There's usually good reason that "neglected" diseases are neglected. It can be because they are incredibly rare, or as with the more common ones, that they proliferate because of factors not related to the disease.
Ebola is a case of "stupidity". An infection in the western world would be (and has on multiple occasions been) dealt with quickly and effectively by simple safety precautions. This is why doctors and nurses rarely get sick when working in the epidemic area. Isolation and basic sanitary procedures is all it takes to halt and stop an outbreak. This is the kind of solution that works in a society that works. On the other hand, if patients flee the hospital because of rumors, if patients go to a witch-doctor instead of a doctor, and if patients ignore the isolation clause and go back to unsanitary living on top of other people (with bodily fluids spraying left and right), then Ebola will quickly becomes a very serious and national problem.
The biggest reduction in Ebola mortality will come about when the disease is treated with reason and rationality by the at-risk population, at which point epidemics can be reduced to individual cases that swiftly pass.
With all that said, I certainly hope that an effective treatment and/or vaccination can be found. I just don't believe that resources are better spent on diseases that can be effectively dealt with already by proper hygiene and sanitation.
Yes, there is every reason to consider it biological. The whole reason the video uses Norway as an example is because it is the most gender-equal country in the world by far. There is absolutely no incentive for men or women to take traditional roles there, and there is every incentive for them to take non-traditional roles. The sociological factors would push them towards the exact professions they aren't pursuing, which leaves only biological factors. And those are getting even stronger when money is no longer an issue. Look at Iran for instance. Way more female programmers down there. Are they further along in equality? Nope. But programming there is one of the few ways women can gain some independence, so they go for it. Why are there so few female programmers in Norway? Because they are free to choose what they want, and programming doesn't come with any incentive towards more money or independence.
But you don't even need that to see the obvious disparities in all countries that are approaching gender equality. Look at field by gender in the Nordic countries and you will see that there are "male" and "female" professions even after all the incentives to break those stereotypes. Why are there so many females in biology but barely any in electrical engineering even after the implementation of quotas, studies-to-job guarantees, fast-lanes etc and over 15 years of equality indoctrination? Because women don't enjoy electrical engineering, and the guarantee of an unappealing job doesn't do much in a country where no one has to starve.
Men and women aren't the same, biologically. Any biologist can tell you that. The links I posted tell you that. What I don't understand is how anyone could possibly think that we are different when it comes to hormones, genitals, brain, mammaries, bone structure, reproductive function, immune system, aesthetics, muscle, instinct, behavioral tendencies, and size, but suddenly when it comes to preferences we're all the same and it's all sociological. It' such an odd cut-off, and it makes no sense.
Tell me, which movie am I talking about here? 1. The plot begins in an early 20th century city against the backdrop of the war effort. 2. The hero isn't allowed to join the war effort, but tries to by sneaking around. 3. The hero joins the war, and proves themselves in it by completing task after task,eventually forming an elite unit fighting on the front lines. 4. The evil bad guy is using the war as a front for his own nefarious purposes, and doesn't care at all about who wins. 5. The hero uses a gimmick to fight. 6. The hero has a love interest, but alas that love isn't to be. 7. The main man in the movie disappears by averting a terrible disaster in the form of an airplane. 8. The hero has boobs comparable to a well-trained man. 9. The evil bad guy can be reduced to "hello, I'm the evil bad guy. I love being evil and bad." 10. The hero has a personality that would make cardboard seem 4-dimensional and unpredictable. 11. The hero has a support team of "wacky" and "endearing" characters with strongly expressed quirks. 12. The movie had an open ending, setting up for sequels. 13. A considerable part of the movie is set on the front-lines. 14. The hero wears a dark, gritty version of a spandex unitard.
See, it's tricky. Unless I mention hair color or overall quality of the ass, they are the same.
That seems like way too much work. Easier to just type out a lable that says "stronk womyn" and put that on the forehead (or in this case, hair) of the relevant actresses.
Are you sure it was Wonder Woman, and not any other DC movie you watched? I have yet to find a person that can actually tell the superhero movies apart. I thought I was watching Captain America through half the movie.
PS. Wonder Woman was no better or worse than any of the other movies, SJW or whatever. Same boring formula, you can predict with 100% certainty how it will end after 7 minutes of watching, and it's 80% explosions and pointless fisticuffs.
