This might be helpful. A lot of it is anti-gentrification, rent control, NIMBY-ism, and other things that legally block people from building more. I don't think the landlords are really responsible for this.
To be fair, he does say that plenty of other evolutionary biologists disagree with him. It's a semantic question, and plenty of biologists don't yet agree on semantic questions. Evo bio in particular has very heated debates about that.
I believe that the $1 Trillion number is the projected costs through 2030 or the like, not what the US has actually spent so far. It will certainly end up being more than $1 Trillion, but not all of that has been spent yet.
As far as I'm aware, the F-35 can do about what the Harrier can do. Apparently the Harrier can't really do vertical takeoff unless it has no weapons loaded, which is why they wanted STOVL for the F-35.
Unless I'm drastically misinterpreting your quote, you are requiring them to do that:
In my city, certain medallions are required for certain times to initiate or terminate a certain percentage of fares in certain parts of the city.
Now, apparently that still works out for some cabbies, since they still operate, but you are requiring them to spend gas and time they could otherwise spend more efficiently. I would argue that in this case, requirements that primarily target the lower-class (instead of the wealthy medallion owners) might need to be rethought.
Drone pilots don't seem to have much of a conscience either. They are far removed from the action, the consequences, less involved.
If I were up against drones my first response would be infiltrators who would target the drone pilots families, the shops they go to, the people they owe money to, people who owe them money etc etc. Go Kaiser Sose on them. If they want to hide behind drones let them face the consequences.
Which, of course, would make them care even less about civilian casualties. You killed their family? They'll kill yours, and your neighbors, and your friends, and their families and neighbors, etc.
It might be a "waste of resources" to give your grandmother medical care too, but as a society, we're uncomfortable with people being left out.
When the libertarian caliphate comes to power, then we can let grandma go dangle. Until then, it's probably to our benefit to look out for her.
And if it was society's resources paying for the gas and labor, then I would agree with you, but at the moment, you're requiring the cab drivers - who are typically lower-class - spend their own resources. If, as a society, we decide that taxis should be available everywhere, then society should be footing the bill.
The idea is how to get the right number of cabs, and because of uneven distribution of demand (and supply) it's not something that the "free market" will fix. That's why you find so many more Uber drivers in certain neighborhoods and none in others, even adjusting for property values and crime statistics.
Is that something you need to fix though? It seems to me that it's a waste of resources to keep cabs in low-demand areas on the off-chance that someone's grandmother wants to use one. Making cab drivers cruise low-demand neighborhoods seems wasteful; you're using gas and time that could be used better somewhere else.
Why would that equate to 5% lower ticket prices? Fuel isn't the only thing they have to pay for; there's repairs, maintenance, salaries, etc. Just because one cost went down by 5% doesn't mean they can charge 5% less.
Given that he said "Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me." doesn't the joke itself count as satire?
Poorly timed or executed satire can be inappropriate though! If you don't do a good job of it, you don't convey your message, and then you just offend people without actually making fun of your target. If you say something and people get offended, and you didn't mean for them to, then those comments can be inappropriate even if you had a good intent. Just the fact that he agrees they were inappropriate doesn't mean it wasn't satire.
He clearly doesn't actually hold the viewpoints he expressed via the bad joke; if he did; the female senior scientists he worked with wouldn't have stood up for him.
I'm not an AC, but thanks for playing. My point is that a lot of Southerners don't feel that they're entitled to own other humans; in the past, certainly, but Northerners did a lot of that too. The vast majority of Southerners would violently oppose the return of slavery. Most of them do like their religion, but that's hardly exclusive to Southerners.
To me, that looks like an admission that he knows the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, and he'll look like a monster, but he intends to stand by them none-the-less.
And to me, it looks like he knows that the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, but that he doesn't stand by them - who wants to be seen as a monster? I think in this scenario, his demeanor is important - was he acting in a joking manner, trying to be self-deprecating, or was he acting arrogant and self-righteous? As we only have text records to go by, we can't be sure. However, given that a number of his female colleagues have said it is in character to make self-deprecating jokes, and they support him, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Moreover, you didn't really address the broader issue in my comment; setting aside this particular instance, does intent matter? Have we moved beyond satirizing idiotic viewpoints?
Doesn't it matter why they were inappropriate though? It's one thing to be well-intentioned but make a mistake, and another thing entirely to have bad intentions to start with. The response we as a society should have to something like this should take intention into account, at least in my opinion. Satire in particular is underappreciated, and while poorly executed satire (as this was) doesn't work, satire in general should be used more often, even if that means making racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted statements, as long as the point is to make fun of people who actually believe them. Context matters.
It's hard to look at it as anything but a joke, considering his wife is a scientist and many of his female colleagues supported him - they thought it was an ill-advised joke, but not indicative of his actual views. Several other people have said that he prefaced it by saying "Let me tell you what a chauvinist monster I am" - which in this case would indicate he was using satire to attack sexism, not endorse it.
You know, I'm starting to wonder if you actually make this stuff, or if you're just claiming to be APK and acting extremely unhinged in order to deter/.ers from buying his stuff. Are you one of his competitors?
Slashdot Mirror
This might be helpful. A lot of it is anti-gentrification, rent control, NIMBY-ism, and other things that legally block people from building more. I don't think the landlords are really responsible for this.
Funny how you don't count the -1 posts against your ratio. I expect that would change it significantly.
