...Cancels Diversity Town Hall Over Concerns for Employee Safety
It is painfully clear these people have no concept of just how much hate they have been indulging. They've basically built a company populated with rabid malcontents that are prepared to harm or kill their cow-orkers.
Rather, the alt-right has taken hold of the issue and has a well established pattern of harassing and threatening people who speak up, particularly women.
Sure it goes both ways and harassing of conservatives is quite common to. Either way, but employee who speaks up and gets publicly identified in the Town Hall is going to get seriously harassed. Cancelling the event is a no-brainer.
I don't like Republican voters either. But they have ID. I'm only for stopping people from voting if they can't prove they are who they claim to be and are eligible to vote. But I'm the unreasonable one here?
If that's what you want fine, but then you also need to give everyone a government issued ID for free and absolutely zero hassle.
I think I'd be fine with it in that case, but the moment you give all those poor people valid IDs I'm guessing the GOP stops caring about voter ID laws.
The fact that fraud is unlikely to change the outcome of any election doesn't change the fact that it is a problem that shouldn't need to be solved.
But it does mean you shouldn't use a solution that imposes other significant costs, like voter ID laws.
It's unlikely that anything on my work computer is likely to hurt my company if the information was released to the public, but I still have a password requirement and IT policies preventing free access to the internet.
Your work computer, if it is compromised, can cause significant damage to your company (and yourself) with very little warning. For voter impersonation to get to a level where it caused trouble we would get a ton of warning.
Photo ID is a pretty low bar for voting.
Doesn't matter, it's still a bar that some people can't pass and it's not your business to take away their vote.
Who the hell are all these voters that don't have them and why should the entire election results be risked just to allow these people to vote?
Except the election results are not being risked, there's no evidence it's happening at all and it would be fantastically infeasible to use it to sway an election.
Based on who is for and against the voter ID requirements, I'd say most of these no-ID voters are unmotivated Democrats that will vote straight ticket if it isn't too much trouble...
Personally, if they can't be troubled to get an ID, I don't really want their votes to count toward making policy for the whole country.
So get rid of absentee ballots to knock out the unmotivated Republicans, or make the lines in the suburbs a bit longer.
You don't get to introduce a standard like "motivation" and start aiming it at just the voters you don't like. If you let me disenfranchise any group of voters I can come up with a good criticism of then you'll never win another election.
It's hard to make claims one way or the other about voter fraud when voters need not present reasonable identification. It's impossible to know if there were fraudulent votes if you can't identify legitimate voters.
Yet somehow the US Republican party is so confident that they're willing to make it significantly harder for millions of people to vote based on that flimsy pretext.
Oh, and it's hard to tell if there were a couple fraudulent votes in an individual precinct, it's ridiculously easy to tell if it's a real problem on a national level.
Can you imagine how many millions of people would have to be in on it to cast enough fraudulent votes to have any real effect on US politics? Trump Jr. had a meeting with 6 other people and it leaked, do you really think it's plausible that there's a fraudulent voter conspiracy involving millions of people and no one is talking?
It's not, it's a stupid idea, voter fraud in the US is not a problem at the national level.
The majority party, right now the Republicans, is in fact pushing their agenda. Their agenda is to depose the current, lawfully elected President. It will be interesting to see if this is actually tolerable, that is, if they can 'get away' with this by 'playing by the rules'. Their rules. The intelligentsia's rules. The governing class rules.
The GOP has been bending over backwards to accommodate Trump and try to keep him in office. What else do you expect them to do?
Trump's problem is he's either got some serious crimes related to financial malfeasance or Russian collaboration that he needs to cover-up, or he's engaging in a cover-up for no good reason.
Either way it's his own damn fault, who admits to firing the head of the FBI for investigating him while talking to a reporter on camera???
Otherwise known as, "Dog Whistles", which are imaginary constructs conjured up by the left when they have no evidence to back up their claims of some kind of cultural transgression such as racism, sexism, any ind of phobia, etc.
That's not what "Dog Whistles" are.
Dog Whistles are when someone tries to signal racists or sexists that they're on the same side without actually declaring themselves a racist or sexist.
An obvious (though poorly executed) example is Paul LePage:
“I tell ya, everybody in Maine, we have constitutional carry,” he said. “Load up and get rid of the drug dealers. Because, folks, they’re killing our kids.”
LePage was immediately asked by a reporter if he was advocating vigilante justice. The governor said he wasn’t.
It's a pretty obvious appeal to gun rights activists who see themselves as vigilantes who shoot black drug dealers (LePage has been consistent in implying that drug dealing is a problem imported by black people). But he's trying to avoid saying that to all the moderates, he only wants that portion of the base to hear it, ie, a dog whistle.