Yes, that's why the old works are so much better. Back before every actor was an emo-in-disguise, before every plot was saving-the-universe, and before every director was Michael Bay. I much prefer the action from 1970 - 1990 to the never-ending crap we have today (Dark Knight Rises takes the cake for its ceaseless action scenes). As for drama and romance, Bergman did it perfectly while what we have today is Twilight/50 shades. Or, to put it all in the simplest analogy, it's like Game of Thrones season 1-4 vs season 5-6. One side is just so obviously superior.
I do disagree on one point though. I don't see it as our artists being riddled with guilt and self-loathing. I see them as lazy and incompetent, trying to cash in on what's quick and easy rather than putting in the time to do it right.
Community Actions could unite neighbors to request change from their local and national elected officials and government agencies. But it could also provide vocal interest groups a bully pulpit from which to pressure politicians and bureaucrats with their fringe agendas. Community Actions embodies the central challenge facing Facebook. Every tool it designs for positive expression and connectivity can be subverted for polarization and misinformation. Facebook's membership has swelled into such a ripe target for exploitation that it draws out the worst of humanity. You can imagine misuses like "Crack down on [minority group]" that are offensive or even dangerous but some see as legitimate. The question is whether Facebook puts in the forethought and aftercare to safeguard its new tools with proper policy and moderation. Otherwise each new feature is another liability.
I see this again and again from the mentally stunted. Yes, a petition can be launched to spread awareness of animal torture. A petition can also be launched to inspire more animal torture. That is not subversion! It is the same damn thing, but with the moral values inverted! What we in the west consider great moral virtues may be considered absolutely haram in the middle-east. The same thing happens within a country, where some people vote right and some people vote left. Don't pretend like it's some sort of nefarious scheme to voice your (quite possibly retarded) opinion just because other's don't share it.
The problem with the FB petition system is that it is open to everyone, which means that it's open to even the smallest groups within society, the extremists. As long as you force a threshold before any petition can be seen easily, it will be fine. Dumb petitions that relate to American Idol will still be viral, but extremist stuff will be kept to a minimum. That will make the system bland admittedly, but it will work for real issues.
Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the inclination is caused by biology, nor the degree of productivity.
I don't know anything about productivity, this is the first time I've heard someone mention it. But the inclination, oh boy. https://www.thejournal.ie/gend... There's even a wiki page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... As always, I wouldn't trust the wiki page, but the sources might be interesting.
Oh, and here's a documentary from the Norwegian state channel. Don't worry, it's subbed in English. It's a good watch, quite explanatory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So yes, it seems to be heavily influenced by biology, even more so than findings from not-so-equal countries might suggest.
The gaming market isn't 50% women, because women are far less interested in gaming as a population. If you want to target women you'd be much better served by making iPhone games, a market where women are far more prolific.
As such, targetting women specifically in the PC games market is a terrible idea, which is also why it isn't being done en masse. Or do you think EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft et al, could choose to make women-specific games and rake in the cash but choose not to?
That's quite easy even for the marginally intelligent. Have you perhaps noticed how romantic films attract more women than men while non-stop action films attracts more men than women? Turns out that the same goes for games. The benefit of "excluding" a group (a term only a sycophant would use in this context btw) is that you can focus on your target demographic. The more you appeal to one audience, the less you will appeal to the other. By trying to grab *all* audiences, you will end up with a game that just barely interests anyone. And if you do that, both male and female gamers will instead buy something else that actually focuses on them as the target demographic.
For homework, look at the demographics playing The Sims vs the demographics playing Call of Duty.
That makes little to no sense. If you wanted to target the moron customer group, would it be a good idea to hire morons? In this context, Riot markets to male teenagers. Does it make sense to hire male teenagers? No, it really, really doesn't.
But where will it end? One company's product combines five 2D cameras with AI technology to provide "in-vehicle scene understanding" which includes each passenger's height, weight, gender and posture.
How exactly will they "understand" the gender of the passenger? Check for pink hair and Tumblr stickers?
