No, I don't think I'm maliciously twisting it at all. The disclaimer (if that's what it is) which you quote above does not explain away his completely unsubstantiated assertion that women as a class tend more toward neurosis than men as a class.
I think you're confusing two things. Neuroatypical people with a social deficit and people who are smart. If you are having trouble dealing with society it's because you have a deficit, not because you are smarter than everyone else. Lots of people who have social deficits are also smart in other ways, but not all of them.
I am, by the way, allso neuroatypical. Mostly motor coordination issues. It took a really long time before I could speak clearly, and I still walk on my toes sometimes.
I am not taking the time to give you an exhaustive list, but the part where he attributes "neuroticism" to women as a class over men as a class is off the wall. What he sees as neuroticism is probably the way his own presentation effects other people.
I'm not going to waste my time writing an exhaustive list for you, but attributing that "neuroticism" is a trait of women as a group, more than of men as a group, is off the wall.
I have a daughter in college (a big one you would recognize) and the morning after the election, one of her professors proactively cancelled a midterm that was scheduled for that afternoon, specifically because Trump won and he expected many of the students would be distraught.
During my annual physical, when my doctor did a check for depression, he specifically asked about depression due to "external circumstances" and it was clear what he was asking about. He must have spoken to a lot of people who were depressed about just that. Sure, his office is in Oakland, but it's still interesting that it became medically significant like a sort of epidemic.
Had I decided to quit and go home, what good would that have done?
Mass sick-outs are often politically effective within organizations. It sounds like this one may have been. Did the CEO cut short his vaction only because of the press? Or was internal strife significant?
You did have the choice to be a vocal enemy of prejudice, highlighting your own situation and the perpetrators. Some people do, often sacrificing other opportunities (up to and including staying in their jobs) and those who follow and would have been subject to the same prejudice often benefit from their sacrifice.
It seems to me that "shut up and soldier" can't always be the response, lest we make little social progress. Maybe you were too severe in your judgement of those folks?
I am sorry for the way your parents suffered. Had we developed a better social conscience and understanding of ethnic discrimination before you parents immigrated, they might have been treated more fairly.
Having surmounted that sort of discrimination, it's not a fair expectation for you to demand that everyone else go through the same.
You have a right to be bothered when the discrimination is regarding you and your wife, and you have a right to be bothered on behalf of others who are discriminated against.
Oh, I think people have the freedom to believe in whatever they want. It's when they impose that belief on others that there's a problem. Usually unrelated people, but your own family deserves protection from you when it's something like FGM or the belief (Leviticus 20:10 in the Judeo-Christian bible) that an adulterer should be put to death.
I agree that he was outed. But once he was outed, it became very distracting from the organization's message.
No, I have not donated to organizations that seek to limit anyone's religious freedom. I have, however, donated to organizations that work against religiously-motivated discrimination. If you think you have a right to deny services to gay people just because they are gay, yes, they are working against that.
If there was someone in a management role at a public benefit non-profit who had made it publicly clear that he didn't like Semites (I'm one) or Secular Humanists (that too), I would feel uncomfortable about having him in that role and I would probably not donate to, or work with, the organization.
In general, I recommend that visible top organizational managers don't distract from the organization's message, and that the organization itself must stay on-message. When the message is against a class of human beings, it's really difficult for any well-run organization to tolerate.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your employer is obligated to give you a podium. In general, so that everyone can get along I'd rather not know that my co-worker is a bigot or a Trump supporter, etc.
Had this fellow made his posting outside of his employment, things would have been different. But he chose to do it at work, and because of the way Google's merit system works (your co-workers grade you), he marked himself as someone who would not fairly grade women co-workers. This so demoralized a lot of his women co-workers that many stayed home from work on Monday. And the CEO called off a family vacation in order to come back and deal with the fallout.
There are a lot of people who short-sold Tesla and are going to lose big money if they can't drive the stock down. So, you're going to see a lot of propoganda. I would not be surprised if they were prompting the attempts at unionization and creating whatever other bad news they could.
If you look at California's highways during commute time, there's no question that there is enough density to support railroads. A lot of people who can, drive to their local station. Most of us do not have any usable railroad across their commute. For example, the BART system hasn't yet reached San Jose.
