Sorry, you don't simply lose knoweldge (or the ability to comment on things you happen to know about) simply because you take a job outside that field.
I haven't done hospital work in a decade and a half. I still have people asking me for basic medical advice.
Additionally, Google was supposed to be an "open" environment, where this sort of thing COULD be discussed. In actuality, it's become a noxious echo chamber for "right think".
Also, the memo was up for a MONTH before it got leaked. It sure as hell didn't look like he was getting fired up until Google felt the need to virtue signal.
So "Likely to get you fired anywhere" means "Likely to get you fired anywhere that's afraid of dogmatic SJW ideology".
One: Not a manifesto. A manifesto is a form of action plan. This memo calls for discussion and doesn't actually even suggest a form of action beyond that.
Two: While he isn't a PHD, he has a Masters in Biology and was, at one point, working towards a PhD.. I don't think "rank amateur" is an appropriate description for the man.
Three: It's NOT filled with "fallacies". Well, it IS if you're one of the emotionally driven ideologues who ignore science if it hurts their feelings. Actual scientists, people with PhD's in biology and sociology have already SAID that the science in the memo is good. It's not "wild extrapolation", nor is it unsourced.
Four: Your timeline is broken. The memo was posted, openly, a month before it blew up and he was fired. Why did it take a month before the outrage caused his bosses to virtue signal and fire him? And it was posted, initially, to start the conversation. It wasn't an end-run around his bosses.
Your post goes to show exactly how activist ideologues have twisted this story to meet their narrative.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
No. What he was saying, in round terms, is that GENERALLY, women don't go for STEM jobs because they do not want the sort of compromises to lifestyle such jobs require. He's not saying "all women". As such, artificial (and illegally discriminatory) methods to pump up numbers by taking on unsuitable candidates is an ideological fallacy, a waste of time, and hurts the company. Simply going "Numbers no match! SEXISM! ALL SEXISM!" isn't a valid viewpoint. A certain type of person gravitates towards jobs at Google. Male or female is irrelevant.
All these idiots can do is go "The numbers. NOT SAME!"
Never mind that there are MANY reasons why that could be. With one of the biggest being "Many (not all) women simply don't want to put up with the bullshit such jobs entail."
But no! They're going to do whatever they can to make those numbers the same. REGARDLESS of the laws they break. REGARDLESS of negative impact upon their company and the quality of their product.
"I have a hammer!" "I have a screw that needs to be driven in." *WHACK* "Well, that broke the screw!" "I have two pieces of glass that need to be delicately glued back together!" *WHACK* "Now I have two HUNDRED pieces of glass!"
That was the mistake. Whether he's right or wrong (and I haven't read the science, so I don't know) that's what crosses the line between 'acceptable to discuss at work' and 'likely to get you fired'.
Unless you're a biologist or doing a PhD in Sociology. Although frankly, even then if you're challenging certain current religions.
One. Truth as an absolute defense.
Two, he IS a biologist. He's got a Masters from Harvard in Systems Biology. So yeah, he knows what he's talking about. Others in the biology and sociology fields have essentially said that there's nothing scientifically wrong in his memo.
The reason he submitted the memo in the first place was to hopefully get dialog going so there could be discussion about creating and implementing solutions.
Because the article wasn't "Women are inherently inferior". The essay was "We don't (and possibly won't) see equal representation, and here are some biological and social reasons why. It then goes on the point out that mandating impossible quotas, discriminatory (and possibly illegal) hiring practices, and fostering an environment where people are afraid to speak their minds and contribute might not be the best way to achieve diversity of any stripe.
1: No such thing as "hate speech". 2: Even if there was, it's still covered under 1A 3: He didn't claim women are biologically inferior engineers. He simply put forth reasons why we do not see equal representation of women in STEM. These are all recognized by professional science types as accepted scientific theory at this point. It comes down to "because many (not all) women simply don't want to".
Sorry, but a labor union would simply add another level of fucked up to the situation. Because they'd be every bit as left leaning as Google is. So he files a union complaint and it's mysterious found to have no substance... Further prejudicing his federal case.
Nah.
