There's a very, very easy answer to your question about what to do for the next 80 years. You need to be the owner of capital. Buy stocks or otherwise invest in the companies that make mad profits from the upcoming industrial/manufacturing/robotic/AI revolution. Stocks, bonds, mutual funds and other investments were explicitly designed so that normal plebes get a piece of the prosperity that capitalism provides.
Oh, you're not putting part of your money towards investments? Enjoy the next 80 years of poverty.
An information source is either curated, or it's not.
Most newspapers and weekly magazines are curated, though some better than others. Social media falls squarely in the "not" category. Yes, there attempts to find a middle ground (wikipedia), and Facebook and the like are trying very hard to find this middle ground, and failing hard.
When I buy a copy of a newspaper, I'm the customer and I expect the info to be curated. It's what I demand, it's what I pay for. A failure of curation means that I find a better quality news source.
When I log onto Facebook, I expect the experience to be FREE FREE FREE. Meaning that someone else with a checkbook is paying and they are the ones calling the shots. Facebook pays real attention to the customer. The "attention" that Facebook pays to the users is entirely illusory. It's pure spin.
Anyone with a checkbook can put almost anything into Facebook and get it seen by hordes of people. That's how Facebook makes money. It's not going to change, unless they start charging users a subscription fee. Obviously this isn't gonna happen.
It's all well and good for researchers to think about the problem, and make calls for action and funding of solutions. Nothing is going to actually happen until it becomes a real problem that's undeniable to nearly the entire planet. In the past, humanity was able to do things like agree to limit fluorocarbons for the greater good, but a lot of that sort of cooperation has died. At least for the time being. The bar for action on climate change is currently very, very high.
A slight rise in temperature isn't real enough.
A slight increase in storm severity isn't enough.
The loss of one or two major breadbasket regions isn't enough. Food production will just shift around.
Anything that happens in a poor country isn't enough, including starvation. Poor people simply don't count to those in power.
Any effect that is limited to the coasts isn't enough. People will just move.
Any extinctions short of full ecological collapse isn't enough. Most people don't care about critters beyond eating them.
Anything that is limited to the arctic isn't enough. Nobody lives there.
Mass migrations from poor countries won't be enough. Rich countries will just put up barriers and allow populations to die.
Things that will eventually force humanity to deal with the problem:
Costal or storm-related destruction that renders entire cities in the rich world uninhabitable. That level of economic damage won't be deniable.
The full loss of enough major food-producing regions to affect the dinner tables of people in the rich world.
A thick band of desert across the equator of the planet. The starkness of an image like that *might* convince enough people to act.
No need to hide your real number. In this situation, distinguishing between a prank call and a real one may be impossible, at least for the first few calls from a number. "Hi ICE, my name is so-and-so. There's a guy working at the local starbucks with skin that's some shade other than pasty white. He has a funny accent. I'm scared he's gonna murder me while I buy my mocha frappe whatever. Please deport him and keep me safe".
Autocratic regimes have been shaping conversation on the internet according to their whims for years. This guy can't argue that there's some sort of slippery slope here to slide down. The bad actors are already at the bottom. A better argument would be that we simply don't want to go there ourselves.
I'm a firm believer that there's a solution here. We can design something that allows individual free speech but shuts down the nation-state-sponsored tech-based misinformation campaigns eg Russia. Myanmar-type stuff could be shut down pretty selectively too, sovereign governments using Facebook to orchestrate mass murder and ethnic cleansing. Facebook knows about all this stuff. No doubt in my mind. I'm pretty sure that violates something in the TOS, meaning they can shut it down any minute they like. Their executives are sitting there, watching it happen in almost real time. They just don't want to deal with it. Bad for business doing anything that depresses revenue.
The problem is that the federal government is the only entity that can solve this. Business doesn't police itself. Companies don't make decisions based on morality. The only actor with the authority to reign this in is the government through policy, laws, rules and regulation. But nowadays most people have been convinced that any government regulation is the first step to a dystopia. Instead, we allow Facebook to pull a few extra percent of profits catering to places like Myanmar and Russia. Oh, well - at least my retirement account gets a slight boost.