Nothing there is offensive. Thats why what the left claims that he meant to say is what is being used in the discussion by the left.
It's not hard to connect the dots. He's implying that leadership positions are a burden so it's not an issue that so few are occupied by women because women are better off without them. It's a variant on the whole separate-but-equal, ie "Top leadership positions aren't any better than those lower-pay lower-prestige female-dominated professions, if fact those women have it better than us poor men!"
For all those winers out there that are always complaining the U.S. is a fascist dictatorship - this is what real fascism looks like.
No one here is complaining that the U.S. is a fascist dictatorship, they're complaining that Trump is moving the country in the direction of fascism, and that the leaders who he most often expressed admiration for tend to be fascists.
Take a pre-war Assad and make him Christian he's probably joining Putin and Duterte on Trump's wall of inspirational posters.
USA backed Syrian rebel forces, until Trump switched to backing Assad due to his Russian links.
I sure hope the U.S. does not "back" me anytime soon given what they did to Assad under Trump.
Trump doesn't have a policy on Syria, he has a series of reactions that change with the news cycle.
If you want to see someone who truly supported Russia, look no further than Obama (who ignored them shooting down a commercial passenger jet)
And exactly what reaction was Obama supposed to have? The biggest question during the invasion of Ukraine was how to get Putin to stop with just Eastern Ukraine.
- or Hillary (who sold them oodles of uranium's secretary of state).
we'll get right on that after we've fought off the invasion from the lizard people.
So when all the drivers log back in, the supply goes way up. Surge pricing should drop like a rock very quickly if the system is designed correctly. And if you're coordinating all that effort for only 1-2 drivers to get the boost (and likely not you), that ends this behavior almost immediately.
Not really, Uber is going to do a lot of smoothing on surge pricing, if users see prices rapidly fluctuating they'll get annoyed and potentially switch to competitors, they also might start delaying their hail in expectation of a rapid price drop, and some of those delayed sales will be lost.
That means the drivers will always have a short window where they're back and full supply but the price hasn't dropped from surge levels yet.
There's another interesting aspect, if surge pricing were perfectly efficient and the drivers rational this wouldn't happen. When the surge prices kicked in the sales would drop and the drivers would actually make less money. This suggests one of two things. 1) Uber is deliberately under-pricing their service, meaning Uber (and drivers) can make more in the short term by raising prices. 2) The drivers are fooling themselves are are losing money with this tactic.
Part of me wonders if this was planned all along (and by all along I mean the last few days) as a way to get rid of Preibus. Trump obviously isn't happy with the GOP and getting rid of Priebus was a good way to put a shot over the GOP's bow. So, bring in Mooch, have him get into a pissing match with Priebus, use that as an excuse to get rid of Priebus, and bring in Kelly who might be more loyal to Trump. Then, when Mooch has done his job, cut him loose. Trump gets to get rid of poor Spicey, gets to rebuke the GOP over their failed repeal of Obamacare, and gets a new Chief of Staff and (eventually) a new Communications Director.
Of course, the other part of me thinks Trump is so unhinged and disjointed he can't even plan far enough ahead to decide whether he wants original or extra crispy KFC waiting for him in the limo that takes him from Air Force One to Mar a Lago on his biweekly "definitely not golfing" weekend golf trips.
10 days is more long term planning than I'd generally give Trump credit for.
Besides, replacing Priebus with Kelly who then turfed Spicer would have been pretty good optics. In that scenario you have the "disciplined military man coming in and taking charge" narrative.
Instead Trump looks like a fool for hiring Scaramucci and looks weak for having is Chief of Staff come in and reverse his hiring position. Plus, you have yet another instance of someone joining the administration and losing their reputation in the process. You're not going to have much luck recruiting good people.
Trump's policy statements are barely more relevant than they were during the Apprentice. Just look at what happened with health care, it's the congressional republicans driving legislation and Trump is essentially tweeting randomly based on clips he saw on TV.
Now, when it comes to tax policy his personal beliefs, give rich people a tax cut, are in line with Republicans as a whole, and he might actually push a specific policy because it personally affects him. But I don't think he has the basic competency to impose that view on congress. Paul Ryan's view is the one that really matters.
Wow...documents that have been out for over a year are going to now become an issue that will lead to this chain of scandalous events? Sorry, if they were going to be an issue for now President Trump they would have been an issue before he got elected. That's not to say that people like you won't continue to claim there is something when there's nothing...but there really is nothing.
The Watergate break-in (and arrests) happened June 17, 1972.
The Saturday Night Massacre was October 20, 1973.
The impeachment investigation started February 6, 1974
The first article of impeachment was July 27, 1974.
Nixon resigned August 8, 1974.