Unless you're "one of the boys" (or "one of the girls"), in the social circles of the union leadership, a union does almost nothing for you (protection-wise).
I have a sub to Netflix and I have a sub to Amazon Prime. That's all I'm investing in.
DC wants their own streaming network for additional money. Fuck them. Disney wants their own streaming network for additional money. Fuck them.
I don't get cable TV because I already pay $150/month for my internet service and I don't really watch anything on TV. For the few things I have an interest in, I'm not going to pay additional amounts of money for multiple networks that essentially add up to a cable TV bill.
If I can't get the shit I want on Netflix or Amazon, I simply won't watch. Plain and simple.
COULD I afford it? Sure. Will I allow myself to be repeatedly "held up" for yet ANOTHER subscription service? HELL THE FUCK NO.
And I, frankly, don't see what's wrong with continuing to license older content to another streaming network, and hold your own new content strictly to your network (outside of purchases) for 4-6 months. This way you continue bringing in licensing bucks and can still present on your own network for essentially no cost.
But no! It's not like Disney is sitting on a NINETY YEAR CACHE OF CONTENT or anything. It's not like Warner Brothers has NINETY FIVE YEARS OF CONTENT.
With all of the studios that have come, gone, merged, etc, there are literally tens (if not hundreds) of millions of hours of content out of the major studios in the past century. Even if only one percent of which was considered "worthwhile", that's still hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of hours of excellence in programming. That's more than anyone could watch in a given lifetime. And that's before taking into account the pleasures of repeat viewing.
Basically this guy had to know his career was over the second he sent this.
California, where wrong-think is a crime, is already violently intolerant to anyone who isn't left of Stalin. The San Francisco area is simply California turned up to 11. And the environment in these isolating Silicon Valley cult indoctrination centers is simply San Francisco hypercubed.
So protected speech doesn't merit legal protection in California?
REALLY?
Again, illiberal, authoritarian shit like this, coming out of what's supposed to be the most liberal place on the planet should surprise nobody.
"Think differently, just like me, OR ELSE!"
So, instead of a tolerant, level-headed push to better and broaden society, we have a bunch of bitchy, socially maladjusted children pushing darwinian progressivism, group-think, intolerance and and the kind of antisocial interaction you see in nasty little grade school students.
And California isn't just "okay" with this, it wants the entire fucking state to be this goddamn crazy.
Then they wonder why people are praying for an earthquake or secession to take these fucknuts off our hands...
Sorry, but trying to build a miles-long vacuum chamber out of thin-wall steel tubing, and pushing people through it at high rates of speed?
The science behind his CHOSEN SOLUTION is iffy.
Sure it can be brute-forced to work. But there are several major points of failure that are simply ignored. And actual safety systems haven't even been discussed.
The fact is, this thing is supposed to be carrying people. People generally object to being worse-than-killed on a business commute.
Pretty much ALL types of power facilities have carbon costs in building them. Wind and solar might offset sooner. But, in terms of power density, a nuclear plant will generally deliver far more power over it's lifetime in terms of offset.
And, even if I were talking about continuing with solid fuel reactors.
If all the primary power generation comes from nuclear power, how much CO2 is put into the air enriching uranium?
Luckily I'm not talking about solid fuel reactors. They need to go away. They're too much of a Rube Goldberg Machine in terms of safety. When 10% of the total facility is the reactor and the other 90% is the safety systems, something's out of whack.
1: Since when was Chernobyl the US nuclear industry's fault? Chernobyl was a bunch of Russian idiots playing with a reactor. 2: When was Fukushima the US nuclear industry's fault. Fukushima was a bunch of cheapshits at TEPCO IGNORING engineering recommendations to make the sea wall higher so the site wouldn't get flooded out.
3: There's no such thing as "clean" power. All forms of power have some form of byproduct. The one that's the biggest concern today is CO2, because of AGW concerns. Sure, building a nuclear facility puts some CO2 into the environment. Building ANY type of power facility puts CO2 out. But the nuclear facility itself is essentially carbon neutral once it begins generating power.
