Self-study has problems. It's not nearly as easy as guided study, and it's got a much higher chance of leaving a hole in your studies. There are things that we've told students they need to study, even if they don't see the reason for that until much later.
So, you're saying that you'd hire more diverse people if the available pool of people was more diverse. That's what TFS is all about: increasing the diversity in the hiring pool. It seems likely that we're missing out on a good deal of talent because it gets weeded out earlier in the process, and if we can make it easier for talented women and talented minorities to get into the field everybody's likely to do better.
If she'd been discouraged from going into the field, she wouldn't be the best developer. Girls tend to be pushed away from tech fields, and boys tend to be pushed towards them. That she became a developer is great, but it would be even better if everyone had the same opportunity.
It answers the question of whether you know what you're talking about. Like a lot of sociobiology I've seen, you come up with a story that sounds vaguely plausible and go to town with it. We're looking at genetically comples traits here, and "generations" is not enough to cause significant natural selection in such cases, and making up crap about what women did is really stretching it.
Until quite recently, succeeding in Europe required the ability to work well enough. It didn't require brains in evolutionarily significant quantities. Brains were useful, given adequate social mobility, in doing better, but someone who couldn't handle abstract reasoning could get by and reproduce. In the US, in the first half of the Twentieth Century, you could make a decent living by going to a factory forty hours a week and doing something repetitive that machines weren't sophisticated enough to do. There's no evolutionary pressure for high intelligence here.
You also seem to be clueless about what people in the New World, Africa, and Australia were doing.
You appear to not consider the question of why certain groups score better in certain areas, and the implications. If a group is discriminated against (like women and blacks), those people will tend to be better than their scores indicate.
It doesn't mean it's not a problem either. This is not the most enlightened and egalitarian society that could ever exist, and we do know that discrimination on the basis of sex and race does occur. It's worth looking into.
I don't like telling someone who claims to be part of a group I'm not in that they aren't in that group. I don't tell people they're not Christians because I'm not a Christian. (I will get snarky about what Jesus is recorded as saying, but that's because I'm snarky sometimes.) I don't tell people they're not Muslim because I'm not Muslim.
I really don't care about stupid things in religious texts. They don't harm anyone by existing there. I care about the people and what they do. If most Muslims are peaceful, that's cool. I don't try to dissect it down to a much smaller group that I can feel superior to.
I'm on the spectrum, and I have never had problems with female colleagues. I treat all my colleagues with respect, and that seems to work. If you don't dare communicate with a woman, it isn't because you're on the spectrum, it's because you're a jerk.
That said, people ARE poor because they spend little bits of money here and there.
And for assorted other reasons, such as not making enough money, unexpected medical expenses, etc. Spending little bits of money here and there can be necessary for survival in conditions like that.
$2/day is about $730/year, which is about $8K over eleven years. You need about fourteen years to get that $10K. If you buy coffee only on workdays, it's about $500/year, and it takes twenty years to get that $10K. (Is there an interest rate you'd like to propose?)
And, yes, if you waste a lot of money you can save a lot of money by not wasting it. Having a $2/day coffee habit doesn't guarantee that you have nine other $2/day habits that you can easily kick.
Last I checked, there was more than one person on this rock, and individuals do indeed have limited multitasking ability. Therefore, it would appear possible for the human race to do more than one thing at a time.
The reason it isn't a normal situation is government action. Get the government out of that sort of regulation and it will slowly become a more normal situation.
If areas with a higher minimum wage haven't had a net reduction in employment, and these are perforce better jobs, what does it matter if some jobs flee? They're made up for by higher-paying jobs.
That's from you, several postings back. I replied that the act would be a gross misdemeanor in my state, and that the story didn't include anything about the woman finding it funny. You excused it because Bush was old and feeble. You're not exactly the right person to excuse it, in the first place, and being old and feeble doesn't mean you get to be an asshole.
I know when to grab a woman I don't know by the ass without warning or darn good reason, and that is never. You seem to believe that it's justified if the grabber is sufficiently something or other. I'm going to suggest that, if you're not clear when it's OK to grab a woman's ass without consent, you stay well away from women. This is only reinforced by your equating walking on eggshells with not committing fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. If you're that unclear, stay away. I treat women with respect, don't grab them by various parts of the body for alleged humor value, and get along just fine with them.