That's over 2 years from crime to impeachment for a simple break-in/cover up. You think they're going to charge a Presidential candidate, much less a sitting President, for financial crimes after this short an investigation?
And, in case you haven't been following the news, Trump's escalated war on the DOJ has coincided with news that the Mueller investigation was starting to look into finances. I don't know if Trump is implicated by the Panama Papers specifically, but there's a ridiculous amount of smoke surrounding the Trump Organization.
This unmasking was for political purposes which makes it far worse. The sitting administration was running an intelligence op against the candidate of the opposition party. All the The Russians! bullshit is just a continuation of that op against the electorate.
Nunes is hardly a reliable source to digest this information. There was an active Russian intelligence operation to swing the election and a lot of indications that they were collaborating with one of the campaigns.
That the Obama administration and intelligence agencies concealed as much of that as they did is remarkable, all they had to do is spill a few of these secret meetings and it could have changed the election. Instead they essentially let Russia succeed in swinging the election for fear of acting improper.
Can you imagine watching that election spin out of control from Russian interference, having the goods that could stop it, but not being allowed to say anything about it?
In front line situations, you have a canteen and hole that you dig. You put the majority of the military at a very compromising position with transgender soldiers. The twig and berries don't vanish because a person believes they are a woman, any more than breasts and bush vanish when a women believes they are man. So should the women in the military be forced to look at a twig and berries in the showers? Do you think it's fair to the men to stick a naked women who thinks they are man into a shower with them? Not that people want things to happen in either of those circumstances, but you are providing a very high risk and completely unnecessary situation for soldiers.
Or they might just act like adults and do none of the things you describe. Why do people assume that transgendered people will go out of their way to create the most awkward situations possible? They're doing everything they can to fit in with as little fuss as possible. And if an awkward situation does arise people are pretty good at handling it.
This is the same ridiculousness as happened with gay soldiers, you remember what happened when you let in gay soldiers? The same thing as happened in every other country that let in gay soldiers, the same thing that happened in every country that let in transgendered soldiers, the same thing that will happen when you let in transgendered soldiers. Not a damn thing.
This has nothing to do with "effectiveness" or "cohesion" and everything with finding a pretext to stigmatize a group of people.
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder. (2015, not decades ago)
So a prestigious researcher can still be wrong (and mysteriously not be burned at the stake by leftists like the political right is convinced they will be).
There's a very simple way to look at this.
Do you think your brain fundamentally matches your gender?
If so, then why do you think it's impossible for someone else's brain to mismatch their gender?
A german study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12832250) results state "In 270 (75%) of these 359 patients, cross-gender identification was interpreted as an epiphenomenon of other psychiatric illnesses, notably personality, mood, dissociative, and psychotic disorders. Major mood disorders, dissociative disorders and psychotic disorders reported in 79% of transgenders."
Huh, I wonder why that would be? Could it be related to the absurd levels of stigma attached to being transgendered?
Even if you argue that transgenderism isn't in itself a mental disorder, a transgender individual is far more likely to have multiple other mental disorders, a much higher risk of suicide, etc. It then becomes fair to say that if you are transgender, you personally might be mentally stable enough to be in the military but there is a very high statistical chance that you are nuts in ways that are prohibitively not conducive to the purpose of the military and the stresses that occur due to that purpose.
Remember Bradley Manning?
If transgendered people had been allowed in the military he may have become Chelsea Manning while still in service. And she might have been a stable and productive member of the military.
The issue (if it is one at all as you'd want to look for confounding factors to control for before leaping to a judgement) should be self-correcting. Assume for the sake of argument that all ventures are equally good regardless of the sexes of the team or that from a funding perspective they all have equally good returns. Investors who don't discriminate on sex would be able to get greater returns because there are fewer other VCs that want to invest so they can negotiate a better deal. Since the returns are just as good, those investors make more money and other investors start to adopt their investment strategy.
It really only takes one to figure that out and the market corrects. Of course not all projects are equal, so there is a question as to whether or not women are more disposed to be parts of projects that don't have as good of return potential as men.
I suppose I could read the study myself to see if this was done or attempted.
The 80's called and they want their assumption of perfectly rational economic actors back.
The implication that all VCs are sexist-driven rather than profit-driven is a bit perplexing. These are the people that are like the Iron Bank from GoT. They probably don't even see the people for who they are, rather than just seeing us all as numbers, except possibly the one that claims to be the CEO for sheer viability.
Which is pretty much the opposite of what they actually do.
VCs don't care about the product, if the product was finished they wouldn't need VCs. The VCs care about the team, they're looking for people who can actually use the money that's given and bring the project to market. It's basically a fancy job interview.