To be fair, he does say that plenty of other evolutionary biologists disagree with him. It's a semantic question, and plenty of biologists don't yet agree on semantic questions. Evo bio in particular has very heated debates about that.
I really don't think you know what a free market is. It's not "no laws ever" and it certainly isn't supposed to involve killing off competitors.
Ah, fair enough. I didn't realize that the special medallions had the option of converting into regular medallions after a certain period of time.
I believe that the $1 Trillion number is the projected costs through 2030 or the like, not what the US has actually spent so far. It will certainly end up being more than $1 Trillion, but not all of that has been spent yet.
As far as I'm aware, the F-35 can do about what the Harrier can do. Apparently the Harrier can't really do vertical takeoff unless it has no weapons loaded, which is why they wanted STOVL for the F-35.
In my city, certain medallions are required for certain times to initiate or terminate a certain percentage of fares in certain parts of the city.
Now, apparently that still works out for some cabbies, since they still operate, but you are requiring them to spend gas and time they could otherwise spend more efficiently. I would argue that in this case, requirements that primarily target the lower-class (instead of the wealthy medallion owners) might need to be rethought.
Drone pilots don't seem to have much of a conscience either. They are far removed from the action, the consequences, less involved.
If I were up against drones my first response would be infiltrators who would target the drone pilots families, the shops they go to, the people they owe money to, people who owe them money etc etc. Go Kaiser Sose on them. If they want to hide behind drones let them face the consequences.
Which, of course, would make them care even less about civilian casualties. You killed their family? They'll kill yours, and your neighbors, and your friends, and their families and neighbors, etc.
It might be a "waste of resources" to give your grandmother medical care too, but as a society, we're uncomfortable with people being left out.
When the libertarian caliphate comes to power, then we can let grandma go dangle. Until then, it's probably to our benefit to look out for her.
And if it was society's resources paying for the gas and labor, then I would agree with you, but at the moment, you're requiring the cab drivers - who are typically lower-class - spend their own resources. If, as a society, we decide that taxis should be available everywhere, then society should be footing the bill.
"Pure capitalism" doesn't mean "no laws ever!!!1!".
The idea is how to get the right number of cabs, and because of uneven distribution of demand (and supply) it's not something that the "free market" will fix. That's why you find so many more Uber drivers in certain neighborhoods and none in others, even adjusting for property values and crime statistics.
Is that something you need to fix though? It seems to me that it's a waste of resources to keep cabs in low-demand areas on the off-chance that someone's grandmother wants to use one. Making cab drivers cruise low-demand neighborhoods seems wasteful; you're using gas and time that could be used better somewhere else.
Why would that equate to 5% lower ticket prices? Fuel isn't the only thing they have to pay for; there's repairs, maintenance, salaries, etc. Just because one cost went down by 5% doesn't mean they can charge 5% less.
I'm not omnichad, but I do have a relatively new account.
Given that he said "Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me." doesn't the joke itself count as satire?
Poorly timed or executed satire can be inappropriate though! If you don't do a good job of it, you don't convey your message, and then you just offend people without actually making fun of your target. If you say something and people get offended, and you didn't mean for them to, then those comments can be inappropriate even if you had a good intent. Just the fact that he agrees they were inappropriate doesn't mean it wasn't satire.
He clearly doesn't actually hold the viewpoints he expressed via the bad joke; if he did; the female senior scientists he worked with wouldn't have stood up for him.
I'm not an AC, but thanks for playing. My point is that a lot of Southerners don't feel that they're entitled to own other humans; in the past, certainly, but Northerners did a lot of that too. The vast majority of Southerners would violently oppose the return of slavery. Most of them do like their religion, but that's hardly exclusive to Southerners.
"Let me tell you what a chauvinist monster I am"
To me, that looks like an admission that he knows the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, and he'll look like a monster, but he intends to stand by them none-the-less.
And to me, it looks like he knows that the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, but that he doesn't stand by them - who wants to be seen as a monster? I think in this scenario, his demeanor is important - was he acting in a joking manner, trying to be self-deprecating, or was he acting arrogant and self-righteous? As we only have text records to go by, we can't be sure. However, given that a number of his female colleagues have said it is in character to make self-deprecating jokes, and they support him, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Moreover, you didn't really address the broader issue in my comment; setting aside this particular instance, does intent matter? Have we moved beyond satirizing idiotic viewpoints?
Doesn't it matter why they were inappropriate though? It's one thing to be well-intentioned but make a mistake, and another thing entirely to have bad intentions to start with. The response we as a society should have to something like this should take intention into account, at least in my opinion. Satire in particular is underappreciated, and while poorly executed satire (as this was) doesn't work, satire in general should be used more often, even if that means making racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted statements, as long as the point is to make fun of people who actually believe them. Context matters.
It's hard to look at it as anything but a joke, considering his wife is a scientist and many of his female colleagues supported him - they thought it was an ill-advised joke, but not indicative of his actual views. Several other people have said that he prefaced it by saying "Let me tell you what a chauvinist monster I am" - which in this case would indicate he was using satire to attack sexism, not endorse it.
He was forced to resign. His wife got a phone call while he was flying back from Korea, and was told that if he didn't resign, he would be dismissed.
Stereotypes are fun!
GMO wheat has never been commercially released.
You know, I'm starting to wonder if you actually make this stuff, or if you're just claiming to be APK and acting extremely unhinged in order to deter /.ers from buying his stuff. Are you one of his competitors?
Come on now - they care a little bit about the young rich white heterosexuals.