I have no good idea what you mean by White Knight, unless you mean someone who wants to discourage lawbreaking and violence.
You can always look up somebody's publication record, or, failing that, look at the job title, if you want to know if they're a scientist in the field.
Climate science is interdisciplinary. So's a lot of other scientific fields, such as astronomy. That doesn't mean you should go to a particle physicist to get starts explained.
You could examine administrations that get into legal trouble as a proxy for corruption. That is somewhat partisan; Republicans have tended to run more corrupt administrations.
And, of course, Republicans want to grow the size of government. They have for a long time. They want to grow it differently.
Finally, your opinion as to the proper size of government doesn't make people who disagree with you corrupt.
All fiat currencies eventually go to zero value - i.e. fail as a store of value.
Which conclusion you arrive at by listing some exceptional circumstances, specifically Venezuela. There's other isolated examples, which tend not to happen in stable democracies. It is true that, if we don't get off Earth, all fiat currencies will go to zero value within a billion years (by which time Earth will be uninhabitable), but over a period of centuries there's no reason to believe that.
Many modern governments have grown to be far too powerful.
FTFY.
Seriously, your argument doesn't depend on virtually all governments being oppressive. It depends on some governments being oppressive. It's reasonable to argue that Bitcoin is unnecessary in the US or Germany. It's quite another thing to argue that it's unnecessary in, say, Iran or Belarus.
On the ludicrous assumption that I got a $10 billion loan to start a business, when I'd pissed it away the money would still be in the economy. I'd have paid lots of people to do stuff and paid to to contractors and subcontractors and maybe construction workers. In fact, I'd have taken money from those with money to lend, which are typically the wealthy, and funneled it to ordinary people.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-study has problems. It's not nearly as easy as guided study, and it's got a much higher chance of leaving a hole in your studies. There are things that we've told students they need to study, even if they don't see the reason for that until much later.
It's not foolish to think personal racism and sexism can't be diminished over time.
As a C++ guy, here's my answer to 99% of sorting problems: std::sort. It's been nearly twenty years since I needed to write a custom sort.
So, you're saying that you'd hire more diverse people if the available pool of people was more diverse. That's what TFS is all about: increasing the diversity in the hiring pool. It seems likely that we're missing out on a good deal of talent because it gets weeded out earlier in the process, and if we can make it easier for talented women and talented minorities to get into the field everybody's likely to do better.
If she'd been discouraged from going into the field, she wouldn't be the best developer. Girls tend to be pushed away from tech fields, and boys tend to be pushed towards them. That she became a developer is great, but it would be even better if everyone had the same opportunity.
It answers the question of whether you know what you're talking about. Like a lot of sociobiology I've seen, you come up with a story that sounds vaguely plausible and go to town with it. We're looking at genetically comples traits here, and "generations" is not enough to cause significant natural selection in such cases, and making up crap about what women did is really stretching it.
Until quite recently, succeeding in Europe required the ability to work well enough. It didn't require brains in evolutionarily significant quantities. Brains were useful, given adequate social mobility, in doing better, but someone who couldn't handle abstract reasoning could get by and reproduce. In the US, in the first half of the Twentieth Century, you could make a decent living by going to a factory forty hours a week and doing something repetitive that machines weren't sophisticated enough to do. There's no evolutionary pressure for high intelligence here.
You also seem to be clueless about what people in the New World, Africa, and Australia were doing.
You appear to not consider the question of why certain groups score better in certain areas, and the implications. If a group is discriminated against (like women and blacks), those people will tend to be better than their scores indicate.
It doesn't mean it's not a problem either. This is not the most enlightened and egalitarian society that could ever exist, and we do know that discrimination on the basis of sex and race does occur. It's worth looking into.
I don't like telling someone who claims to be part of a group I'm not in that they aren't in that group. I don't tell people they're not Christians because I'm not a Christian. (I will get snarky about what Jesus is recorded as saying, but that's because I'm snarky sometimes.) I don't tell people they're not Muslim because I'm not Muslim.