If it doesn't have the word "TRUMP" on the front and make the Trump family a monetary profit, our executive branch places exactly zero value on it. I'll be genuinely surprised if we're still in NATO 6 years from now. Note that I said 6, not 2. Yes, I suspect that he will get re-elected - our voters are that angry (and dumb). I suspect he won't manage more. Even our current congress isn't so brain damaged as to remove term limits.
Hey, maybe that's a way to get some action on climate change. Let's figure out how to Trump-brand the CO2 reduction efforts. We can assign his family a 1-penny kickback per ton of megaton of CO2 reduction. The US government and the conservative movement will fall in behind it so fast you'd think they did it yesterday.
Who said I want to destroy them? There's a difference between tearing statues down and denying them a place of honor. Germany got it right after WW2 - they didn't bulldoze the concentration camps. They turned them into museums that were clearly designed to avoid a repeat of past atrocities. They get a lot of credit in my book for facing their demons directly. The confederate statue-defenders want no such thing. They don't want to face the truth - they want to blindly honor their view of history. Sorry. No. That place and time simply doesn't deserve the honor.
They shouldn't be melted down either. They should be put in museums that have the express purpose of studying the history that led up to the US Civil war. And, sorry bud, I've studied American history. While reality is always a complex shades-of-gray thing, the confederacy was NOT a noble cause to be venerated. Those statues don't deserve a place of honor. More and more people in the south are slowly realizing it themselves.
Who do you think is defending those old slave-era statues? You pretty much repeated Trump's defense of the neo-nazi wing of the GOP. "Some good people there". It would be a joke if it wasn't so serious. Those are really, really bad apples. They've been vocally defended by the guy in the Oval office, by most of the GOP, and now by you. You degrade yourself defending those people.
Far leftists are a bit of a problem for the Dems, but not nearly as bad a problem as the insane right wingers in the GOP. At least I recognize it and avoid supporting the more extreme candidates. Bernie Sanders was a card-carrying socialist for most of his adult life. I recognized it and didn't vote for him. He got more traction than he should have, but at least in the end the Dems dumped him for Clinton. She's flawed but was the right choice between the two. On the other side, the GOP is COMPLETELY failing to deal with its demons.
Not condoning angry leftie behavior, but I'll take a screaming lefty over the guy with the swastika tattoo that runs his car into a group of protesters. Any day. All day. This is the kind of right-wing affiliated group that Trump defended as "decent people" and the rest of the GOP fell in behind with. I'm not a fan of angry lefties, but they're more "annoying loud" a lot less "we murder people we don't like".
Hmmm. Given the types of people that the current administration have put in charge of the EPA, I'm wondering myself what this could possibly be aimed at...
Could it be coal?
Nah. That's just my liberal-leaning reaction. Trump has obviously looked at the current standards for chemical exposure, consulted the experts, and identified areas where chemical regulations could be loosened in a way that still reasonably protects the health of American citizens.Why look at all the public health issues and environmental protections that Trump and his constituents care deeply about:
There's... coal.... no wait. Already said that.
Um.... coal.
Also.... coal?
(maybe oil too, but not nearly as much as coal. MAGA!)
At this point, if Trump got on my cell phone and told me a tornado was coming, I wouldn't bother seeking shelter. I'd show at the shelter and there'd be a huge TRUMP sign on it. Membership would be 150k, whites only. Plus, there wouldn't actually be a tornado coming.
I was glad the the test message was innocuous and professional. I just don't believe that Trump has the capacity to restrain himself from abusing it.
I'd say there are three types of work in today's modern society.
1. I'm paid x dollars to physically sit at desk y for z hours of the day, and take care of whatever is handed to me. As long as I'm physically there and do what's handed to me, mission accomplished. Some days are crazy full, and others are really quiet. On the quiet days, nothing is required of me except my presence. Nothing more necessary.
2. I'm paid x dollars to do y work. Call it piecemeal work, or the gig economy, or whatever. If I find a way to automate the task so that it takes me 5 seconds to run a script that does the work for me, my job is done. I just did it quickly. Nothing more necessary.
3. I'm paid a salary plus benefits, retirement, vacation and sick days. I'm expected to put in a full work week for the benefit of the company. There are expectations of professionalism. If I accomplish a task quickly and have spare time, it's not my own. I'm expected to ask for more until my plate is full.
