The fact that you don't really seem to understand what is poor behaviour
Well, we probably have wildly different ideas of what constitutes "poor behavior". The point is everybody at times believes that someone "behaved poorly" towards them. If you write tell-all blog posts about it, you have to accept that people will avoid you. Ditto if you start lawsuits. No amount of self-righteous indignation is going to change that.
You see where I said "shit like hitting on female subordinates on day 1", well guess what bucko, hitting on male subordinates on day 1 is very much shit like hitting on female ones.
I'm sorry you seem to be a little unfamiliar with gay reality. Gay men learn from childhood on to expect getting fired and getting physically abused if we "hit on" anybody outside a few safe environments. For gay men, "hitting on people at work" is not just "poor behavior", it's dangerous, so we are conditioned from childhood on not to do it. Given the ratio of straight to gay men, it's also pretty pointless. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Historically, do you think more women have harmed men with false allegations, or more men have harmed women with actual abuse?
You're using terms like "harm" and "abuse" for a wide range of ill-defined behaviors subject to shifting moral views, so I don't think that question has an answer.
What I do know is that the idea that women were powerless, fragile little beings subject to the whims of male passion hasn't been true for centuries in the West. Even when women had no political power, unwanted sexual advances by men towards women often had severe consequences for the man, and in many cases, simply the word of the woman was sufficient.
Maybe you yourself should check just how burdened the roads of Europe are.
I don't need to check, I have been driving on European roads for decades. Trucks are a massive problem on European roads and a constant political issue in countries like Germany and Switzerland. If you don't know this, you really are out of touch with European politics.
But that isn't even what we are talking about here. What we are actually talking about is whether Europe's rail system should be a model for the US rail system. You erroneously thought that that was related to truck volumes on highways (and hence moved the goalposts), but it isn't. Not only are Europe's rail systems inefficiently run, they also have limited capacity, so even running them more efficiently wouldn't eliminate the problems with trucks on European highways.
And all of this doesn't change the fact that by far the most cargo in Europe is carried by electric rail.
Your "fact" isn't even close to being true; it's something you made up.
Actually what we're talking about here is if the goalposts should be further to the left or to the right.
No, what we are talking about is gweihir's assertion:
You can see in Europe and, for example, Japan, what is possible with trains.
Fact is that the European rail system is not a well-run system: it requires subsidies, it uses resources inefficiently, it doesn't serve its passengers well, and it is a poor way of reducing carbon emissions.
The rest is your goalpost moving ("trucks don't bother me").
Well if you're running the risk of a harassment complaint then you're pulling the kind of shit like proposition female subordinates on day 1
Not bloody likely, since she lacks a functioning penis, testicles, and a beard, attributes I consider essential for any sort of proposition. Nor would I proposition a Hillary voter or a progressive, two attributes she likely has and that I find quite ugly.
I dare say then she wouldn't want to work with you either.
Yet, instead of quietly leaving "toxic bro companies" like the rest of us do, she apparently insists that every company under the sun conforms to her preferences
Based on your earlier assumption that she would accuse you of sexual harassment, it's obvious that you think she's lying.
Given concepts like microaggressions and white male privilege, she may well think she is telling the truth even though she isn't. I really don't care.
She has the power to destroy men simply with a word, making her more dangerous than someone pointing a loaded gun at me. And she is bound to despise me for my political views. Hence, I consider her unsafe to be around.
She wanted power? She got it. Now she has to deal with the consequences.
And apparently in your worldview, calmly writing about things that happened is called 'revenge'. Sad.
Yes, in my worldview, it is called that. I also call it profoundly stupid, because many men will not want to work with her for the same reason I don't.
So because the people of Salem executed a bunch of witches, there must have been witches in Salem? Sorry, I have no basis on which to judge the truth of her allegations.
And it doesn't matter anyway. I consider the professional response to a bad working environment to quit, not to file lawsuits or write revenge posts. Even if her allegations are true, she is not the kind of person I would want to work with.
Why? Simple: because I don't want to run the risk that she accuses me of sexual harassment. Evidently, the burden of proof is very low, and there is no recourse for the accused.
Although I agree with you that it was an inappropriate comment, I have to wonder if Susan Fowler would have gotten as much attention if she was not a young attractive female
Of course not.
And young attractive females have always had an easy time âmaking a differenceâ: allegations of sexual improprieties against men have often been fatal to the careers of those men, or simply fatal when the abuser was a white woman and the male was black.
The idea that this is some newly developed superpower by women is not just laughably historically ignorant, it is offensive.