Taxation is the system used in Sweden, where federal universities are free for all citizens. It's great in that education becomes as close to a human right as possible. Education reduces crime, improves health, improves social climate (unless it's an education in the social sciences), improves political awareness and understanding, improves quality of life, integration, and many many more aspects, all at a population level. But unfortunately it's not all great. It's quite a problem in cost. It's bloody expensive.It causes an overflow of students since almost everyone will want to try university studies. This means that universities go from educating top quality students (the few that get in) to giant diploma factories (have to graduate everyone), and the diplomas themselves become far less impressive (the GPA required for getting into a teaching programme at one uni was 0.4).
If it's worth it, I don't know. It's more expensive than my ex-wife, it causes a lot of problems with the perception of education, and it erodes the respect and authority of knowledge that academia otherwise protected. But educating everyone (or as close to everyone as we will ever get) is a noble pursuit.
The average chief executive officer at the 350 largest firms in the U.S. received $18.9 million in compensation in 2017, the study showed, a 17.6% increase over 2016. Despite those disparities, 91% of Americans say they have the same or greater confidence in the job market than they did one year ago, according to Bankrate.com.
Comparing the average American to the C-levels in the top 350 might be a little disingenuous. That said, something is seriously fucked up when the economy is going to crap while C-levels somehow get a 17.6% increase over 2 years.
And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash? If this had been reported in Europe there would be hell to pay. Unions, political parties and ideological organizations would all protest and cause problems.
Hell, a week or three ago in Sweden somewhere, the politicians of Lidingo something municipality voted to increase their own salaries. There was such a ruckus that they in the end had to lower their salaries and apologize for being slithering opportunists. They were held accountable by the people. In France, right now, well... France has a habit of taking things too far. But the French population do realize that if they band together, they have a voice and they can force change (or stasis, as in this case).
Don't you have a big statue or something to remind you of these lessons?
Slashdot Mirror
There's usually good reason that "neglected" diseases are neglected. It can be because they are incredibly rare, or as with the more common ones, that they proliferate because of factors not related to the disease.
Ebola is a case of "stupidity". An infection in the western world would be (and has on multiple occasions been) dealt with quickly and effectively by simple safety precautions. This is why doctors and nurses rarely get sick when working in the epidemic area. Isolation and basic sanitary procedures is all it takes to halt and stop an outbreak. This is the kind of solution that works in a society that works.
On the other hand, if patients flee the hospital because of rumors, if patients go to a witch-doctor instead of a doctor, and if patients ignore the isolation clause and go back to unsanitary living on top of other people (with bodily fluids spraying left and right), then Ebola will quickly becomes a very serious and national problem.
The biggest reduction in Ebola mortality will come about when the disease is treated with reason and rationality by the at-risk population, at which point epidemics can be reduced to individual cases that swiftly pass.
With all that said, I certainly hope that an effective treatment and/or vaccination can be found. I just don't believe that resources are better spent on diseases that can be effectively dealt with already by proper hygiene and sanitation.
Yeah but then you'd have to spend half the budget on developing a Jaws to go with that moonbase.
I don't see why not. The office has already declared war on drugs.
I'm guessing this was after he heard that Mars has no extradition treaty with the US.
Yes, there is every reason to consider it biological. The whole reason the video uses Norway as an example is because it is the most gender-equal country in the world by far. There is absolutely no incentive for men or women to take traditional roles there, and there is every incentive for them to take non-traditional roles. The sociological factors would push them towards the exact professions they aren't pursuing, which leaves only biological factors. And those are getting even stronger when money is no longer an issue. Look at Iran for instance. Way more female programmers down there. Are they further along in equality? Nope. But programming there is one of the few ways women can gain some independence, so they go for it. Why are there so few female programmers in Norway? Because they are free to choose what they want, and programming doesn't come with any incentive towards more money or independence.
But you don't even need that to see the obvious disparities in all countries that are approaching gender equality. Look at field by gender in the Nordic countries and you will see that there are "male" and "female" professions even after all the incentives to break those stereotypes. Why are there so many females in biology but barely any in electrical engineering even after the implementation of quotas, studies-to-job guarantees, fast-lanes etc and over 15 years of equality indoctrination? Because women don't enjoy electrical engineering, and the guarantee of an unappealing job doesn't do much in a country where no one has to starve.
Men and women aren't the same, biologically. Any biologist can tell you that. The links I posted tell you that.