I wasn't able to figure out all the details, but it seems like this guy was probably in category 3, but he behaved like he was in category 2. This disconnect is why he was fired. He did the job fine. Better then fine. Professionalism then demanded that he ask for (or just take on) more to help the company. He probably could have gotten away with splitting the difference. If he had programmed his way to 38 free hours per week, maybe he could have played Fortnite for 19 hours and spent the other 19 on other projects beneficial to the company. He'd probably still have his job if he'd done that.
Hm. Good point, but workshop organizers never have complete control over what's presented. They usually don't vet the actual presentation files. They just approve based on a title and maybe an abstract. In this case, the title of his talk was "experimental test of a new global discrete symmetry". Heh heh heh. A completely information-free title. I bet his abstract was similarly innocent sounding. Then he drops this bomb which the organizers had no clue was coming. In fact, I'd wager that he was actively trying to obscure his intent. The responsibility for what he said (or didn't) lies squarely with him.
Another point is that the organizers probably aren't the actual people who employ him. CERN is a big place. The beef lies between him and the specific managers who fund his work. Who apparently don't like what he said.
This was a colossally dumb move, especially coming from a person in a research/academic job. This is a white-hot super-sensitive topic. Go ahead and argue "freedom of speech" until you're blue in the face. Freedom of speech means you have the legal right to say stuff. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're immune from professional consequences. What did he think was gonna happen? I looked at this guys presentation. It's 90% discussion and 10% hard data. The hard data is interesting and worth discussing. The rest is near-alt-right-discussion-board-level talk that amounts to "hey guys, maybe men ARE actually smarter than women (snicker snicker)".
This guy should have known better. Larry Summers should have known better. People think of this as a free speech issue, but I think it's more like a surgical or a law issue. You're not gonna get operating privileges at the local hospital just because you're a random schmoe with some half-baked idea about how to cut people up. You don't get to represent clients in court unless you've proven your qualifications. Same here - if you're an actual expert in a field that's directly relevant to gender differences, then you're qualified to wade into this mess and help sort it out. Otherwise, you're better off keeping your mouth shut, ESPECIALLY if you're male.
Feel like relating personal anecdotes about how your daughter is different than your son? Just take a cyanide pill. You'll get the same result with much less pain. Want to promote societal stereotypes? More time efficient to just jump off a building. Try to address the political side of gender issues as an amateur? You might as well be shooting your career in the head. This guys presentation did all this and more.
Standard human behavior. Apologize after the fact. Not that I think this guy is bad in any way. He's a normal dude responding to incentives. Capitalist system, eat what you kill, blah blah blah. This is the way it works. At this point, user data is valuable and ads are valuable. Any who can accumulate what's currently valuable and sell it at a high price, does exactly this. It's also human behavior to find your humanity AFTER you've taken care of business.
Actually, there's one other lesson here. This is one of the most "normal" human reactions he could have taken. This is just a normal guy, with the usual human flaws, who happens to be sitting on 19 billion dollars.
Most of these high flyers and successful tech people bill themselves as geniuses. Not the case. They took business risks and got lucky to be in the right place and the right time. At the end of the day, these are normals who gambled and won. It wasn't destiny and it wasn't because of their special visionary genius. For every one of them, there are about 100,000 similarly smart, energetic businesspeople who took a similar visionary gamble and lost.
Sounds like Google is serious about working with the Chinese government. On the other hand. they put the kibosh on a project to adapt their AI to U.S. military needs. As a U.S. citizen, this looks bad. Really, really, really bad.
On the other hand, it's been pointed out that Google could very well be collaborating with the U.S. government on various projects, but doing it quietly through shell companies, or maybe within the company but with better secrecy controls than they are applying to this poorly thought-out Chinese experiment. Who are they kidding? They really think that China is going to give them more than an infinitesimal slice of the Chinese search market? I don't see an endgame that goes well for Google here.
Coding as an academic subject. Important to understanding many of the systems that drive modern life? Yes. Should be included in required school curricula moving forward? Yes. More important than reading, writing, math, science, critical thinking, history, psychology and economics? No.
I suspect Obama had very little control over budgets while he was in office. Congress has the power of the purse. He had some influence over congress for the first two years. The other 6 was pretty much congress doing the opposite of whatever came out of his mouth.