It was clear from the moment you read the 3,000-word post by former engineer Susan Fowler about her time at the car-hailing company that nothing was going to be the same.
Mostly what it made clear to me was that I wouldn't want to be in the same company as her, let alone in the same room.
And all of this doesn't change the fact that by far the most cargo in Europe is carried by electric rail.
In fact, most freight is carried by roads, in both the US and in Europe, as you can easily look up on the US DOT and EU sites ("modal split"). So, please stop making things up.
Anyway, what we're talking about here is which rail system utilizes its resources better, and that's the US system. In addition, the US rail system is by far the largest in the world. If Europe wants a more efficient rail system, it should follow the US model, rather than the other way around. Europe might also do well to build a lot more rail to catch up.
I suggest you get yourself some data and facts on rail network size, freight volumes, and utilization of rail systems in different countries. You'll be surprised.
Background discussion: "The US should use more rail / should be more like Europe."
Me: "The US has the biggest and most efficient rail system on the planet; you simply don't notice it because it's all freight. European rail systems are less efficient because they use part of their system for passenger transport."
You: "European industry likes inefficient modes of transport!"
Wow, great argument you have there!
In addition, it is the mix of passenger and rail traffic that is causing frequent freight delays in European rail traffic in the first place, because passengers cannot be "railroaded" for a day or two, so they always take priority. On top of that, passenger traffic requires expensive and inefficient high speed trains.
My point is that the US rail system is huge (the largest in the world by far), it is highly utilized, and very efficient. Making the US system more like the European system by burdening it with passenger traffic and adding high speed trains would make it less efficient and increase emissions.
And if Europeans wanted a more efficient rail system, they should follow the US model, rather than the other way around.
It would be safer if you knew the person won't regain consciousness. But most people who lose consciousness at the wheel regain it quickly. That makes stopping on the highway a riskier choice.
Group childcare is often quite expensive, and that's only one of many unpaid domestic tasks that people substitute expensive for pay goods and services for. Even for childless couples, a single income may be more rational than a dual income.
You correctly intuit that it is somewhat difficult. Government tries to force you to buy entry level homes and cars that would be extremely luxurious and technically advanced for 1950 and therefore are more expensive. But the are actually workarounds and many people use those to lead cheap, simple, carefree lifestyles without 40-50h workweeks.
Of course the irony is that as soon as people do that, they are counted as examples of extreme poverty by social justice advocates.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we probably have wildly different ideas of what constitutes "poor behavior". The point is everybody at times believes that someone "behaved poorly" towards them. If you write tell-all blog posts about it, you have to accept that people will avoid you. Ditto if you start lawsuits. No amount of self-righteous indignation is going to change that.
I'm sorry you seem to be a little unfamiliar with gay reality. Gay men learn from childhood on to expect getting fired and getting physically abused if we "hit on" anybody outside a few safe environments. For gay men, "hitting on people at work" is not just "poor behavior", it's dangerous, so we are conditioned from childhood on not to do it. Given the ratio of straight to gay men, it's also pretty pointless. Glad I could clear that up for you.
You're using terms like "harm" and "abuse" for a wide range of ill-defined behaviors subject to shifting moral views, so I don't think that question has an answer.
What I do know is that the idea that women were powerless, fragile little beings subject to the whims of male passion hasn't been true for centuries in the West. Even when women had no political power, unwanted sexual advances by men towards women often had severe consequences for the man, and in many cases, simply the word of the woman was sufficient.
No, I'm comparing social justice warriors to the Puritans.
I don't need to check, I have been driving on European roads for decades. Trucks are a massive problem on European roads and a constant political issue in countries like Germany and Switzerland. If you don't know this, you really are out of touch with European politics.
But that isn't even what we are talking about here. What we are actually talking about is whether Europe's rail system should be a model for the US rail system. You erroneously thought that that was related to truck volumes on highways (and hence moved the goalposts), but it isn't. Not only are Europe's rail systems inefficiently run, they also have limited capacity, so even running them more efficiently wouldn't eliminate the problems with trucks on European highways.
Yes, you are:
Your "fact" isn't even close to being true; it's something you made up.
No, what we are talking about is gweihir's assertion:
Fact is that the European rail system is not a well-run system: it requires subsidies, it uses resources inefficiently, it doesn't serve its passengers well, and it is a poor way of reducing carbon emissions.
The rest is your goalpost moving ("trucks don't bother me").