That these VCs end up doubling down on the same biases as everyone else in entirely predictable, I'd expect the same results for start-ups with black team members as well.
Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???
Ok, here is the content at the top of the link you gave...
In 2006 Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat, but his recent political leanings are unknown.
And if you scroll down further, it has "claim" and the rating is mixture (not either true or false). So what are you trying to show here???
If you pro-actively tell me someone is a Democrat I'm assuming that they actively identify as a member of the Democratic party.
If your only evidence is a 10 year old voter registration I'd assume you're full of it.
To call it a "lie" implies some sort of bias. Assumptions are often built in to such statistical analysis. Why is it a lie this time?
Because the poster has some weird ideology they're trying to push on us.
Any abstraction is going to hide information, does it really make sense to count someone who took early retirement, or is doing full time childcare as unemployed?
At my university, we've been watching the explosion of CS majors for the past few years and wondering when the enrollment curve is going to flatten out. So far it shows no signs, with CS already being the largest major in the engineering school.
I think it's becoming the new "smart, sciency" male default degree, kind of like nursing is for "smart, sciency" women. Graduate high school with a general disposition, don't know what else to do, so they go with the safe choice.
While the growth of CS grads will mean a lot in the long term. With more people making new products creating more jobs.... in the short term there will be an influx of kids that we will need to deprogram the strict rules that were taught during the education. There is a difference between accedemic theory and real life. A lot of showing them when to break the rules and seporate yourself from the religion of OOP. And then when they should embrace the concept of OOP in a non OOP environment.
Then there is teaching them to work in a team and put their egos aside and do it the way that is said to do it, even if it seems less efficient at first.
Then I will need to go over all my arguments again. Them: Why do it that way? Me: I need to keep the code open for new features. Them: What features? Me: I don't know yet, but they are going to ask for something, and if you keep this section flexible it will prevent us from rewriting everything. Them: You are just an old mad who doesn't want to use new technology. Then they will do it there way. 3 months later... Them we need to rewrite the code because of this stupid request that wasn't part of the original project spec.
That's not the "difference between academic theory and real life", that's inexperience.
Undergrad is 4*8 months long, and the first 16 months of that is just figuring out the bare basics. A new grad might be smart, and technically competent in a few areas, but they're still extremely inexperienced. They're not going to know everything they need to know to work in an industry setting because there's simply not enough time over their degree. Especially not for whatever slightly specialized corner of industry you're in.
I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.
Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.
So goes liberal influence. Be progressive or be left behind.
It's about integrity, if you're a Trump appointee you're going to be put in a position where you have to publicly contradict your boss or lie your ass off. If you choose the first you'll have a really crappy job and you probably won't last long, if you choose the second you've destroyed your reputation and will have trouble finding reputable work afterwards.
Your source is a video by a group notorious for videos that are dishonestly edited and where they goaded people into making incriminating sounding statements?
Are you going to follow that up with a recommendation to invest with Bernie Madoff?
The question comes down to this. Do you think democrats are all purely good people who never do wrong or are they like most human things, flawed in several ways?
Of course they are.
You seem very rational and methodical in your thinking. If you stop to analyze it some, you will catch that you probably have been showing some internal bias where you do not seek out wrong for one party, while assuming the other party is always wrong. Start asking yourself about the sources that you read and how trustable are they. Do you think a source made up of 90% or more from one party will give you a balanced view? If so, you do not believe in the fundamental idea of diversity and why it is important. Groups are very bad at being self analytical.
Let me throw that back at you.
How many people voted in the last election?
How many fraudulent voters would it take to affect the election?
How many people do you think fraudulently voted?
How much would a news organization pay to someone who could give convincing proof of this, such as an illegal immigrant with a hidden iPhone filming themselves while a DNC operative helps them commit voter fraud?
Where are all these people?
The mass voter fraud theory collapses when subjected to minimal scrutiny.
Lately, zealousness has infected the democrat party. Members are willing to forgive all sorts of wrong doing on their side, just to get the other side. Ask yourself, why does the democrat party oppose any attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest? Ask yourself that deeply, if you can.
Because there is absolutely zero evidence that wide-scale voter fraud exists, and voters who are inhibited by an "attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest" are disproportionately Democratic.
If the GOP was really concerned about voter fraud they'd fight mail-in ballots where there is a real (but hard to measure) fraud problem. But that screws Republican so they don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
The headline in the first link changed to:
...Cancels Diversity Town Hall Over Concerns for Employee Safety
It is painfully clear these people have no concept of just how much hate they have been indulging. They've basically built a company populated with rabid malcontents that are prepared to harm or kill their cow-orkers.
Rather, the alt-right has taken hold of the issue and has a well established pattern of harassing and threatening people who speak up, particularly women.