4: NO a switchover to a safer design wouldn't "already have been done". Because it undermines the current reactor business model.
5: Yes, an MSR DOES burn it's fuel. You don't pull the fuel from the reactor unless you're decommissioning or servicing it. You only pull byproducts.
6: No, they pull fuel rods at that point because the casing on the rods break down over time. They swell and crack and you cannot leave them in the reactor. So they're generally pulled before that point. As getting fuel rods stuck in a reactor vessel is a Bad Thing.
7: The article you link to is talking about a uranium-based SOLID FUEL REACTOR. MSR thermal spectrum reactors running on Thorium are not directly comparable to solid fuel fast spectrum reactors running on Uranium.
Please try to continue this conversation when you know what you're talking about.
It's basically "have job prospects", and "know english well enough to get by".
How the fuck is that going to hurt the economy?
Because they can't hire stupid, illiterate illegals for pennies on the dollar to watch their kids and clean their homes/offices?
BOO FUCKIN' HOO!
And Silicon Valley. One of the most overheated real estate markets on the planet? Where are these poor schlubs going to live? You expect them to commute from what? OREGON?
These people need to pull their heads out of their a^H^H^SAFE SPACES...and take a look at the really real world... Because their attachment to fantasy is destroying them and trying to take the state and country down as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you don't simply lose knoweldge (or the ability to comment on things you happen to know about) simply because you take a job outside that field.
I haven't done hospital work in a decade and a half. I still have people asking me for basic medical advice.
Additionally, Google was supposed to be an "open" environment, where this sort of thing COULD be discussed.
In actuality, it's become a noxious echo chamber for "right think".
Also, the memo was up for a MONTH before it got leaked.
It sure as hell didn't look like he was getting fired up until Google felt the need to virtue signal.
So "Likely to get you fired anywhere" means "Likely to get you fired anywhere that's afraid of dogmatic SJW ideology".
Studies have BEEN done you dumbass!
That's why this is currently accepted social science.
One: Not a manifesto. A manifesto is a form of action plan. This memo calls for discussion and doesn't actually even suggest a form of action beyond that.
Two: While he isn't a PHD, he has a Masters in Biology and was, at one point, working towards a PhD.. I don't think "rank amateur" is an appropriate description for the man.
Three: It's NOT filled with "fallacies". Well, it IS if you're one of the emotionally driven ideologues who ignore science if it hurts their feelings. Actual scientists, people with PhD's in biology and sociology have already SAID that the science in the memo is good. It's not "wild extrapolation", nor is it unsourced.
Four: Your timeline is broken. The memo was posted, openly, a month before it blew up and he was fired. Why did it take a month before the outrage caused his bosses to virtue signal and fire him? And it was posted, initially, to start the conversation. It wasn't an end-run around his bosses.
Your post goes to show exactly how activist ideologues have twisted this story to meet their narrative.
Bullshit.
This memo was circulating for over a month before it was leaked.
The management at Google seemed happy enough with him until it blew up in the news.
THEN they decided to virtue signal by labeling him some sort of misogynist and booting him for wrong-think.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
No. What he was saying, in round terms, is that GENERALLY, women don't go for STEM jobs because they do not want the sort of compromises to lifestyle such jobs require.
He's not saying "all women". As such, artificial (and illegally discriminatory) methods to pump up numbers by taking on unsuitable candidates is an ideological fallacy, a waste of time, and hurts the company. Simply going "Numbers no match! SEXISM! ALL SEXISM!" isn't a valid viewpoint.
A certain type of person gravitates towards jobs at Google. Male or female is irrelevant.
All these idiots can do is go "The numbers. NOT SAME!"
Never mind that there are MANY reasons why that could be.
With one of the biggest being "Many (not all) women simply don't want to put up with the bullshit such jobs entail."
But no! They're going to do whatever they can to make those numbers the same. REGARDLESS of the laws they break. REGARDLESS of negative impact upon their company and the quality of their product.
"I have a hammer!"
"I have a screw that needs to be driven in."
*WHACK*
"Well, that broke the screw!"
"I have two pieces of glass that need to be delicately glued back together!"
