You seem awfully unconcerned that somebody is handing over other people's money in large quantities in exchange for sexual favors.
Not only am I unconcerned, I welcome it: if billionaires foolishly hire harassers to do their investing for them they deserve to lose their money. That's how markets sort out bad investors from good ones. For some unfathomable reason, you want to protect wealthy investors and harassers (and, if you favor non-discrimination laws, wealthy sexists, homophobes, racists, etc.) from the consequences of their own choices by forcing them make better choices.
In this case, it was a matter of someone in a position of power over the woman asking for sexual favors.
When I go to a car dealer and offer money for a car, there is no position of power because one valuable item is being exchanged for another one. The fact that you talk about a VC investment as a "position of power" over these women implies that you believe these women's ideas were worthless (and you're probably right).
Personally, I get along very well with feminists
You don't even get invited to the cocktail parties of the women we're talking about, let alone get to work with them.
There's real advantages to doing things my way.
True, men like you have been trying to ingratiate themselves to women for as long as humans have existed; it's a one of several reproductive strategies.
If you can't get that through your head, then it's best that you treat women with caution.
You treat women with caution by generally agreeing with them. I simply avoid many of them, including the entire VC and founder "community", male or female.
That doesn't mean they haven't, it means you're self-deluded.
You're welcome to worship some self-righteous academic if you like. I think you're finding increasingly the rest of the country doesn't care about these people or their positions.
Yet, they have no problems advocating that people be forced to put wireless transmitters on their drones. That's the problem with organizations like that: what they do is mostly about self-aggrandizement and preaching to the choir, not principles.
Sorry, I don't believe anything they have done has made my life more private or more secure. I think they are irrelevant.
As Recode notes, Congress is working to restore mandatory registration which would be key to tying a drone to its owner for the purposes of any remote identification...
Translation: "we want more taxes, and we want citizens to learn to obey, submit, and live in fear of authority."
As a safety or security measure, this is useless.
Back in March, [drone manufacturer] DJI proposed what it calls an "electronic identification framework" for all drones that would give authorities in the U.S. information about the owner when necessary.
Yes, drive up the cost of entry into the market, create costly requirements, and keep competition away.
EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) made a similar recommendation back in January 2016
Progressive authoritarians masquerading as champions of privacy again it seems.
And good luck with that, since vast amounts of land and resources are owned by publicly traded corporations (themselves owned by institutional investors representing effectively all of us), and private property ownership is very high.
I disagree, I see labour shortage due to the black death and the subsequent rise in political power of the lower classes which they never relinquished again as the end of feudalism.
That's a common explanation in England, but it doesn't hold water when you look at continental history. No, the end of feudalism is due to technological developments, including automation. In particular, automation and technology required more educated workers, but workers generally only invest effort in their own education if they can reap the rewards. Under feudalism (or slavery) they did not. Once it because more profitable for businesses to use machines, they needed educated labor, and for that, they needed a free workforce.
The value of most labour is dropping into the mud again, putting all the power back with the property owners. Democracy could in theory balance that
What you call "democracy" isn't democracy, it's socialism or fascism, namely economic redistribution via the state on a massive scale. That has never worked.
The value of most labour is dropping into the mud again
To be replaced by new forms of labor that are a lot more valuable. You know, just like the value of the labor of a skilled mechanic is much higher than the value of the labor of some cobbler or blacksmith.
But we can tell they're not creating jobs already, because they're piling up cash. You're supposed to invest that money to make more money, and in the process of spending it, people are employed.
There is some amount of labor in the country that money can command. If these companies are not investing their cash, it simply means that other people can buy that labor more cheaply.
And it's ugly; there's a lot of empty storefronts out there, and empty storefronts tend to collect graffiti
That's useless reasoning by example. In fact, what you ought to look at is the labor force participation rate. Now, that is lower than it should be, but the reasons for that are primarily government policies that make it more rational not to work, including massive subsidies for education.
The reason the storefronts are empty are simple: a lot of those stores aren't needed anymore, and a lot of cities have adopted policies that are outright hostile to retail (like minimum wage and high taxes).
Isn't this just trading one elite class for another?
So? Humans are not all the same; there will always be an elite.