First, let me translate your post. You just explained how conservatives feel that women can't have the same sexual rights as men because it leads to broken families. Oh, and the part about how diversity is bad, and then you listed pretty much everyone except northern Europeans as people who should have been kicked out of the US.
First off, I'd love to get some input from other self-identified conservatives. Is this....... is this really the current conservative way of thinking? Is this guy actually describing the conservative movement accurately? Is this guy actually describing the views of a typical GOP member?
Ok, now onto the logic of your argument. Your original post claimed that conservatives are egalitarian in political and societal areas. I pointed out several "1000 pound gorilla in the room" examples indicating otherwise. Your response was to explain to me exactly why conservatives have these non-egalitarian views. This is the exact opposite of your original assertion. Your explanations were clear and coherent. It's obvious that you're opinions have some real thought behind them. I respect a person who thinks before they speak/type. But, to repeat, those positions are the exact opposite of egalitarianism. Huge inconsistency there.
My personal views - left of center on social issues, more centrist on governmental issues. Far right AND far left governments both have a tendency to wreck countries.
I'd be very interested to know who you actually consider a "conservative". If your definition held in today's society, I'd probably identify as one.
However, it we're talking about the current group of people who identify as conservative..... you have it very badly wrong. You say conservatives support egalitarianism in politics and society? What cave have you been living in? Conservatives are spearheading voter suppression efforts at the activist level (targeted mailings to minorities with misinformation) at the local level (purging voter rolls that affect 99% minorities) and the state level (explicit gerrymandering along racial lines). Explicit immigration policies that aim to let in 99% white people. Significantly large groups of conservatives are explicitly anti-woman. Let's not discuss abortion, just talk about the hostility to women's reproductive health and even birth control.
I could write pages on our current conservative administration. Egalitarian? For you to even claim that the current conservative movement is egalitarian is.... absolutely... that......I.......ohmygod......
Slashdot Mirror
I can subscribe to nearly half a dozen streaming services before I approach the cost of a single cable bill. Still a win.
There's a very, very easy answer to your question about what to do for the next 80 years. You need to be the owner of capital. Buy stocks or otherwise invest in the companies that make mad profits from the upcoming industrial/manufacturing/robotic/AI revolution. Stocks, bonds, mutual funds and other investments were explicitly designed so that normal plebes get a piece of the prosperity that capitalism provides.
Oh, you're not putting part of your money towards investments? Enjoy the next 80 years of poverty.
An information source is either curated, or it's not.
Most newspapers and weekly magazines are curated, though some better than others. Social media falls squarely in the "not" category. Yes, there attempts to find a middle ground (wikipedia), and Facebook and the like are trying very hard to find this middle ground, and failing hard.
When I buy a copy of a newspaper, I'm the customer and I expect the info to be curated. It's what I demand, it's what I pay for. A failure of curation means that I find a better quality news source.
When I log onto Facebook, I expect the experience to be FREE FREE FREE. Meaning that someone else with a checkbook is paying and they are the ones calling the shots. Facebook pays real attention to the customer. The "attention" that Facebook pays to the users is entirely illusory. It's pure spin.
Anyone with a checkbook can put almost anything into Facebook and get it seen by hordes of people. That's how Facebook makes money. It's not going to change, unless they start charging users a subscription fee. Obviously this isn't gonna happen.
It's all well and good for researchers to think about the problem, and make calls for action and funding of solutions. Nothing is going to actually happen until it becomes a real problem that's undeniable to nearly the entire planet. In the past, humanity was able to do things like agree to limit fluorocarbons for the greater good, but a lot of that sort of cooperation has died. At least for the time being. The bar for action on climate change is currently very, very high.
A slight rise in temperature isn't real enough.
A slight increase in storm severity isn't enough.
The loss of one or two major breadbasket regions isn't enough. Food production will just shift around.
Anything that happens in a poor country isn't enough, including starvation. Poor people simply don't count to those in power.
Any effect that is limited to the coasts isn't enough. People will just move.
Any extinctions short of full ecological collapse isn't enough. Most people don't care about critters beyond eating them.
Anything that is limited to the arctic isn't enough. Nobody lives there.
Mass migrations from poor countries won't be enough. Rich countries will just put up barriers and allow populations to die.