Sure it goes both ways and harassing of conservatives is quite common to. Either way, but employee who speaks up and gets publicly identified in the Town Hall is going to get seriously harassed. Cancelling the event is a no-brainer.
I don't like Republican voters either. But they have ID. I'm only for stopping people from voting if they can't prove they are who they claim to be and are eligible to vote. But I'm the unreasonable one here?
If that's what you want fine, but then you also need to give everyone a government issued ID for free and absolutely zero hassle.
I think I'd be fine with it in that case, but the moment you give all those poor people valid IDs I'm guessing the GOP stops caring about voter ID laws.
The fact that fraud is unlikely to change the outcome of any election doesn't change the fact that it is a problem that shouldn't need to be solved.
But it does mean you shouldn't use a solution that imposes other significant costs, like voter ID laws.
It's unlikely that anything on my work computer is likely to hurt my company if the information was released to the public, but I still have a password requirement and IT policies preventing free access to the internet.
Your work computer, if it is compromised, can cause significant damage to your company (and yourself) with very little warning. For voter impersonation to get to a level where it caused trouble we would get a ton of warning.
Photo ID is a pretty low bar for voting.
Doesn't matter, it's still a bar that some people can't pass and it's not your business to take away their vote.
Who the hell are all these voters that don't have them and why should the entire election results be risked just to allow these people to vote?
Except the election results are not being risked, there's no evidence it's happening at all and it would be fantastically infeasible to use it to sway an election.
Based on who is for and against the voter ID requirements, I'd say most of these no-ID voters are unmotivated Democrats that will vote straight ticket if it isn't too much trouble...
Personally, if they can't be troubled to get an ID, I don't really want their votes to count toward making policy for the whole country.
So get rid of absentee ballots to knock out the unmotivated Republicans, or make the lines in the suburbs a bit longer.
You don't get to introduce a standard like "motivation" and start aiming it at just the voters you don't like. If you let me disenfranchise any group of voters I can come up with a good criticism of then you'll never win another election.
It's hard to make claims one way or the other about voter fraud when voters need not present reasonable identification. It's impossible to know if there were fraudulent votes if you can't identify legitimate voters.
Yet somehow the US Republican party is so confident that they're willing to make it significantly harder for millions of people to vote based on that flimsy pretext.
Oh, and it's hard to tell if there were a couple fraudulent votes in an individual precinct, it's ridiculously easy to tell if it's a real problem on a national level.
Can you imagine how many millions of people would have to be in on it to cast enough fraudulent votes to have any real effect on US politics? Trump Jr. had a meeting with 6 other people and it leaked, do you really think it's plausible that there's a fraudulent voter conspiracy involving millions of people and no one is talking?
It's not, it's a stupid idea, voter fraud in the US is not a problem at the national level.
The majority party, right now the Republicans, is in fact pushing their agenda. Their agenda is to depose the current, lawfully elected President. It will be interesting to see if this is actually tolerable, that is, if they can 'get away' with this by 'playing by the rules'. Their rules. The intelligentsia's rules. The governing class rules.
The GOP has been bending over backwards to accommodate Trump and try to keep him in office. What else do you expect them to do?
Trump's problem is he's either got some serious crimes related to financial malfeasance or Russian collaboration that he needs to cover-up, or he's engaging in a cover-up for no good reason.
Either way it's his own damn fault, who admits to firing the head of the FBI for investigating him while talking to a reporter on camera???
Otherwise known as, "Dog Whistles", which are imaginary constructs conjured up by the left when they have no evidence to back up their claims of some kind of cultural transgression such as racism, sexism, any ind of phobia, etc.
That's not what "Dog Whistles" are.
Dog Whistles are when someone tries to signal racists or sexists that they're on the same side without actually declaring themselves a racist or sexist.
An obvious (though poorly executed) example is Paul LePage:
“I tell ya, everybody in Maine, we have constitutional carry,” he said. “Load up and get rid of the drug dealers. Because, folks, they’re killing our kids.”
LePage was immediately asked by a reporter if he was advocating vigilante justice. The governor said he wasn’t.
It's a pretty obvious appeal to gun rights activists who see themselves as vigilantes who shoot black drug dealers (LePage has been consistent in implying that drug dealing is a problem imported by black people). But he's trying to avoid saying that to all the moderates, he only wants that portion of the base to hear it, ie, a dog whistle.
Nothing there is offensive. Thats why what the left claims that he meant to say is what is being used in the discussion by the left.
It's not hard to connect the dots. He's implying that leadership positions are a burden so it's not an issue that so few are occupied by women because women are better off without them. It's a variant on the whole separate-but-equal, ie "Top leadership positions aren't any better than those lower-pay lower-prestige female-dominated professions, if fact those women have it better than us poor men!"