As the other respondent pointed out, the Black Death created labor shortages which raised wages and shifted wealth into a broader base,
That explanation doesn't work, since there were plenty of labor shortages all over Europe and the US that did not end feudalism (slavery). What ended feudalism was that automation required more skilled and educated workers, and you only get those when people can reap the rewards of investing in themselves.
We're nearing the terminus of that cycle, though, where the merchant class is nearly as consolidated and economically dominant as the feudal lords. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
You're utterly divorced from reality. It would also be irrelevant even if it were true, since what matters is the distribution of absolute wealth, not relative wealth.
Inequality right now is largely based on differences in skill and intelligence: people who are smarter and more capable earn more. The more jobs become automated, the more those differences will disappear.
In addition, money is only worth what you can buy for it. To the degree that AI devalues labor, it simply decreases the value of money that they (formerly) wealthy hold. That is, billions aren't worth a lot if you can't buy anything for them.
Now, you might say, what if a few really wealthy people buy all the land and all the mines and all the natural resources. That's possible, but unlikely: first of all, the reason people have been able to acquire large holdings in the past is because land ended up being of little value to those without the skill to make it productive, and of great value to those with the necessary skills; the premise of automation is that that won't be the case anymore. Second, we already tax land, and even at current levels of taxation, the land would get redistributed fairly quickly; if land is the only source of income, you can only hold on to land if your put it to more productive use than other people, and the premise of AI is that you can't.
Automation erased the advantage that physical strength used to give, which is why we moved to a much wealthier democratic society. If AI does the same for mental advantages, the net effect will be more equality, not less, since inequality is ultimately based on individual advantages and strengths.
Their wealth hoarding stands as an impediment to elimination of want and the leisure-time lifestyle -- they'd rather pay for mercenaries to keep people down than to feed and house them
Nobody can really "hoard wealth", all you can do is "hoard money". If you have large amounts of money, you have to either invest it, in which case it creates wealth for others, spend it, in which case your wealth gets shared with others in return for labor, or you put it under your mattress, which is the same as distributing it equally to everybody else.
The gravy train is over... for central bankers and their associated "economists". They've been able to manipulate the economy for their benefit for too long, and people are recognizing what a fraud they are and that we can do without them. They don't like having to get a real job.
For the rest of us, more automation is a massive benefit, just like it has always been.
I'm a guy, I've been working in IT/CS-related positions all my adult life, mostly around and with guys, no surprise there.
You're a regular schmuck dealing with regular women. You have work to do, they have work to do, and both of you realize that hooking up would be more hassle than it's worth.
These are upper class (or aspiring upper class), privileged men and women; they live in their own world. The lives of both groups revolve around looking good, presenting themselves, and socializing at dinner parties, golf tournaments, charity events, and weekend retreats. That's why the men hit on the women, the women hit on the men, and occasionally, when it serves their interests, the women complain that they got hit upon.
Just stay away from these people, male or female, and you'll be fine.
the science division was staffed with nine employees who led the charge on policy issues such as STEM education, biotechnology and crisis response
STEM education has gotten worse and isn't the president's job; biotechnology does just fine without presidential interference; and crisis response is handled by FEMA.
I think this illustrates how pointless "the science division" actually was.
You have ultra-privileged women angling for power and wealth complaining about the fact that a bunch of arrogant, ultra-wealthy men proposition them, and the neckbeards on Slashdot getting all worked up about it. It's like the poor, starving peasants of France getting worked up about the fact that noblemen proposition noblewomen at Versailles.
Wake up, people: the men and the women in these stories would look with nothing but contempt upon the likes of you if they even noticed that you existed.
Sounds like you've fallen for the right-wing "you can't trust any of the media! They all lie" propaganda.
Not at all. I reached that conclusion first all by myself, then left the Democratic party, and finally concluded that Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians made a lot of sense after all.
That's unfortunate and I hope you're able to think critically and properly check your media sources again some day.
So you're saying that you're the critical thinker because you trust the WaPo, while I am unable to think critically because I check all my media sources? Well, I think that tells us all we need to know about you, doesn't it?
I'd guess that most straight men would be unhappy about feeling forced into giving a blow job
Nobody is "forced" to do anything. If a VC asks me to give him a blowjob, he is telling me first and foremost "your proposal is so mediocre/bad that I don't care risking losing it".