Things that will eventually force humanity to deal with the problem:
Costal or storm-related destruction that renders entire cities in the rich world uninhabitable. That level of economic damage won't be deniable.
The full loss of enough major food-producing regions to affect the dinner tables of people in the rich world.
A thick band of desert across the equator of the planet. The starkness of an image like that *might* convince enough people to act.
No need to hide your real number. In this situation, distinguishing between a prank call and a real one may be impossible, at least for the first few calls from a number. "Hi ICE, my name is so-and-so. There's a guy working at the local starbucks with skin that's some shade other than pasty white. He has a funny accent. I'm scared he's gonna murder me while I buy my mocha frappe whatever. Please deport him and keep me safe".
Sincere or not?
Autocratic regimes have been shaping conversation on the internet according to their whims for years. This guy can't argue that there's some sort of slippery slope here to slide down. The bad actors are already at the bottom. A better argument would be that we simply don't want to go there ourselves.
I'm a firm believer that there's a solution here. We can design something that allows individual free speech but shuts down the nation-state-sponsored tech-based misinformation campaigns eg Russia. Myanmar-type stuff could be shut down pretty selectively too, sovereign governments using Facebook to orchestrate mass murder and ethnic cleansing. Facebook knows about all this stuff. No doubt in my mind. I'm pretty sure that violates something in the TOS, meaning they can shut it down any minute they like. Their executives are sitting there, watching it happen in almost real time. They just don't want to deal with it. Bad for business doing anything that depresses revenue.
The problem is that the federal government is the only entity that can solve this. Business doesn't police itself. Companies don't make decisions based on morality. The only actor with the authority to reign this in is the government through policy, laws, rules and regulation. But nowadays most people have been convinced that any government regulation is the first step to a dystopia. Instead, we allow Facebook to pull a few extra percent of profits catering to places like Myanmar and Russia. Oh, well - at least my retirement account gets a slight boost.
If it doesn't have the word "TRUMP" on the front and make the Trump family a monetary profit, our executive branch places exactly zero value on it. I'll be genuinely surprised if we're still in NATO 6 years from now. Note that I said 6, not 2. Yes, I suspect that he will get re-elected - our voters are that angry (and dumb). I suspect he won't manage more. Even our current congress isn't so brain damaged as to remove term limits.
Hey, maybe that's a way to get some action on climate change. Let's figure out how to Trump-brand the CO2 reduction efforts. We can assign his family a 1-penny kickback per ton of megaton of CO2 reduction. The US government and the conservative movement will fall in behind it so fast you'd think they did it yesterday.
Who said I want to destroy them? There's a difference between tearing statues down and denying them a place of honor. Germany got it right after WW2 - they didn't bulldoze the concentration camps. They turned them into museums that were clearly designed to avoid a repeat of past atrocities. They get a lot of credit in my book for facing their demons directly. The confederate statue-defenders want no such thing. They don't want to face the truth - they want to blindly honor their view of history. Sorry. No. That place and time simply doesn't deserve the honor.
They shouldn't be melted down either. They should be put in museums that have the express purpose of studying the history that led up to the US Civil war. And, sorry bud, I've studied American history. While reality is always a complex shades-of-gray thing, the confederacy was NOT a noble cause to be venerated. Those statues don't deserve a place of honor. More and more people in the south are slowly realizing it themselves.
Who do you think is defending those old slave-era statues? You pretty much repeated Trump's defense of the neo-nazi wing of the GOP. "Some good people there". It would be a joke if it wasn't so serious. Those are really, really bad apples. They've been vocally defended by the guy in the Oval office, by most of the GOP, and now by you. You degrade yourself defending those people.
Far leftists are a bit of a problem for the Dems, but not nearly as bad a problem as the insane right wingers in the GOP. At least I recognize it and avoid supporting the more extreme candidates. Bernie Sanders was a card-carrying socialist for most of his adult life. I recognized it and didn't vote for him. He got more traction than he should have, but at least in the end the Dems dumped him for Clinton. She's flawed but was the right choice between the two. On the other side, the GOP is COMPLETELY failing to deal with its demons.