What I don't understand is how anyone could possibly think that we are different when it comes to hormones, genitals, brain, mammaries, bone structure, reproductive function, immune system, aesthetics, muscle, instinct, behavioral tendencies, and size, but suddenly when it comes to preferences we're all the same and it's all sociological. It' such an odd cut-off, and it makes no sense.
It's not as easy as you think.
Tell me, which movie am I talking about here?
1. The plot begins in an early 20th century city against the backdrop of the war effort.
2. The hero isn't allowed to join the war effort, but tries to by sneaking around.
3. The hero joins the war, and proves themselves in it by completing task after task,eventually forming an elite unit fighting on the front lines.
4. The evil bad guy is using the war as a front for his own nefarious purposes, and doesn't care at all about who wins.
5. The hero uses a gimmick to fight.
6. The hero has a love interest, but alas that love isn't to be.
7. The main man in the movie disappears by averting a terrible disaster in the form of an airplane.
8. The hero has boobs comparable to a well-trained man.
9. The evil bad guy can be reduced to "hello, I'm the evil bad guy. I love being evil and bad."
10. The hero has a personality that would make cardboard seem 4-dimensional and unpredictable.
11. The hero has a support team of "wacky" and "endearing" characters with strongly expressed quirks.
12. The movie had an open ending, setting up for sequels.
13. A considerable part of the movie is set on the front-lines.
14. The hero wears a dark, gritty version of a spandex unitard.
See, it's tricky. Unless I mention hair color or overall quality of the ass, they are the same.
Yes, if you ignore all the studies then there are no studies that show the clear and distinct biological connection, that is correct.
Well done.
That seems like way too much work. Easier to just type out a lable that says "stronk womyn" and put that on the forehead (or in this case, hair) of the relevant actresses.
Are you sure it was Wonder Woman, and not any other DC movie you watched? I have yet to find a person that can actually tell the superhero movies apart. I thought I was watching Captain America through half the movie.
PS. Wonder Woman was no better or worse than any of the other movies, SJW or whatever. Same boring formula, you can predict with 100% certainty how it will end after 7 minutes of watching, and it's 80% explosions and pointless fisticuffs.
100 is, by definition, the average value. So no, it's not "low, low". It's average.
Well done.
Unfortunately that isn't possible anymore since Disney in their ineffable brilliance declared all of EU non-canon.
Yes, that's why the old works are so much better. Back before every actor was an emo-in-disguise, before every plot was saving-the-universe, and before every director was Michael Bay. I much prefer the action from 1970 - 1990 to the never-ending crap we have today (Dark Knight Rises takes the cake for its ceaseless action scenes). As for drama and romance, Bergman did it perfectly while what we have today is Twilight/50 shades.
Or, to put it all in the simplest analogy, it's like Game of Thrones season 1-4 vs season 5-6. One side is just so obviously superior.
I do disagree on one point though. I don't see it as our artists being riddled with guilt and self-loathing. I see them as lazy and incompetent, trying to cash in on what's quick and easy rather than putting in the time to do it right.
Community Actions could unite neighbors to request change from their local and national elected officials and government agencies. But it could also provide vocal interest groups a bully pulpit from which to pressure politicians and bureaucrats with their fringe agendas. Community Actions embodies the central challenge facing Facebook. Every tool it designs for positive expression and connectivity can be subverted for polarization and misinformation. Facebook's membership has swelled into such a ripe target for exploitation that it draws out the worst of humanity. You can imagine misuses like "Crack down on [minority group]" that are offensive or even dangerous but some see as legitimate. The question is whether Facebook puts in the forethought and aftercare to safeguard its new tools with proper policy and moderation. Otherwise each new feature is another liability.
I see this again and again from the mentally stunted. Yes, a petition can be launched to spread awareness of animal torture. A petition can also be launched to inspire more animal torture. That is not subversion! It is the same damn thing, but with the moral values inverted! What we in the west consider great moral virtues may be considered absolutely haram in the middle-east. The same thing happens within a country, where some people vote right and some people vote left. Don't pretend like it's some sort of nefarious scheme to voice your (quite possibly retarded) opinion just because other's don't share it.
The problem with the FB petition system is that it is open to everyone, which means that it's open to even the smallest groups within society, the extremists. As long as you force a threshold before any petition can be seen easily, it will be fine. Dumb petitions that relate to American Idol will still be viral, but extremist stuff will be kept to a minimum. That will make the system bland admittedly, but it will work for real issues.
Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the inclination is caused by biology, nor the degree of productivity.
I don't know anything about productivity, this is the first time I've heard someone mention it. But the inclination, oh boy.
https://www.thejournal.ie/gend...
There's even a wiki page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As always, I wouldn't trust the wiki page, but the sources might be interesting.
Oh, and here's a documentary from the Norwegian state channel. Don't worry, it's subbed in English. It's a good watch, quite explanatory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So yes, it seems to be heavily influenced by biology, even more so than findings from not-so-equal countries might suggest.
The gaming market isn't 50% women, because women are far less interested in gaming as a population. If you want to target women you'd be much better served by making iPhone games, a market where women are far more prolific.
As such, targetting women specifically in the PC games market is a terrible idea, which is also why it isn't being done en masse. Or do you think EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft et al, could choose to make women-specific games and rake in the cash but choose not to?
Wow, that's some Drumpf level sexism there. You are quite the feminist.
I only buy games from companies with fondling-certified CEOs.
That's quite easy even for the marginally intelligent. Have you perhaps noticed how romantic films attract more women than men while non-stop action films attracts more men than women? Turns out that the same goes for games.
The benefit of "excluding" a group (a term only a sycophant would use in this context btw) is that you can focus on your target demographic. The more you appeal to one audience, the less you will appeal to the other. By trying to grab *all* audiences, you will end up with a game that just barely interests anyone. And if you do that, both male and female gamers will instead buy something else that actually focuses on them as the target demographic.
For homework, look at the demographics playing The Sims vs the demographics playing Call of Duty.
That makes little to no sense. If you wanted to target the moron customer group, would it be a good idea to hire morons?
In this context, Riot markets to male teenagers. Does it make sense to hire male teenagers? No, it really, really doesn't.
They had an unfortunate habit of evolving from an internal combustion engine to an external combustion engine. That is why we now have safety ratings.
I thought you were talking about morbidly obese Americans until you mentioned Daleks.
But where will it end? One company's product combines five 2D cameras with AI technology to provide "in-vehicle scene understanding" which includes each passenger's height, weight, gender and posture.
How exactly will they "understand" the gender of the passenger? Check for pink hair and Tumblr stickers?
Taxation is the system used in Sweden, where federal universities are free for all citizens.
It's great in that education becomes as close to a human right as possible. Education reduces crime, improves health, improves social climate (unless it's an education in the social sciences), improves political awareness and understanding, improves quality of life, integration, and many many more aspects, all at a population level.
But unfortunately it's not all great.
It's quite a problem in cost. It's bloody expensive.It causes an overflow of students since almost everyone will want to try university studies. This means that universities go from educating top quality students (the few that get in) to giant diploma factories (have to graduate everyone), and the diplomas themselves become far less impressive (the GPA required for getting into a teaching programme at one uni was 0.4).
If it's worth it, I don't know. It's more expensive than my ex-wife, it causes a lot of problems with the perception of education, and it erodes the respect and authority of knowledge that academia otherwise protected. But educating everyone (or as close to everyone as we will ever get) is a noble pursuit.
The average chief executive officer at the 350 largest firms in the U.S. received $18.9 million in compensation in 2017, the study showed, a 17.6% increase over 2016. Despite those disparities, 91% of Americans say they have the same or greater confidence in the job market than they did one year ago, according to Bankrate.com.
Comparing the average American to the C-levels in the top 350 might be a little disingenuous. That said, something is seriously fucked up when the economy is going to crap while C-levels somehow get a 17.6% increase over 2 years.
And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash? If this had been reported in Europe there would be hell to pay. Unions, political parties and ideological organizations would all protest and cause problems.
Hell, a week or three ago in Sweden somewhere, the politicians of Lidingo something municipality voted to increase their own salaries. There was such a ruckus that they in the end had to lower their salaries and apologize for being slithering opportunists. They were held accountable by the people.
In France, right now, well... France has a habit of taking things too far. But the French population do realize that if they band together, they have a voice and they can force change (or stasis, as in this case).
Don't you have a big statue or something to remind you of these lessons?
It's a half-win. With this new power only Republican politicians will be able to spam text you.