If your "logic" tests are all about sjw principals instead of facts I can tell you that I'm happy I don't work there anyway.
You're free to believe what you want, and hire who you want, but I can tell you that projects based on sjw principals instead of facts will very quickly loose you a lot of money and a lot of business from those who just want to get work done by the best possible people and don't care what color their skin is our what their genitals look like.
Your active discrimination will not help your bottom line.
I don't know about all of those ones, but I can right of the bat prove that you have no clue what your talking about because every sect of christianity that I've ever heard of is outspoken against birth control, and abortion. If the rest of your examples are as flawed you're not doing a very good job of getting the original poster.
I'm not saying that none of them have a problem, just that a solution already exists and is already widespread. The remaining companies can easily adapt.
I don't think the statement was about any particular person who is a member of any particular faith, it was about the teachings of the faith itself. Whether or not you follow those teachings does not disprove the poster's statement.
And yet, you continue to fail to provide such an example. If it's easy to disprove it, simply do so. Most of us are quite familiar with several major religions that follow the poster's claim, however we're not necessarily aware of any that do not.
I'm not actually picking a side here, I'm just saying that your comment doesn't add anything to the discussion unless you include the example that proves the poster wrong.
Correct, as I stated, I use a reusable straw at home all the time, My concern is that restaurants won't bother, which, for me, would reduce my enjoyment of the restaurant just a bit. Sure it's probably not a deal breaker, and others have pointed out the "first world problems" aspect, but that's doesn't mean I won't be a little annoyed, even if I can understand the context.
I do not live in the US, but (non-alcoholic) drinks still generally include free refills. It does of course depend on what drink you order, however in most of the world at least water is not charged for as long as you don't order bottled water. Drinks also stop being 4C the instant they are poured as the air, and glassware in most restaurants is significantly above 4c, ice mitigates that.
I do, constantly, but it's so easy to forget, and a real pain waiting while they go re-make it. That said, I also enjoy my drinks cold, very cold, so ice is the best way to accomplish that (and most restaurants offer free refills, so the decreased liquid volume isn't a huge issue for me.)
Reusable straws exist, and there's no reason they can't use them just as they use reusable cutlery. I just don't expect they actually will.
I don't think they're thinking about kitchen utensils (of course you do rightly highlight the absurdity of anti-knife laws in that they ban pocket knives, but allow the knife used to carve the sunday roast....)
Ice. it's because the drinks are 90% ice instead of liquid, and it's annoying to drink from a glass full of ice.
I actually use a straw quite a bit at home. That said, it's not a disposable straw, it's a thick plastic that I wash and re-use.
This is the one part of the proposal that concerns me. I'm not worried that restaurants will make me eat with my fingers, I know that they'll just use reusable cutlery, but I am worried that they'll expect me to drink their 90% ice beverages without a straw rather than provide a reusable one.
Ah but this is all so easy to fix. We just need to convict more white people of murder, or not convict a some black people (regardless of if they were guilty or not), and the same in reverse for sex crimes (again, ignore any actual evidence that might indicate you're convicting the wrong person). The heart disease one is harder though, but I'm sure if we try hard enough we can "unbias" that data too!
If you are only going based on what the person did, rather than what they would statistically do, than the only algorithm you need is the judgement that was just handed down. You have determined that they have done X crime, therefore they get Y sentence.
This tool was being used to lump people together statistically as to what their likelihood was to re-offend, and it appears that it was unbiasedly accurate (just as likely to be wrong about a person's likelihood to re-offend regardless of their skin colour). The fact that it was being used to set sentencing is not related to the algorithm itself. It's related to the application of it.
Any algorithm that isn't constantly updating it's data is useless outside of a one-time use anyway. So I would hope that the algorithm would update as the situation changes, no matter what way the situation changes.
Except in reality it's probably more like an algorithm that rolls the dice 6 times, and complains that it's biased if it doesn't roll one of each of the 6 numbers. That's no bias, that's how random works.
Thing is, the real world isn't random. And the people who make these things are likely to try to fit a random pattern on to non-random data. For instance, if you have 30000 males, and 10000 females in a particular data set, and you pick a random person from that data set 500 times, you'll likely pick approximately 75% male. The "bias detection algorithm" will then tell you that your algorithm is sexist because it should have picked females 50% of the time. Your algorithm wasn't sexist, it was completely unbiased, and didn't even know the gender it was picking until after the fact. But the authors would suggest you tweak your algorithm until it picks an "unbiased" 50% female from your data set which is itself not 50/50.
These efforts are almost never true efforts to eliminate bias, but are in fact efforts to introduce a politically correct bias.
And they all have one thing in common. Political sources of the problem.
Any time you have a massive increase in population, and no increase in water source, you're going to have a shortage. This is simple economics, not climate science.
The number of children per woman is more properly the number of children per woman of child-bearing age. Therefore a number higher than 2 is to account for children who do not reach the age to have more children.