Not condoning angry leftie behavior, but I'll take a screaming lefty over the guy with the swastika tattoo that runs his car into a group of protesters. Any day. All day. This is the kind of right-wing affiliated group that Trump defended as "decent people" and the rest of the GOP fell in behind with. I'm not a fan of angry lefties, but they're more "annoying loud" a lot less "we murder people we don't like".
Ooh. A pristine ecosystem with untold variety and ecological value. Let's do what humans do best - wreck it then deny.
Fox News buys Tesla? I have no further interest in this story.
Hmmm. Given the types of people that the current administration have put in charge of the EPA, I'm wondering myself what this could possibly be aimed at...
Could it be coal?
Nah. That's just my liberal-leaning reaction. Trump has obviously looked at the current standards for chemical exposure, consulted the experts, and identified areas where chemical regulations could be loosened in a way that still reasonably protects the health of American citizens.Why look at all the public health issues and environmental protections that Trump and his constituents care deeply about:
There's... coal.... no wait. Already said that.
Um.... coal.
Also.... coal?
(maybe oil too, but not nearly as much as coal. MAGA!)
At this point, if Trump got on my cell phone and told me a tornado was coming, I wouldn't bother seeking shelter. I'd show at the shelter and there'd be a huge TRUMP sign on it. Membership would be 150k, whites only. Plus, there wouldn't actually be a tornado coming.
I was glad the the test message was innocuous and professional. I just don't believe that Trump has the capacity to restrain himself from abusing it.
I'd say there are three types of work in today's modern society.
1. I'm paid x dollars to physically sit at desk y for z hours of the day, and take care of whatever is handed to me. As long as I'm physically there and do what's handed to me, mission accomplished. Some days are crazy full, and others are really quiet. On the quiet days, nothing is required of me except my presence. Nothing more necessary.
2. I'm paid x dollars to do y work. Call it piecemeal work, or the gig economy, or whatever. If I find a way to automate the task so that it takes me 5 seconds to run a script that does the work for me, my job is done. I just did it quickly. Nothing more necessary.
3. I'm paid a salary plus benefits, retirement, vacation and sick days. I'm expected to put in a full work week for the benefit of the company. There are expectations of professionalism. If I accomplish a task quickly and have spare time, it's not my own. I'm expected to ask for more until my plate is full.
I wasn't able to figure out all the details, but it seems like this guy was probably in category 3, but he behaved like he was in category 2. This disconnect is why he was fired. He did the job fine. Better then fine. Professionalism then demanded that he ask for (or just take on) more to help the company. He probably could have gotten away with splitting the difference. If he had programmed his way to 38 free hours per week, maybe he could have played Fortnite for 19 hours and spent the other 19 on other projects beneficial to the company. He'd probably still have his job if he'd done that.
Hm. Good point, but workshop organizers never have complete control over what's presented. They usually don't vet the actual presentation files. They just approve based on a title and maybe an abstract. In this case, the title of his talk was "experimental test of a new global discrete symmetry". Heh heh heh. A completely information-free title. I bet his abstract was similarly innocent sounding. Then he drops this bomb which the organizers had no clue was coming. In fact, I'd wager that he was actively trying to obscure his intent. The responsibility for what he said (or didn't) lies squarely with him.
Another point is that the organizers probably aren't the actual people who employ him. CERN is a big place. The beef lies between him and the specific managers who fund his work. Who apparently don't like what he said.
This was a colossally dumb move, especially coming from a person in a research/academic job. This is a white-hot super-sensitive topic. Go ahead and argue "freedom of speech" until you're blue in the face. Freedom of speech means you have the legal right to say stuff. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're immune from professional consequences. What did he think was gonna happen? I looked at this guys presentation. It's 90% discussion and 10% hard data. The hard data is interesting and worth discussing. The rest is near-alt-right-discussion-board-level talk that amounts to "hey guys, maybe men ARE actually smarter than women (snicker snicker)".
This guy should have known better. Larry Summers should have known better. People think of this as a free speech issue, but I think it's more like a surgical or a law issue. You're not gonna get operating privileges at the local hospital just because you're a random schmoe with some half-baked idea about how to cut people up. You don't get to represent clients in court unless you've proven your qualifications. Same here - if you're an actual expert in a field that's directly relevant to gender differences, then you're qualified to wade into this mess and help sort it out. Otherwise, you're better off keeping your mouth shut, ESPECIALLY if you're male.