*WHACK*
"Now I have two HUNDRED pieces of glass!"
That was the mistake. Whether he's right or wrong (and I haven't read the science, so I don't know) that's what crosses the line between 'acceptable to discuss at work' and 'likely to get you fired'.
Unless you're a biologist or doing a PhD in Sociology. Although frankly, even then if you're challenging certain current religions.
One. Truth as an absolute defense.
Two, he IS a biologist. He's got a Masters from Harvard in Systems Biology. So yeah, he knows what he's talking about.
Others in the biology and sociology fields have essentially said that there's nothing scientifically wrong in his memo.
The reason he submitted the memo in the first place was to hopefully get dialog going so there could be discussion about creating and implementing solutions.
Because the article wasn't "Women are inherently inferior".
The essay was "We don't (and possibly won't) see equal representation, and here are some biological and social reasons why.
It then goes on the point out that mandating impossible quotas, discriminatory (and possibly illegal) hiring practices, and fostering an environment where people are afraid to speak their minds and contribute might not be the best way to achieve diversity of any stripe.
1: No such thing as "hate speech".
2: Even if there was, it's still covered under 1A
3: He didn't claim women are biologically inferior engineers. He simply put forth reasons why we do not see equal representation of women in STEM. These are all recognized by professional science types as accepted scientific theory at this point. It comes down to "because many (not all) women simply don't want to".
Exactly. Over time, these idiots will degenerate into uglier and uglier "purity tests".
Eventually it'll be a race to see if their "movement" self-cannibalizes or self-destructs first.
If I was a conservative employee at Google, after the last week, I'd keep my mouth shut and look for another job as quickly as possible.
They've shown EXACTLY what they REALLY think about someone asking an honest question.
And no pronouncements or showmanship or promises of safety are going to convince anyone otherwise.
Sorry, but a labor union would simply add another level of fucked up to the situation.
Because they'd be every bit as left leaning as Google is.
So he files a union complaint and it's mysterious found to have no substance...
Further prejudicing his federal case.
Nah.
Unless you're "one of the boys" (or "one of the girls"), in the social circles of the union leadership, a union does almost nothing for you (protection-wise).
This guy at least did it under his own name.
Whereas you're a troll, slinging shit under an AC.
No, the "soft" stuff that SJWs "study" are things like "Race Relations", "Women in *INSERT HERE".
Actual, classical Psych and Sociology curricula would be too triggering to them. Because they'd see how mentally ill they actually are.
I have a sub to Netflix and I have a sub to Amazon Prime.
That's all I'm investing in.
DC wants their own streaming network for additional money. Fuck them.
Disney wants their own streaming network for additional money. Fuck them.
I don't get cable TV because I already pay $150/month for my internet service and I don't really watch anything on TV.
For the few things I have an interest in, I'm not going to pay additional amounts of money for multiple networks that essentially add up to a cable TV bill.
If I can't get the shit I want on Netflix or Amazon, I simply won't watch. Plain and simple.
COULD I afford it? Sure. Will I allow myself to be repeatedly "held up" for yet ANOTHER subscription service?
HELL THE FUCK NO.
And I, frankly, don't see what's wrong with continuing to license older content to another streaming network, and hold your own new content strictly to your network (outside of purchases) for 4-6 months. This way you continue bringing in licensing bucks and can still present on your own network for essentially no cost.
But no! It's not like Disney is sitting on a NINETY YEAR CACHE OF CONTENT or anything.
It's not like Warner Brothers has NINETY FIVE YEARS OF CONTENT.
With all of the studios that have come, gone, merged, etc, there are literally tens (if not hundreds) of millions of hours of content out of the major studios in the past century. Even if only one percent of which was considered "worthwhile", that's still hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of hours of excellence in programming. That's more than anyone could watch in a given lifetime. And that's before taking into account the pleasures of repeat viewing.
Basically this guy had to know his career was over the second he sent this.
California, where wrong-think is a crime, is already violently intolerant to anyone who isn't left of Stalin.
The San Francisco area is simply California turned up to 11.
And the environment in these isolating Silicon Valley cult indoctrination centers is simply San Francisco hypercubed.