A venture capitalist is entrusted with a lot of other people's money to invest,
And it's those "other people" that are harmed and can figure out how to deal with it.
If the VC business is investing in companies for reasons other than that they look like good prospects, that's harmful to the VC business, and it's good to get it stopped.
And, what do you know, that's what free markets accomplish: they separate bad investors from their money. Your concern trolling isn't needed.
Push hard enough at such unprofessional behavior, and it will have an effect.
Sure, the effect being mostly that men walk on eggshells around women and give them favorable treatment just so that they can't possibly be accused of any wrongdoing.
Recorded high temperatures in Ahvaz in July are 129.2F, so this isn't the highest on record even for that city. It's a record for June, but, hey, it's the end of June. Ahvaz also holds the record as the "world's most air-polluted city". Incidentally, they do get snow in the winter. What a place!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the central planning mindset at work again.
In a bloated, poorly written piece of software like systemd? You don't say!
Not only am I unconcerned, I welcome it: if billionaires foolishly hire harassers to do their investing for them they deserve to lose their money. That's how markets sort out bad investors from good ones. For some unfathomable reason, you want to protect wealthy investors and harassers (and, if you favor non-discrimination laws, wealthy sexists, homophobes, racists, etc.) from the consequences of their own choices by forcing them make better choices.
When I go to a car dealer and offer money for a car, there is no position of power because one valuable item is being exchanged for another one. The fact that you talk about a VC investment as a "position of power" over these women implies that you believe these women's ideas were worthless (and you're probably right).
You don't even get invited to the cocktail parties of the women we're talking about, let alone get to work with them.
True, men like you have been trying to ingratiate themselves to women for as long as humans have existed; it's a one of several reproductive strategies.
You treat women with caution by generally agreeing with them. I simply avoid many of them, including the entire VC and founder "community", male or female.
Yes, but changes in the cost structure do change the optimum price for everybody.
But many are.
I'm sorry, but your arguments are ludicrous.
You're welcome to worship some self-righteous academic if you like. I think you're finding increasingly the rest of the country doesn't care about these people or their positions.
Yet, they have no problems advocating that people be forced to put wireless transmitters on their drones. That's the problem with organizations like that: what they do is mostly about self-aggrandizement and preaching to the choir, not principles.
Sorry, I don't believe anything they have done has made my life more private or more secure. I think they are irrelevant.
Translation: "we want more taxes, and we want citizens to learn to obey, submit, and live in fear of authority."
As a safety or security measure, this is useless.
Yes, drive up the cost of entry into the market, create costly requirements, and keep competition away.
Progressive authoritarians masquerading as champions of privacy again it seems.
Oracle will sue you.
[Citation needed]
And good luck with that, since vast amounts of land and resources are owned by publicly traded corporations (themselves owned by institutional investors representing effectively all of us), and private property ownership is very high.
That's a common explanation in England, but it doesn't hold water when you look at continental history. No, the end of feudalism is due to technological developments, including automation. In particular, automation and technology required more educated workers, but workers generally only invest effort in their own education if they can reap the rewards. Under feudalism (or slavery) they did not. Once it because more profitable for businesses to use machines, they needed educated labor, and for that, they needed a free workforce.
What you call "democracy" isn't democracy, it's socialism or fascism, namely economic redistribution via the state on a massive scale. That has never worked.
To be replaced by new forms of labor that are a lot more valuable. You know, just like the value of the labor of a skilled mechanic is much higher than the value of the labor of some cobbler or blacksmith.
There is some amount of labor in the country that money can command. If these companies are not investing their cash, it simply means that other people can buy that labor more cheaply.
That's useless reasoning by example. In fact, what you ought to look at is the labor force participation rate. Now, that is lower than it should be, but the reasons for that are primarily government policies that make it more rational not to work, including massive subsidies for education.
The reason the storefronts are empty are simple: a lot of those stores aren't needed anymore, and a lot of cities have adopted policies that are outright hostile to retail (like minimum wage and high taxes).
And so... what? How does that hurt you?
The majority of investments are institutional, meaning they are for securing everybody's retirement, savings, and insurance.
Again, you're confusing "wealth" and "money".
So? Humans are not all the same; there will always be an elite.