If you were to define it instead as children per female born, then yes, 2 would be the magic number (plus or minus the number required to adjust for different birth rates between the genders)
Additional adjustments may be needed to account for immigration/emigration if you are talking stable population in a specific area as opposed to on the global scale.
Of course in other parts of the world they do the opposite, and extract the salt and throw the fresh water back into the ocean. Salt is still a valuable commodity as well.
What seems far less common is a plant that does both desalination, and salt production, which you would think would be a natural fit.
Well it's a good thing nobody ever does anything illegal than. Because we all know that charging the person after the fact is 100% effective at stopping them from doing it in the first place.
I didn't say they shouldn't believe you, I said they should authenticate the information. There's a subtle difference. In this case the person claiming to be the attacker was calling from a different state than the place he claimed to be. That hole really needs to be fixed. Beyond that, authentication could mean simply having the responding cops open their eyes and ears before pulling the trigger.
If this is truly considered an appropriate police reaction, then the police need to start working to come up with a strategy to mitigate it, because this makes murder by cop extremely easy. If you want the responding officers to behave the way they did, then someone needs to come up with a better way of authenticating the information they are being provided, because the current situation is obviously not sustainable in the long term.
The difference is that the rocket industry has competition (even if not particularly good competition)
The high end, long range, electric vehicle market does not.
I honestly don't think Tesla will be able to survive if a credible competitor ever emerges, but I do hope to be proven wrong (and this isn't actually a statement about the cost of a Tesla, it's more about their abysmally low quality, their flat out lies in every aspect of their marketing, and their blatant disregard for their customers) I think the next 5-10 years will be very interesting in this space. So far Tesla has that arrogant attitude that all monopolists have. Eventually they'll either have to change that, or have some real trouble once someone else decides to actually compete with them.
In an ideal world that would be true. But what we see in reality is the worst of both worlds. It's not truly government enterprise because they outsource everything to private companies (who do need the profit margin) but it also isn't as efficient as the free market because those contracts are chosen for political reasons instead of efficiency reasons, and the requirements imposed on those companies are incredibly onerous and drive costs through the roof.
I think that you could have an efficient government enterprise (Ok, this one may be far fetched, but it should be possible), and you can have an efficient private enterprise, but I really don't think it's possible to have an efficient combination of the two.
Slashdot Mirror
If your "logic" tests are all about sjw principals instead of facts I can tell you that I'm happy I don't work there anyway.
You're free to believe what you want, and hire who you want, but I can tell you that projects based on sjw principals instead of facts will very quickly loose you a lot of money and a lot of business from those who just want to get work done by the best possible people and don't care what color their skin is our what their genitals look like.
Your active discrimination will not help your bottom line.
I don't know about all of those ones, but I can right of the bat prove that you have no clue what your talking about because every sect of christianity that I've ever heard of is outspoken against birth control, and abortion. If the rest of your examples are as flawed you're not doing a very good job of getting the original poster.
I'm not saying that none of them have a problem, just that a solution already exists and is already widespread. The remaining companies can easily adapt.
I don't think the statement was about any particular person who is a member of any particular faith, it was about the teachings of the faith itself. Whether or not you follow those teachings does not disprove the poster's statement.
And yet, you continue to fail to provide such an example. If it's easy to disprove it, simply do so. Most of us are quite familiar with several major religions that follow the poster's claim, however we're not necessarily aware of any that do not.
I'm not actually picking a side here, I'm just saying that your comment doesn't add anything to the discussion unless you include the example that proves the poster wrong.
Correct, as I stated, I use a reusable straw at home all the time, My concern is that restaurants won't bother, which, for me, would reduce my enjoyment of the restaurant just a bit. Sure it's probably not a deal breaker, and others have pointed out the "first world problems" aspect, but that's doesn't mean I won't be a little annoyed, even if I can understand the context.
I do not live in the US, but (non-alcoholic) drinks still generally include free refills. It does of course depend on what drink you order, however in most of the world at least water is not charged for as long as you don't order bottled water. Drinks also stop being 4C the instant they are poured as the air, and glassware in most restaurants is significantly above 4c, ice mitigates that.
I do, constantly, but it's so easy to forget, and a real pain waiting while they go re-make it. That said, I also enjoy my drinks cold, very cold, so ice is the best way to accomplish that (and most restaurants offer free refills, so the decreased liquid volume isn't a huge issue for me.)
Reusable straws exist, and there's no reason they can't use them just as they use reusable cutlery. I just don't expect they actually will.
I don't think they're thinking about kitchen utensils (of course you do rightly highlight the absurdity of anti-knife laws in that they ban pocket knives, but allow the knife used to carve the sunday roast....)
Most cotton tip applicators already use a cardboard stick, I don't think there's an issue here.
Ice. it's because the drinks are 90% ice instead of liquid, and it's annoying to drink from a glass full of ice.