I really don't care about stupid things in religious texts. They don't harm anyone by existing there. I care about the people and what they do. If most Muslims are peaceful, that's cool. I don't try to dissect it down to a much smaller group that I can feel superior to.
I'm on the spectrum, and I have never had problems with female colleagues. I treat all my colleagues with respect, and that seems to work. If you don't dare communicate with a woman, it isn't because you're on the spectrum, it's because you're a jerk.
There may be a market opportunity there....
And for assorted other reasons, such as not making enough money, unexpected medical expenses, etc. Spending little bits of money here and there can be necessary for survival in conditions like that.
I've been paid by the hour as a contractor. I found overtime far more pleasant when I could leave the meter running.
$2/day is about $730/year, which is about $8K over eleven years. You need about fourteen years to get that $10K. If you buy coffee only on workdays, it's about $500/year, and it takes twenty years to get that $10K. (Is there an interest rate you'd like to propose?)
And, yes, if you waste a lot of money you can save a lot of money by not wasting it. Having a $2/day coffee habit doesn't guarantee that you have nine other $2/day habits that you can easily kick.
Last I checked, there was more than one person on this rock, and individuals do indeed have limited multitasking ability. Therefore, it would appear possible for the human race to do more than one thing at a time.
Which doesn't stop them from acting like I'm a good customer when I have an issue.
The reason it isn't a normal situation is government action. Get the government out of that sort of regulation and it will slowly become a more normal situation.
If areas with a higher minimum wage haven't had a net reduction in employment, and these are perforce better jobs, what does it matter if some jobs flee? They're made up for by higher-paying jobs.
Try a little empiricism sometime.
Peripheral vision can be focused on. There's a natural tendency to look over there with the fovea, but that doesn't have to happen.
That's from you, several postings back. I replied that the act would be a gross misdemeanor in my state, and that the story didn't include anything about the woman finding it funny. You excused it because Bush was old and feeble. You're not exactly the right person to excuse it, in the first place, and being old and feeble doesn't mean you get to be an asshole.
I know when to grab a woman I don't know by the ass without warning or darn good reason, and that is never. You seem to believe that it's justified if the grabber is sufficiently something or other. I'm going to suggest that, if you're not clear when it's OK to grab a woman's ass without consent, you stay well away from women. This is only reinforced by your equating walking on eggshells with not committing fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. If you're that unclear, stay away. I treat women with respect, don't grab them by various parts of the body for alleged humor value, and get along just fine with them.
I have no good idea what you mean by White Knight, unless you mean someone who wants to discourage lawbreaking and violence.
You can always look up somebody's publication record, or, failing that, look at the job title, if you want to know if they're a scientist in the field.
Climate science is interdisciplinary. So's a lot of other scientific fields, such as astronomy. That doesn't mean you should go to a particle physicist to get starts explained.
You could examine administrations that get into legal trouble as a proxy for corruption. That is somewhat partisan; Republicans have tended to run more corrupt administrations.
And, of course, Republicans want to grow the size of government. They have for a long time. They want to grow it differently.
Finally, your opinion as to the proper size of government doesn't make people who disagree with you corrupt.
Which conclusion you arrive at by listing some exceptional circumstances, specifically Venezuela. There's other isolated examples, which tend not to happen in stable democracies. It is true that, if we don't get off Earth, all fiat currencies will go to zero value within a billion years (by which time Earth will be uninhabitable), but over a period of centuries there's no reason to believe that.
FTFY.
Seriously, your argument doesn't depend on virtually all governments being oppressive. It depends on some governments being oppressive. It's reasonable to argue that Bitcoin is unnecessary in the US or Germany. It's quite another thing to argue that it's unnecessary in, say, Iran or Belarus.
On the ludicrous assumption that I got a $10 billion loan to start a business, when I'd pissed it away the money would still be in the economy. I'd have paid lots of people to do stuff and paid to to contractors and subcontractors and maybe construction workers. In fact, I'd have taken money from those with money to lend, which are typically the wealthy, and funneled it to ordinary people.