Feel like relating personal anecdotes about how your daughter is different than your son? Just take a cyanide pill. You'll get the same result with much less pain. Want to promote societal stereotypes? More time efficient to just jump off a building. Try to address the political side of gender issues as an amateur? You might as well be shooting your career in the head. This guys presentation did all this and more.
Achh. Enough of your frooffy nice-nice.
Standard human behavior. Apologize after the fact. Not that I think this guy is bad in any way. He's a normal dude responding to incentives. Capitalist system, eat what you kill, blah blah blah. This is the way it works. At this point, user data is valuable and ads are valuable. Any who can accumulate what's currently valuable and sell it at a high price, does exactly this. It's also human behavior to find your humanity AFTER you've taken care of business.
Actually, there's one other lesson here. This is one of the most "normal" human reactions he could have taken. This is just a normal guy, with the usual human flaws, who happens to be sitting on 19 billion dollars.
Most of these high flyers and successful tech people bill themselves as geniuses. Not the case. They took business risks and got lucky to be in the right place and the right time. At the end of the day, these are normals who gambled and won. It wasn't destiny and it wasn't because of their special visionary genius. For every one of them, there are about 100,000 similarly smart, energetic businesspeople who took a similar visionary gamble and lost.
Sounds like Google is serious about working with the Chinese government. On the other hand. they put the kibosh on a project to adapt their AI to U.S. military needs. As a U.S. citizen, this looks bad. Really, really, really bad.
On the other hand, it's been pointed out that Google could very well be collaborating with the U.S. government on various projects, but doing it quietly through shell companies, or maybe within the company but with better secrecy controls than they are applying to this poorly thought-out Chinese experiment. Who are they kidding? They really think that China is going to give them more than an infinitesimal slice of the Chinese search market? I don't see an endgame that goes well for Google here.
Coding as an academic subject. Important to understanding many of the systems that drive modern life? Yes. Should be included in required school curricula moving forward? Yes. More important than reading, writing, math, science, critical thinking, history, psychology and economics? No.
Good idea, but it still costs more carbon into the atmosphere than is sequestered.
I suspect Obama had very little control over budgets while he was in office. Congress has the power of the purse. He had some influence over congress for the first two years. The other 6 was pretty much congress doing the opposite of whatever came out of his mouth.
First, let me translate your post. You just explained how conservatives feel that women can't have the same sexual rights as men because it leads to broken families. Oh, and the part about how diversity is bad, and then you listed pretty much everyone except northern Europeans as people who should have been kicked out of the US.
First off, I'd love to get some input from other self-identified conservatives. Is this....... is this really the current conservative way of thinking? Is this guy actually describing the conservative movement accurately? Is this guy actually describing the views of a typical GOP member?
Ok, now onto the logic of your argument. Your original post claimed that conservatives are egalitarian in political and societal areas. I pointed out several "1000 pound gorilla in the room" examples indicating otherwise. Your response was to explain to me exactly why conservatives have these non-egalitarian views. This is the exact opposite of your original assertion. Your explanations were clear and coherent. It's obvious that you're opinions have some real thought behind them. I respect a person who thinks before they speak/type. But, to repeat, those positions are the exact opposite of egalitarianism. Huge inconsistency there.
My personal views - left of center on social issues, more centrist on governmental issues. Far right AND far left governments both have a tendency to wreck countries.
I'd be very interested to know who you actually consider a "conservative". If your definition held in today's society, I'd probably identify as one.
... that......I .......ohmygod......
However, it we're talking about the current group of people who identify as conservative..... you have it very badly wrong. You say conservatives support egalitarianism in politics and society? What cave have you been living in? Conservatives are spearheading voter suppression efforts at the activist level (targeted mailings to minorities with misinformation) at the local level (purging voter rolls that affect 99% minorities) and the state level (explicit gerrymandering along racial lines). Explicit immigration policies that aim to let in 99% white people. Significantly large groups of conservatives are explicitly anti-woman. Let's not discuss abortion, just talk about the hostility to women's reproductive health and even birth control.
I could write pages on our current conservative administration. Egalitarian? For you to even claim that the current conservative movement is egalitarian is.... absolutely
I'm simply at a loss for words.