That explanation doesn't work, since there were plenty of labor shortages all over Europe and the US that did not end feudalism (slavery). What ended feudalism was that automation required more skilled and educated workers, and you only get those when people can reap the rewards of investing in themselves.
You're utterly divorced from reality. It would also be irrelevant even if it were true, since what matters is the distribution of absolute wealth, not relative wealth.
Inequality right now is largely based on differences in skill and intelligence: people who are smarter and more capable earn more. The more jobs become automated, the more those differences will disappear.
In addition, money is only worth what you can buy for it. To the degree that AI devalues labor, it simply decreases the value of money that they (formerly) wealthy hold. That is, billions aren't worth a lot if you can't buy anything for them.
Now, you might say, what if a few really wealthy people buy all the land and all the mines and all the natural resources. That's possible, but unlikely: first of all, the reason people have been able to acquire large holdings in the past is because land ended up being of little value to those without the skill to make it productive, and of great value to those with the necessary skills; the premise of automation is that that won't be the case anymore. Second, we already tax land, and even at current levels of taxation, the land would get redistributed fairly quickly; if land is the only source of income, you can only hold on to land if your put it to more productive use than other people, and the premise of AI is that you can't.
Automation erased the advantage that physical strength used to give, which is why we moved to a much wealthier democratic society. If AI does the same for mental advantages, the net effect will be more equality, not less, since inequality is ultimately based on individual advantages and strengths.
That makes no sense. Historically, feudalism was, in fact, destroyed by the arrival of automation.
Nobody can really "hoard wealth", all you can do is "hoard money". If you have large amounts of money, you have to either invest it, in which case it creates wealth for others, spend it, in which case your wealth gets shared with others in return for labor, or you put it under your mattress, which is the same as distributing it equally to everybody else.
The gravy train is over... for central bankers and their associated "economists". They've been able to manipulate the economy for their benefit for too long, and people are recognizing what a fraud they are and that we can do without them. They don't like having to get a real job.
For the rest of us, more automation is a massive benefit, just like it has always been.
You're a regular schmuck dealing with regular women. You have work to do, they have work to do, and both of you realize that hooking up would be more hassle than it's worth.
These are upper class (or aspiring upper class), privileged men and women; they live in their own world. The lives of both groups revolve around looking good, presenting themselves, and socializing at dinner parties, golf tournaments, charity events, and weekend retreats. That's why the men hit on the women, the women hit on the men, and occasionally, when it serves their interests, the women complain that they got hit upon.
Just stay away from these people, male or female, and you'll be fine.
You mean like A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research?
STEM education has gotten worse and isn't the president's job; biotechnology does just fine without presidential interference; and crisis response is handled by FEMA.
I think this illustrates how pointless "the science division" actually was.
You have ultra-privileged women angling for power and wealth complaining about the fact that a bunch of arrogant, ultra-wealthy men proposition them, and the neckbeards on Slashdot getting all worked up about it. It's like the poor, starving peasants of France getting worked up about the fact that noblemen proposition noblewomen at Versailles.
Wake up, people: the men and the women in these stories would look with nothing but contempt upon the likes of you if they even noticed that you existed.
Not at all. I reached that conclusion first all by myself, then left the Democratic party, and finally concluded that Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians made a lot of sense after all.
So you're saying that you're the critical thinker because you trust the WaPo, while I am unable to think critically because I check all my media sources? Well, I think that tells us all we need to know about you, doesn't it?
Nobody is "forced" to do anything. If a VC asks me to give him a blowjob, he is telling me first and foremost "your proposal is so mediocre/bad that I don't care risking losing it".
And it's those "other people" that are harmed and can figure out how to deal with it.
And, what do you know, that's what free markets accomplish: they separate bad investors from their money. Your concern trolling isn't needed.
Sure, the effect being mostly that men walk on eggshells around women and give them favorable treatment just so that they can't possibly be accused of any wrongdoing.
And you very much deserve each other.
We prefer not being like the rest of the planet, thank you very much.
Recorded high temperatures in Ahvaz in July are 129.2F, so this isn't the highest on record even for that city. It's a record for June, but, hey, it's the end of June. Ahvaz also holds the record as the "world's most air-polluted city". Incidentally, they do get snow in the winter. What a place!