For all those winers out there that are always complaining the U.S. is a fascist dictatorship - this is what real fascism looks like.
No one here is complaining that the U.S. is a fascist dictatorship, they're complaining that Trump is moving the country in the direction of fascism, and that the leaders who he most often expressed admiration for tend to be fascists.
Take a pre-war Assad and make him Christian he's probably joining Putin and Duterte on Trump's wall of inspirational posters.
USA backed Syrian rebel forces, until Trump switched to backing Assad due to his Russian links.
I sure hope the U.S. does not "back" me anytime soon given what they did to Assad under Trump.
Trump doesn't have a policy on Syria, he has a series of reactions that change with the news cycle.
If you want to see someone who truly supported Russia, look no further than Obama (who ignored them shooting down a commercial passenger jet)
And exactly what reaction was Obama supposed to have? The biggest question during the invasion of Ukraine was how to get Putin to stop with just Eastern Ukraine.
- or Hillary (who sold them oodles of uranium's secretary of state).
we'll get right on that after we've fought off the invasion from the lizard people.
Too many SJWs, probably. Everything they touch turns to crap.
Another MRA, looking for any excuse to blame SJWs.
So when all the drivers log back in, the supply goes way up. Surge pricing should drop like a rock very quickly if the system is designed correctly. And if you're coordinating all that effort for only 1-2 drivers to get the boost (and likely not you), that ends this behavior almost immediately.
Not really, Uber is going to do a lot of smoothing on surge pricing, if users see prices rapidly fluctuating they'll get annoyed and potentially switch to competitors, they also might start delaying their hail in expectation of a rapid price drop, and some of those delayed sales will be lost.
That means the drivers will always have a short window where they're back and full supply but the price hasn't dropped from surge levels yet.
There's another interesting aspect, if surge pricing were perfectly efficient and the drivers rational this wouldn't happen. When the surge prices kicked in the sales would drop and the drivers would actually make less money. This suggests one of two things.
1) Uber is deliberately under-pricing their service, meaning Uber (and drivers) can make more in the short term by raising prices.
2) The drivers are fooling themselves are are losing money with this tactic.
Part of me wonders if this was planned all along (and by all along I mean the last few days) as a way to get rid of Preibus. Trump obviously isn't happy with the GOP and getting rid of Priebus was a good way to put a shot over the GOP's bow. So, bring in Mooch, have him get into a pissing match with Priebus, use that as an excuse to get rid of Priebus, and bring in Kelly who might be more loyal to Trump. Then, when Mooch has done his job, cut him loose. Trump gets to get rid of poor Spicey, gets to rebuke the GOP over their failed repeal of Obamacare, and gets a new Chief of Staff and (eventually) a new Communications Director.
Of course, the other part of me thinks Trump is so unhinged and disjointed he can't even plan far enough ahead to decide whether he wants original or extra crispy KFC waiting for him in the limo that takes him from Air Force One to Mar a Lago on his biweekly "definitely not golfing" weekend golf trips.
10 days is more long term planning than I'd generally give Trump credit for.
Besides, replacing Priebus with Kelly who then turfed Spicer would have been pretty good optics. In that scenario you have the "disciplined military man coming in and taking charge" narrative.
Instead Trump looks like a fool for hiring Scaramucci and looks weak for having is Chief of Staff come in and reverse his hiring position. Plus, you have yet another instance of someone joining the administration and losing their reputation in the process. You're not going to have much luck recruiting good people.
Trump's policy statements are barely more relevant than they were during the Apprentice. Just look at what happened with health care, it's the congressional republicans driving legislation and Trump is essentially tweeting randomly based on clips he saw on TV.
Now, when it comes to tax policy his personal beliefs, give rich people a tax cut, are in line with Republicans as a whole, and he might actually push a specific policy because it personally affects him. But I don't think he has the basic competency to impose that view on congress. Paul Ryan's view is the one that really matters.
Wow...documents that have been out for over a year are going to now become an issue that will lead to this chain of scandalous events? Sorry, if they were going to be an issue for now President Trump they would have been an issue before he got elected. That's not to say that people like you won't continue to claim there is something when there's nothing...but there really is nothing.
The Watergate break-in (and arrests) happened June 17, 1972.
The Saturday Night Massacre was October 20, 1973.
The impeachment investigation started February 6, 1974
The first article of impeachment was July 27, 1974.
Nixon resigned August 8, 1974.
That's over 2 years from crime to impeachment for a simple break-in/cover up. You think they're going to charge a Presidential candidate, much less a sitting President, for financial crimes after this short an investigation?