One word.
TAKFIR
Due to the extremity of muslim factionalism, it becomes EASILY to see just this happening.
"Oh. They aren't REAL muslims!"
And why blow up power lines?
Simply crash a plane into the panel fields.
Do it a couple times as they try to rebuild.
It quickly becomes cost ineffective for them to rebuild.
So protected speech doesn't merit legal protection in California?
REALLY?
Again, illiberal, authoritarian shit like this, coming out of what's supposed to be the most liberal place on the planet should surprise nobody.
"Think differently, just like me, OR ELSE!"
So, instead of a tolerant, level-headed push to better and broaden society, we have a bunch of bitchy, socially maladjusted children pushing darwinian progressivism, group-think, intolerance and and the kind of antisocial interaction you see in nasty little grade school students.
And California isn't just "okay" with this, it wants the entire fucking state to be this goddamn crazy.
Then they wonder why people are praying for an earthquake or secession to take these fucknuts off our hands...
Yeah. I can see this would go over REAL big with the authoritarian touchy-feelies at Google...
And I'm shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, that they simply dismissed it.
Sorry, but trying to build a miles-long vacuum chamber out of thin-wall steel tubing, and pushing people through it at high rates of speed?
The science behind his CHOSEN SOLUTION is iffy.
Sure it can be brute-forced to work. But there are several major points of failure that are simply ignored. And actual safety systems haven't even been discussed.
The fact is, this thing is supposed to be carrying people. People generally object to being worse-than-killed on a business commute.
http://www.pennlive.com/specia...
Pretty much ALL types of power facilities have carbon costs in building them.
Wind and solar might offset sooner.
But, in terms of power density, a nuclear plant will generally deliver far more power over it's lifetime in terms of offset.
And, even if I were talking about continuing with solid fuel reactors.
If all the primary power generation comes from nuclear power, how much CO2 is put into the air enriching uranium?
Luckily I'm not talking about solid fuel reactors. They need to go away. They're too much of a Rube Goldberg Machine in terms of safety. When 10% of the total facility is the reactor and the other 90% is the safety systems, something's out of whack.
1: Since when was Chernobyl the US nuclear industry's fault? Chernobyl was a bunch of Russian idiots playing with a reactor.
2: When was Fukushima the US nuclear industry's fault. Fukushima was a bunch of cheapshits at TEPCO IGNORING engineering recommendations to make the sea wall higher so the site wouldn't get flooded out.
3: There's no such thing as "clean" power. All forms of power have some form of byproduct. The one that's the biggest concern today is CO2, because of AGW concerns. Sure, building a nuclear facility puts some CO2 into the environment. Building ANY type of power facility puts CO2 out. But the nuclear facility itself is essentially carbon neutral once it begins generating power.
4: NO a switchover to a safer design wouldn't "already have been done". Because it undermines the current reactor business model.
5: Yes, an MSR DOES burn it's fuel. You don't pull the fuel from the reactor unless you're decommissioning or servicing it. You only pull byproducts.
6: No, they pull fuel rods at that point because the casing on the rods break down over time. They swell and crack and you cannot leave them in the reactor. So they're generally pulled before that point. As getting fuel rods stuck in a reactor vessel is a Bad Thing.
7: The article you link to is talking about a uranium-based SOLID FUEL REACTOR. MSR thermal spectrum reactors running on Thorium are not directly comparable to solid fuel fast spectrum reactors running on Uranium.
Please try to continue this conversation when you know what you're talking about.
Seriously.
It's basically "have job prospects", and "know english well enough to get by".
How the fuck is that going to hurt the economy?
Because they can't hire stupid, illiterate illegals for pennies on the dollar to watch their kids and clean their homes/offices?
BOO FUCKIN' HOO!
And Silicon Valley. One of the most overheated real estate markets on the planet?
Where are these poor schlubs going to live? You expect them to commute from what? OREGON?
These people need to pull their heads out of their a^H^H^SAFE SPACES...and take a look at the really real world...
Because their attachment to fantasy is destroying them and trying to take the state and country down as well.