I actually use a straw quite a bit at home. That said, it's not a disposable straw, it's a thick plastic that I wash and re-use.
This is the one part of the proposal that concerns me. I'm not worried that restaurants will make me eat with my fingers, I know that they'll just use reusable cutlery, but I am worried that they'll expect me to drink their 90% ice beverages without a straw rather than provide a reusable one.
Ah but this is all so easy to fix.
We just need to convict more white people of murder, or not convict a some black people (regardless of if they were guilty or not), and the same in reverse for sex crimes (again, ignore any actual evidence that might indicate you're convicting the wrong person). The heart disease one is harder though, but I'm sure if we try hard enough we can "unbias" that data too!
If you are only going based on what the person did, rather than what they would statistically do, than the only algorithm you need is the judgement that was just handed down. You have determined that they have done X crime, therefore they get Y sentence.
This tool was being used to lump people together statistically as to what their likelihood was to re-offend, and it appears that it was unbiasedly accurate (just as likely to be wrong about a person's likelihood to re-offend regardless of their skin colour). The fact that it was being used to set sentencing is not related to the algorithm itself. It's related to the application of it.
Your complaint isn't against the algorithm.
Any algorithm that isn't constantly updating it's data is useless outside of a one-time use anyway. So I would hope that the algorithm would update as the situation changes, no matter what way the situation changes.
Except in reality it's probably more like an algorithm that rolls the dice 6 times, and complains that it's biased if it doesn't roll one of each of the 6 numbers. That's no bias, that's how random works.
Thing is, the real world isn't random. And the people who make these things are likely to try to fit a random pattern on to non-random data. For instance, if you have 30000 males, and 10000 females in a particular data set, and you pick a random person from that data set 500 times, you'll likely pick approximately 75% male. The "bias detection algorithm" will then tell you that your algorithm is sexist because it should have picked females 50% of the time. Your algorithm wasn't sexist, it was completely unbiased, and didn't even know the gender it was picking until after the fact. But the authors would suggest you tweak your algorithm until it picks an "unbiased" 50% female from your data set which is itself not 50/50.
These efforts are almost never true efforts to eliminate bias, but are in fact efforts to introduce a politically correct bias.
And they all have one thing in common. Political sources of the problem.
Any time you have a massive increase in population, and no increase in water source, you're going to have a shortage. This is simple economics, not climate science.
The number of children per woman is more properly the number of children per woman of child-bearing age. Therefore a number higher than 2 is to account for children who do not reach the age to have more children.
If you were to define it instead as children per female born, then yes, 2 would be the magic number (plus or minus the number required to adjust for different birth rates between the genders)
Additional adjustments may be needed to account for immigration/emigration if you are talking stable population in a specific area as opposed to on the global scale.
Of course in other parts of the world they do the opposite, and extract the salt and throw the fresh water back into the ocean. Salt is still a valuable commodity as well.
What seems far less common is a plant that does both desalination, and salt production, which you would think would be a natural fit.
How helpful.... You could potentially have cited an example rather than simply state that it's "double nonsense".
Well it's a good thing nobody ever does anything illegal than. Because we all know that charging the person after the fact is 100% effective at stopping them from doing it in the first place.
Prevention is not accomplished after the fact.
I didn't say they shouldn't believe you, I said they should authenticate the information. There's a subtle difference. In this case the person claiming to be the attacker was calling from a different state than the place he claimed to be. That hole really needs to be fixed. Beyond that, authentication could mean simply having the responding cops open their eyes and ears before pulling the trigger.
If this is truly considered an appropriate police reaction, then the police need to start working to come up with a strategy to mitigate it, because this makes murder by cop extremely easy. If you want the responding officers to behave the way they did, then someone needs to come up with a better way of authenticating the information they are being provided, because the current situation is obviously not sustainable in the long term.
The difference is that the rocket industry has competition (even if not particularly good competition)
The high end, long range, electric vehicle market does not.
I honestly don't think Tesla will be able to survive if a credible competitor ever emerges, but I do hope to be proven wrong (and this isn't actually a statement about the cost of a Tesla, it's more about their abysmally low quality, their flat out lies in every aspect of their marketing, and their blatant disregard for their customers) I think the next 5-10 years will be very interesting in this space. So far Tesla has that arrogant attitude that all monopolists have. Eventually they'll either have to change that, or have some real trouble once someone else decides to actually compete with them.
In an ideal world that would be true. But what we see in reality is the worst of both worlds. It's not truly government enterprise because they outsource everything to private companies (who do need the profit margin) but it also isn't as efficient as the free market because those contracts are chosen for political reasons instead of efficiency reasons, and the requirements imposed on those companies are incredibly onerous and drive costs through the roof.
I think that you could have an efficient government enterprise (Ok, this one may be far fetched, but it should be possible), and you can have an efficient private enterprise, but I really don't think it's possible to have an efficient combination of the two.
If you can see civilization (including seeing cell towers) you aren't really "getting away from it all"