There's a book about him with the title "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York". It's persuasive that he was more than just a bureaucrat.
In the last century, a short-sighted if not outright evil power broker by the name of Robert Moses, never elected to any post, directly planned the transport system of New York city and the state around it, and vastly influenced the planning of other cities.
One of Mr. Moses' nasty feats was to specify that all of the parkway bridges be built so low that it would be impossible to run trains under them, even though many were built with broad center islands.
I grew up in one of the towns under his thumb. We literally had a 100-year-old railroad system that only went to one station for 3 large communities, with 100-year-old bridges, etc. No new train construction since New York's subways in the '30's and '40's, but lots of new roads for cars.
America's cities still suffer under the dead hand of Robert Moses and people like him, who actively wiped out our railroads, never considering the problems automobiles would bring.
Elon Musk's hyperloop is not the solution for this. The speed, confinement, and vacuum are obvious problems that make it more of a bomb than a train. But conventional high-speed rail transport is the solution.
Most americans never spend time in Europe and learn about really good trains. Try Switzerland and you won't understand why people even want cars.
If we couldn't outsource their jobs (and actually get them done, which is a problem with outsourcing) and we couldn't import cheap labor from overseas, we'd have to pay programmers over $200K/year. And that would be terrible, because
Most of the elected representatives are my age or older. I went to school with kids who had been injured by thalidomide (hi Anthony, wherever you are!) They are going to be very careful about pharma.
And yes, the pharma companies have the best government they could buy, I can't deny that either.
I am fine with drug imports if they are what they say they are, and are made with compliance to health-based standards. But somebody has to audit all of them. There is no shortage of quacks and thieves.
You mean it's available overseas for that price. Yes, we just have to make sure the makers are really making what they say they are, and that their factories comply with health-related standards.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't think I'm maliciously twisting it at all. The disclaimer (if that's what it is) which you quote above does not explain away his completely unsubstantiated assertion that women as a class tend more toward neurosis than men as a class.
I think you're confusing two things. Neuroatypical people with a social deficit and people who are smart. If you are having trouble dealing with society it's because you have a deficit, not because you are smarter than everyone else. Lots of people who have social deficits are also smart in other ways, but not all of them.
I am, by the way, allso neuroatypical. Mostly motor coordination issues. It took a really long time before I could speak clearly, and I still walk on my toes sometimes.
I am not taking the time to give you an exhaustive list, but the part where he attributes "neuroticism" to women as a class over men as a class is off the wall. What he sees as neuroticism is probably the way his own presentation effects other people.
World War II vets are vets mostly because they sailed across the Atlantic and killed the Nazis.
I'm not going to waste my time writing an exhaustive list for you, but attributing that "neuroticism" is a trait of women as a group, more than of men as a group, is off the wall.
Go tell the Spartans, oh stranger passing by.
That here, obedient to their laws, we died.
During my annual physical, when my doctor did a check for depression, he specifically asked about depression due to "external circumstances" and it was clear what he was asking about. He must have spoken to a lot of people who were depressed about just that. Sure, his office is in Oakland, but it's still interesting that it became medically significant like a sort of epidemic.
Mass sick-outs are often politically effective within organizations. It sounds like this one may have been. Did the CEO cut short his vaction only because of the press? Or was internal strife significant?
You did have the choice to be a vocal enemy of prejudice, highlighting your own situation and the perpetrators. Some people do, often sacrificing other opportunities (up to and including staying in their jobs) and those who follow and would have been subject to the same prejudice often benefit from their sacrifice.
It seems to me that "shut up and soldier" can't always be the response, lest we make little social progress. Maybe you were too severe in your judgement of those folks?
I am sorry for the way your parents suffered. Had we developed a better social conscience and understanding of ethnic discrimination before you parents immigrated, they might have been treated more fairly.
Having surmounted that sort of discrimination, it's not a fair expectation for you to demand that everyone else go through the same.
You have a right to be bothered when the discrimination is regarding you and your wife, and you have a right to be bothered on behalf of others who are discriminated against.
Martin Niemöller comes to mind.
