo is a terrible rant in a PDF. It makes it look like those scientific papers. If it was in e-mail text format, everyone would think it is a sexist rant.
I thought it was a sexist rant even in it's fancy pdf format.
Now, all we need is a biological racial differences memo. Feel like all this heading to saying white males are biologically superior.
He actually seemed to be saying the exact opposite of this. He was criticizing the existing diversity metrics for focusing only on superficial diversity like race (i.e. implying he did not believe there are any non-superficial differences in race).
I am not criticizing the critics of this memo as a conservative who is on the same team as the memo writer. I am criticizing the people on my own team who I do not think are playing the game fairly, and I think it is destroying our reputation as honest players.
The left for my entire adult life has had a near monopoly on intellectual honesty. The right basically decided they didn't want to play the game of intellectual honesty. They decided lying, and pretending to be intellectually honest, was a better strategy to winning. Now part of the right has gone one step further and decided that they don't even need to pretend to be honest anymore. I am disappointed that the left, rather than taking this opportunity to be a shining alternative counter-example, seems to have decided to try to beat the right at their own game and race to the bottom.
I hope this is not a sign of a lasting trend, and people on the left eventually come to their senses.
Read the memo.
I did, in it's entirety
He even starts with "I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity", the typical "I'm not racist but ..."
How do *you* frame a statement that you think is true, but you think might be misinterpreted?
The harm of Google's biases: A high priority queue and special treatment of "diversity" candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative ratio ...
Disagreeing with the method by which Google is trying to achieve diversity is not anti-diversity. Offering alternate methods of achieving diversity (even if they turn out not to work) is not anti-diversity.
According to ISIS they are a country (i.e. an islamic state). We don't recognize their statehood, but it seems a little too convenient to deny a country's right to nuclear weapons by simply refusing to recognize their statehood.
Sure nobody should have nuclear weapons. But as long as the US has them, you support ISIS also having them? I don't think they have the technology to create them, but they can just buy them, from north korea perhaps.
Really? And what if the author is actually incredibly anti-diversity, and the memo were carefully designed to be a trojan horse to normalize views that naturally lead to less diversity, would it still be intellectually dishonest to call the memo anti-diversity?
Yes. For a few reasons. In the theoretical, a claim's merit is not dependent on who presented it or why. In a practical sense, you don't know what their true intentions are anyway.
I think in that case, calling it anti-diversity would be the MOST intellectually honest description in under 10 words. You'd be accurately describing the nature and roll of the memo as a cultural artefact. (even though that intellectually honest description doesn't jibe with the face-value text).
I don't get the arbitrary 10 word limit. But "Memo with misogynist subtext" is only 4 words. Maybe there are some situations where you just don't have enough words to honestly convey the objective truth as best as you can in the length limit of a headline. But I don't think that's what is going on here.
I'm not sure what are the goalposts here. Is the memo's cultural role more or less important than the face-value of its words?
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. It's not hard to do both. Omitting certain important facts is intellectually dishonest even if those facts are less important than other facts you did not omit. And I would say that the intent of the author and the cultural role are arguably not even "facts" as they are undoubtedly more subjective in nature than what is literally written. That's not to say that they are not important.
If you believe the cultural role is more important, then you'd pick a description that fits your understanding of that. If the face value of its words is more important, you'd pick a description that fits your understanding of that.
I don't know how this discussion shifted to be about only the title of a hypothetical article, but I was referring to people presenting their sense of the subtext and intent someone else's claims as if it were literally presented that way.
When Breitbart describes it as a "manifesto defending viewpoint diversity" they've got a description that represents some fraction of the words, somewhere between 0 and 100% of the subtext, and half of its received cultural role. When Slate describes it as an "anti-diversity memo" they've got a description that represents none of the words, somewhere between 0 and 100% of the subtext, and the other half of its received cultural role
No-one is precluded them from making it clear in the actual article that the text of the memo is not anti-diversity. I am not talking about just the headline. If this were the trojan horse memo example, and breitbart knowingly presents it as a pro-diversity memo, that is also intellectual dishonesty even if it is literally accurate.
I think your "subtext as text" criticism presumes that headline writers should pick a description that matches the face value of the words.
My criticism is not about headlines. It is about people presenting this article as anti-diversity without mentioning anywhere in the body of their statement that the text itself is not anti-diversity, but rather the subtext.
Here is my point. If you feel that the subtext, or the intent, or the "cultural role" of the memo is anti-diversity, then say that. Omitting this and simply referring to it as a anti-diversity memo, and allowing me to infer that the literal contents of the memo were anti-diversity, is intellectually dishonest, even if the I would have hypothetically come to that conclusion anyway.
And I should point out that I want to hear reasonable an legitimate criticisms of this memo. The fact that so many seem unwilling to criticize this memo on it's merit is very troubling to me. I don't want to see the left resorting to winning argu