Not bloody likely, since she lacks a functioning penis, testicles, and a beard, attributes I consider essential for any sort of proposition. Nor would I proposition a Hillary voter or a progressive, two attributes she likely has and that I find quite ugly.
Yet, instead of quietly leaving "toxic bro companies" like the rest of us do, she apparently insists that every company under the sun conforms to her preferences
My point is they should talk about performance, not number of cores.
Given concepts like microaggressions and white male privilege, she may well think she is telling the truth even though she isn't. I really don't care.
She has the power to destroy men simply with a word, making her more dangerous than someone pointing a loaded gun at me. And she is bound to despise me for my political views. Hence, I consider her unsafe to be around.
She wanted power? She got it. Now she has to deal with the consequences.
Yes, in my worldview, it is called that. I also call it profoundly stupid, because many men will not want to work with her for the same reason I don't.
So because the people of Salem executed a bunch of witches, there must have been witches in Salem? Sorry, I have no basis on which to judge the truth of her allegations.
And it doesn't matter anyway. I consider the professional response to a bad working environment to quit, not to file lawsuits or write revenge posts. Even if her allegations are true, she is not the kind of person I would want to work with.
Spend the few years you still have left on what you are good at: physics.
Given the same aggregate performance, the fewer cores a CPU has, the better because the less you have to worry about concurrency and cache issues.
Why? Simple: because I don't want to run the risk that she accuses me of sexual harassment. Evidently, the burden of proof is very low, and there is no recourse for the accused.
DYAC. abuser should be accuser
Of course not.
And young attractive females have always had an easy time âmaking a differenceâ: allegations of sexual improprieties against men have often been fatal to the careers of those men, or simply fatal when the abuser was a white woman and the male was black.
The idea that this is some newly developed superpower by women is not just laughably historically ignorant, it is offensive.
Mostly what it made clear to me was that I wouldn't want to be in the same company as her, let alone in the same room.
In fact, most freight is carried by roads, in both the US and in Europe, as you can easily look up on the US DOT and EU sites ("modal split"). So, please stop making things up.
Anyway, what we're talking about here is which rail system utilizes its resources better, and that's the US system. In addition, the US rail system is by far the largest in the world. If Europe wants a more efficient rail system, it should follow the US model, rather than the other way around. Europe might also do well to build a lot more rail to catch up.
Ah, anecdotal evidence, the best kind, eh?
I suggest you get yourself some data and facts on rail network size, freight volumes, and utilization of rail systems in different countries. You'll be surprised.
Background discussion: "The US should use more rail / should be more like Europe."
Me: "The US has the biggest and most efficient rail system on the planet; you simply don't notice it because it's all freight. European rail systems are less efficient because they use part of their system for passenger transport."
You: "European industry likes inefficient modes of transport!"
Wow, great argument you have there!
In addition, it is the mix of passenger and rail traffic that is causing frequent freight delays in European rail traffic in the first place, because passengers cannot be "railroaded" for a day or two, so they always take priority. On top of that, passenger traffic requires expensive and inefficient high speed trains.
You're missing the point.
My point is that the US rail system is huge (the largest in the world by far), it is highly utilized, and very efficient. Making the US system more like the European system by burdening it with passenger traffic and adding high speed trains would make it less efficient and increase emissions.
And if Europeans wanted a more efficient rail system, they should follow the US model, rather than the other way around.
The chance of being framed for a murder is obviously never larger than the chance of getting murdered, so not a big risk for most people.
Indeed. The US has a huge rail network with nearly full and efficient utilization: for freight.
Europe wastes much of its rail network on moving people around while burdening the roads with freight traffic,
It would be safer if you knew the person won't regain consciousness. But most people who lose consciousness at the wheel regain it quickly. That makes stopping on the highway a riskier choice.
There is nothing âhiddenâ about this. The average new home in 1952 was less than 900 sq ft; today is more than 2600 sq ft.
Seriously, plenty of people today choose to live cheaply, do with less, work part time, and live much better lives than people in the '50s.
Group childcare is often quite expensive, and that's only one of many unpaid domestic tasks that people substitute expensive for pay goods and services for. Even for childless couples, a single income may be more rational than a dual income.
You correctly intuit that it is somewhat difficult. Government tries to force you to buy entry level homes and cars that would be extremely luxurious and technically advanced for 1950 and therefore are more expensive. But the are actually workarounds and many people use those to lead cheap, simple, carefree lifestyles without 40-50h workweeks.
Of course the irony is that as soon as people do that, they are counted as examples of extreme poverty by social justice advocates.