Oh, I think people have the freedom to believe in whatever they want. It's when they impose that belief on others that there's a problem. Usually unrelated people, but your own family deserves protection from you when it's something like FGM or the belief (Leviticus 20:10 in the Judeo-Christian bible) that an adulterer should be put to death.
I have my own theory on how many nerds failed to be properly socialized regarding women.
I agree that he was outed. But once he was outed, it became very distracting from the organization's message.
No, I have not donated to organizations that seek to limit anyone's religious freedom. I have, however, donated to organizations that work against religiously-motivated discrimination. If you think you have a right to deny services to gay people just because they are gay, yes, they are working against that.
If there was someone in a management role at a public benefit non-profit who had made it publicly clear that he didn't like Semites (I'm one) or Secular Humanists (that too), I would feel uncomfortable about having him in that role and I would probably not donate to, or work with, the organization.
In general, I recommend that visible top organizational managers don't distract from the organization's message, and that the organization itself must stay on-message. When the message is against a class of human beings, it's really difficult for any well-run organization to tolerate.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your employer is obligated to give you a podium. In general, so that everyone can get along I'd rather not know that my co-worker is a bigot or a Trump supporter, etc.
Had this fellow made his posting outside of his employment, things would have been different. But he chose to do it at work, and because of the way Google's merit system works (your co-workers grade you), he marked himself as someone who would not fairly grade women co-workers. This so demoralized a lot of his women co-workers that many stayed home from work on Monday. And the CEO called off a family vacation in order to come back and deal with the fallout.
Did you short-sell Tesla? Can you create enough bad news about them in time not to lose your shirt?
There are a lot of people who short-sold Tesla and are going to lose big money if they can't drive the stock down. So, you're going to see a lot of propoganda. I would not be surprised if they were prompting the attempts at unionization and creating whatever other bad news they could.
If you look at California's highways during commute time, there's no question that there is enough density to support railroads. A lot of people who can, drive to their local station. Most of us do not have any usable railroad across their commute. For example, the BART system hasn't yet reached San Jose.
There's a book about him with the title "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York". It's persuasive that he was more than just a bureaucrat.
In the last century, a short-sighted if not outright evil power broker by the name of Robert Moses, never elected to any post, directly planned the transport system of New York city and the state around it, and vastly influenced the planning of other cities.
One of Mr. Moses' nasty feats was to specify that all of the parkway bridges be built so low that it would be impossible to run trains under them, even though many were built with broad center islands.
I grew up in one of the towns under his thumb. We literally had a 100-year-old railroad system that only went to one station for 3 large communities, with 100-year-old bridges, etc. No new train construction since New York's subways in the '30's and '40's, but lots of new roads for cars.
America's cities still suffer under the dead hand of Robert Moses and people like him, who actively wiped out our railroads, never considering the problems automobiles would bring.
Elon Musk's hyperloop is not the solution for this. The speed, confinement, and vacuum are obvious problems that make it more of a bomb than a train. But conventional high-speed rail transport is the solution.
Most americans never spend time in Europe and learn about really good trains. Try Switzerland and you won't understand why people even want cars.
Of course the end result of that is having to bring a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread.
But given the value of software, I can't help but feel that some of it should go to the people who write the software.
Wait a second. You are aware that the CIA commits other acts that would normally be characterized as crimes in the course of their operation.
3-letter-agencies, the military, and to some extent undercover police get a pass, and there are laws supporting that.
Not saying it's nice.
If we couldn't outsource their jobs (and actually get them done, which is a problem with outsourcing) and we couldn't import cheap labor from overseas, we'd have to pay programmers over $200K/year. And that would be terrible, because
Oh. Never mind.
Most of the elected representatives are my age or older. I went to school with kids who had been injured by thalidomide (hi Anthony, wherever you are!) They are going to be very careful about pharma.
And yes, the pharma companies have the best government they could buy, I can't deny that either.
I am fine with drug imports if they are what they say they are, and are made with compliance to health-based standards. But somebody has to audit all of them. There is no shortage of quacks and thieves.
You mean it's available overseas for that price. Yes, we just have to make sure the makers are really making what they say they are, and that their factories comply with health-related standards.