And, in case you haven't been following the news, Trump's escalated war on the DOJ has coincided with news that the Mueller investigation was starting to look into finances. I don't know if Trump is implicated by the Panama Papers specifically, but there's a ridiculous amount of smoke surrounding the Trump Organization.
This unmasking was for political purposes which makes it far worse. The sitting administration was running an intelligence op against the candidate of the opposition party. All the The Russians! bullshit is just a continuation of that op against the electorate.
Nunes is hardly a reliable source to digest this information. There was an active Russian intelligence operation to swing the election and a lot of indications that they were collaborating with one of the campaigns.
That the Obama administration and intelligence agencies concealed as much of that as they did is remarkable, all they had to do is spill a few of these secret meetings and it could have changed the election. Instead they essentially let Russia succeed in swinging the election for fear of acting improper.
Can you imagine watching that election spin out of control from Russian interference, having the goods that could stop it, but not being allowed to say anything about it?
In front line situations, you have a canteen and hole that you dig. You put the majority of the military at a very compromising position with transgender soldiers. The twig and berries don't vanish because a person believes they are a woman, any more than breasts and bush vanish when a women believes they are man. So should the women in the military be forced to look at a twig and berries in the showers? Do you think it's fair to the men to stick a naked women who thinks they are man into a shower with them? Not that people want things to happen in either of those circumstances, but you are providing a very high risk and completely unnecessary situation for soldiers.
Or they might just act like adults and do none of the things you describe. Why do people assume that transgendered people will go out of their way to create the most awkward situations possible? They're doing everything they can to fit in with as little fuss as possible. And if an awkward situation does arise people are pretty good at handling it.
This is the same ridiculousness as happened with gay soldiers, you remember what happened when you let in gay soldiers? The same thing as happened in every other country that let in gay soldiers, the same thing that happened in every country that let in transgendered soldiers, the same thing that will happen when you let in transgendered soldiers. Not a damn thing.
This has nothing to do with "effectiveness" or "cohesion" and everything with finding a pretext to stigmatize a group of people.
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
(2015, not decades ago)
So a prestigious researcher can still be wrong (and mysteriously not be burned at the stake by leftists like the political right is convinced they will be).
There's a very simple way to look at this.
Do you think your brain fundamentally matches your gender?
If so, then why do you think it's impossible for someone else's brain to mismatch their gender?
A german study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12832250) results state "In 270 (75%) of these 359 patients, cross-gender identification was interpreted as an epiphenomenon of other psychiatric illnesses, notably personality, mood, dissociative, and psychotic disorders. Major mood disorders, dissociative disorders and psychotic disorders reported in 79% of transgenders."
Huh, I wonder why that would be? Could it be related to the absurd levels of stigma attached to being transgendered?
Even if you argue that transgenderism isn't in itself a mental disorder, a transgender individual is far more likely to have multiple other mental disorders, a much higher risk of suicide, etc. It then becomes fair to say that if you are transgender, you personally might be mentally stable enough to be in the military but there is a very high statistical chance that you are nuts in ways that are prohibitively not conducive to the purpose of the military and the stresses that occur due to that purpose.
Remember Bradley Manning?
If transgendered people had been allowed in the military he may have become Chelsea Manning while still in service. And she might have been a stable and productive member of the military.
The issue (if it is one at all as you'd want to look for confounding factors to control for before leaping to a judgement) should be self-correcting. Assume for the sake of argument that all ventures are equally good regardless of the sexes of the team or that from a funding perspective they all have equally good returns. Investors who don't discriminate on sex would be able to get greater returns because there are fewer other VCs that want to invest so they can negotiate a better deal. Since the returns are just as good, those investors make more money and other investors start to adopt their investment strategy.
It really only takes one to figure that out and the market corrects. Of course not all projects are equal, so there is a question as to whether or not women are more disposed to be parts of projects that don't have as good of return potential as men.
I suppose I could read the study myself to see if this was done or attempted.
The 80's called and they want their assumption of perfectly rational economic actors back.
The implication that all VCs are sexist-driven rather than profit-driven is a bit perplexing. These are the people that are like the Iron Bank from GoT. They probably don't even see the people for who they are, rather than just seeing us all as numbers, except possibly the one that claims to be the CEO for sheer viability.
Which is pretty much the opposite of what they actually do.
VCs don't care about the product, if the product was finished they wouldn't need VCs. The VCs care about the team, they're looking for people who can actually use the money that's given and bring the project to market. It's basically a fancy job interview.
That these VCs end up doubling down on the same biases as everyone else in entirely predictable, I'd expect the same results for start-ups with black team members as well.
Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/
Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???
Ok, here is the content at the top of the link you gave...
