The other original article in Entertainment Weekly blurts it out thusly: "the production has been searching for a diverse female lead for months". Because "diverse" means "non-white" apparently.
"She was talking to one of the HR types and they felt the need to inform her [...] that some of the older engineers sometimes said things like, "Women don't belong in programming.""
It sounds like HR was part of the problem here, propagating rumours.
How strange, I wonder why they chose 1985 as the starting point for their analysis. It couldn't possibly be cherry-picking for a local minimum, could it?
smug collectivists yell "the government will save us!" with the glowing "success" of anti-spam "laws" ignored and unintended consequences safely unimagined they can save the world, if we'd only let them
"pretty much destroyed the traditional black family"
But I wasn't asking about the statistical average concept of the black family. I was asking about the particular black families that a GGGP suggested were doing fine (in the all-american hard-working nuclear sense) before the 1960s. (It would not surprise me that the formation of -new- families would be impacted by social upheaval etc.)
Would you count "good parenting" or "being taught hard-work american values" or "not being a single-parent family" as the sort of unfair advantage that you would complain about as being a racist/sexist unequal-outcome phenomenon?
"The time window to turn this around has ended. Climate change is inevitable now. "
Excellent! It must therefore be easy to give 100%-probability predictions about terrifying climate conditions in the not-too-far future! Come, let us have some.
Slashdot Mirror
"Having used the NHS in the UK, and the US medical system, I can unequivocally say ..."
Who cares, anecdote dude.
They're just rubbing salt into the wound.
Analysis of a mass of written work for duplicateness is a dumb little initialization task compared to that of analysis for content.
" What the relevant parts of the scientific community are still haggling about is:"
Those points being the actual meaningful aspects of this controversy, it sounds like an admission that the science is just not yet settled.
"But they wanted to push the envelope and find some real diversity."
In the mean time, and due to their politics, their opportunity will have mailed.
The other original article in Entertainment Weekly blurts it out thusly: "the production has been searching for a diverse female lead for months". Because "diverse" means "non-white" apparently.
"that treating everyone with some amount of respect"
motte & bailey, nice try pal
"She was talking to one of the HR types and they felt the need to inform her [...] that some of the older engineers sometimes said things like, "Women don't belong in programming.""
It sounds like HR was part of the problem here, propagating rumours.
"There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault."
That may be, but those are my personal favorites!!!
From the TFA: "Maybe in a century, theyâ(TM)re going to start to melt out."
Whoa, now there is a real crisis. MAYBE in a CENTURY there will start to be problems! Act now, save no expense!!!!
"LOL, you think companies pay their fair share of taxes on profits!"
LOL, you think "fair share" has any meaning whatsoever!
Even if walking correlates with longer life,
more walking will not necessarily cause longer life.
How strange, I wonder why they chose 1985 as the starting point for their analysis. It couldn't possibly be cherry-picking for a local minimum, could it?
we need license plate & facial recognition monitoring of abortion clinics too
That's fine, and good for you (I mean it!). It's just off topic.
your red herring is tasty and fresh
smug collectivists yell "the government will save us!"
with the glowing "success" of anti-spam "laws" ignored
and unintended consequences safely unimagined
they can save the world, if we'd only let them
"pretty much destroyed the traditional black family"
But I wasn't asking about the statistical average concept of the black family. I was asking about the particular black families that a GGGP suggested were doing fine (in the all-american hard-working nuclear sense) before the 1960s. (It would not surprise me that the formation of -new- families would be impacted by social upheaval etc.)
> Before the 1960s, many more Black families also fit that description than now
What happened to them & their descendants? Or are you suggesting that the 1960s broke up all-american hard-working black nuclear families?
Would you count "good parenting" or "being taught hard-work american values" or "not being a single-parent family" as the sort of unfair advantage that you would complain about as being a racist/sexist unequal-outcome phenomenon?
POE ALERT
"It's a national embarrassment"
This Canadian disagrees, and would find a massive federal make-work project for this a national embarrassment.
If that "say" consists of "you pay for my vanity project", people should let them have that say, then laugh at them. A lot.
Missing the "terrifying" part.
"The time window to turn this around has ended. Climate change is inevitable now. "
Excellent! It must therefore be easy to give 100%-probability predictions about terrifying climate conditions in the not-too-far future! Come, let us have some.