In 2006 Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat, but his recent political leanings are unknown.
And if you scroll down further, it has "claim" and the rating is mixture (not either true or false). So what are you trying to show here???
If you pro-actively tell me someone is a Democrat I'm assuming that they actively identify as a member of the Democratic party.
If your only evidence is a 10 year old voter registration I'd assume you're full of it.
To call it a "lie" implies some sort of bias. Assumptions are often built in to such statistical analysis. Why is it a lie this time?
Because the poster has some weird ideology they're trying to push on us.
Any abstraction is going to hide information, does it really make sense to count someone who took early retirement, or is doing full time childcare as unemployed?
At my university, we've been watching the explosion of CS majors for the past few years and wondering when the enrollment curve is going to flatten out. So far it shows no signs, with CS already being the largest major in the engineering school.
I think it's becoming the new "smart, sciency" male default degree, kind of like nursing is for "smart, sciency" women. Graduate high school with a general disposition, don't know what else to do, so they go with the safe choice.
While the growth of CS grads will mean a lot in the long term. With more people making new products creating more jobs.... in the short term there will be an influx of kids that we will need to deprogram the strict rules that were taught during the education.
There is a difference between accedemic theory and real life.
A lot of showing them when to break the rules and seporate yourself from the religion of OOP. And then when they should embrace the concept of OOP in a non OOP environment.
Then there is teaching them to work in a team and put their egos aside and do it the way that is said to do it, even if it seems less efficient at first.
Then I will need to go over all my arguments again.
Them: Why do it that way?
Me: I need to keep the code open for new features.
Them: What features?
Me: I don't know yet, but they are going to ask for something, and if you keep this section flexible it will prevent us from rewriting everything.
Them: You are just an old mad who doesn't want to use new technology.
Then they will do it there way.
3 months later...
Them we need to rewrite the code because of this stupid request that wasn't part of the original project spec.
That's not the "difference between academic theory and real life", that's inexperience.
Undergrad is 4*8 months long, and the first 16 months of that is just figuring out the bare basics. A new grad might be smart, and technically competent in a few areas, but they're still extremely inexperienced. They're not going to know everything they need to know to work in an industry setting because there's simply not enough time over their degree. Especially not for whatever slightly specialized corner of industry you're in.
I can't imagine many people will want to even work for the Administration.
The Administration can't even fill 500+ top-level positions because job candidates are automatically disqualified if they have ever said anything negative about Trump.
Automatically disqualified? Some of these people seem to think that if it ever got out that they had been even so much as considered for a position by the Trump administration it would be damaging to their careers so they are calling in and preemptively asking to be removed from all lists of people under consideration by the Trump admin.
So goes liberal influence. Be progressive or be left behind.
It's about integrity, if you're a Trump appointee you're going to be put in a position where you have to publicly contradict your boss or lie your ass off. If you choose the first you'll have a really crappy job and you probably won't last long, if you choose the second you've destroyed your reputation and will have trouble finding reputable work afterwards.
Here is an example of admitted voter fraud.
https://www.realclearpolitics....!
Your source is a video by a group notorious for videos that are dishonestly edited and where they goaded people into making incriminating sounding statements?
Are you going to follow that up with a recommendation to invest with Bernie Madoff?
The question comes down to this. Do you think democrats are all purely good people who never do wrong or are they like most human things, flawed in several ways?
Of course they are.
You seem very rational and methodical in your thinking. If you stop to analyze it some, you will catch that you probably have been showing some internal bias where you do not seek out wrong for one party, while assuming the other party is always wrong. Start asking yourself about the sources that you read and how trustable are they. Do you think a source made up of 90% or more from one party will give you a balanced view? If so, you do not believe in the fundamental idea of diversity and why it is important. Groups are very bad at being self analytical.
Let me throw that back at you.
How many people voted in the last election?
How many fraudulent voters would it take to affect the election?
How many people do you think fraudulently voted?
How much would a news organization pay to someone who could give convincing proof of this, such as an illegal immigrant with a hidden iPhone filming themselves while a DNC operative helps them commit voter fraud?
Where are all these people?
The mass voter fraud theory collapses when subjected to minimal scrutiny.
Lately, zealousness has infected the democrat party. Members are willing to forgive all sorts of wrong doing on their side, just to get the other side. Ask yourself, why does the democrat party oppose any attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest? Ask yourself that deeply, if you can.
Because there is absolutely zero evidence that wide-scale voter fraud exists, and voters who are inhibited by an "attempt to ensure the voter rolls are honest" are disproportionately Democratic.
If the GOP was really concerned about voter fraud they'd fight mail-in ballots where there is a real (but hard to measure) fraud problem. But that screws Republican so they don't care.