Looking at Wikipedia, it would appear that there's two different definitions of GDP. China's significantly behind the US in nominal, based on official exchange rates, but ahead in purchasing power parity. My source was using PPP.
Not really. Given how editions get shuffled, it helps a lot to have the students and instructor have the same edition. If you can't get enough of last year's edition for all the students, this year's edition looks awful tempting.
Nope. We know lots more about algebra and trig than Newton did. Also, Isaac probably learned his geometry from Euclid, which is a lousy teaching text. It's neither easy nor rigorous. Science has changed considerably since Newton.
The latest figures I've got show China's GDP ahead of the US's. Of course, comparing the GDPs of very different economies is partly a matter of interpretation.
Full stop. WHAT? How exactly does that happen when the grand sum of identiy on SO is a username?
If you use your real name, and many people do, people can infer things from your name (and possibly from your use of English). They won't always be right, but it only takes a few assholes looking for black-sounding or female names to make a site less friendly.
"community managers to start flagging and deleting unkind comments now."
There's comments that are unkind but useful. For some odd reason, I'm thinking of Linus Torvalds right now. There's also unkind and not useful, and it's not going to hurt anything if those comments just go away.
Depends. If those usernames are from Slashdot, it's considered polite to assume they're sexually inexperienced male neckbeards living in their mother's basement. There's no real default for race, and sexual orientation towards other people is considered irrelevant and inapplicable.
The hostile jerks I've run into tend to be straight white males, because I tend to run into straight white people, and the males tend to be hostile jerks more often than the females.
My experience is that some people don't know how to ask a good question, or describe a stupid proposed solution rather than a problem, and sometimes react negatively when asked questions. It's not easy for a noob to tell whether someone's trying to help or trying to be patronizing, I guess, and if someone's used to being picked on because of race or gender or whatever, it might feel like the same thing.
"Correlates well" doesn't mean "matches exactly". If I were to give my name as David Thornley, and write in good English, you'd probably assume I was male and likely a native English speaker (lots of non-native English speakers are completely fluent in English, but the numbers suggests a native speaker), and since my last name is English in origin you'd likely assume my ancestry was something like that (you'd miss the Swedish component entirely, FWIW).
The more distinctive black names tend to be given names, not family names. I'd expect someone to identify a person named "Nekisha Smith" as probably a black woman.
What I've tended to see is a questioner who is bad at English. Fine, fine, I'm worse at German or Farsi or whatever language it is that you speak. The questioner finds it difficult to write in English, and so writes a short question with little detail and confusing English. If I can't figure out what the question is, all I can do is ask questions in the comments. That's caused some disagreement.
I asked a question once, and it started to get "close" votes for reasons I had to show were invalid, in a comment. I did know the rules, and I had a reputation in the tens of thousands (I used to answer a lot of C++ questions and answer them well), so this annoyed me.
If there's no link to the question asked before, SO is not doing its job. That's something they can address. Since they are saying they're interested in improving, that's an obvious thing to do.
Using a politically funded opposition research document in what has been represented as a criminal probe into the OTHER party's candidate is "reasonable"?
Yes. Do you have a reason why not? We know it's likely to be unreliable, but law enforcement doesn't just use reliable information. They get information from liars and criminals, after all. The Steele dossier might well have real facts in it. If, say, Steele says something specific and we have corroborating evidence, then Steele might well have gotten that right. Say that the dossier said that X had dinner with Y in Belgrade. By itself, that's unreliable. If another unreliable but unrelated source says the same thing, then that's good evidence to think X likely had dinner with Y in Belgrade. At this point in the investigation, we're not looking for evidence that can be used to convict, but rather evidence that there's probable cause to think X is worth investigating.
HOWEVER if you look at who these sources where and where they got their information it all traces back to the same place, the dossier and it's precursors.
Slow down and tell me where you got that. Did you read the warrant application? If not, where did you get it? The Nunes memo describes an article that clearly is from Steele, and hence is not corroboration. It doesn't actually say that article was used as corroboration, and it doesn't actually say that there was nothing else used for corroboration. The Democrat memo wisely didn't get into that level of specifics, but attempted to respect the secrecy of the process. So, where did you get that? There are very few sources of information on this that aren't secret, and none of the non-secret sources say what you claim. Either you literally don't know what you're talking about, or the FBI needs to talk to you about leaking secret information.
Put the shoe on the other foot, reverse the political party's activities and you KNOW you'd be coming unglued over this.
Um, why would I be getting unglued? The FBI investigates lots of things, which doesn't mean they find any wrongdoing. You're claiming that the investigative process is invalid, and you don't actually have evidence for that. You aren't showing that the investigation led to any uncalled-for consequences. I don't trust the FBI, but I do need some evidence of wrongdoing before I think they're doing wrong.
Picking a statistic and saying it doesn't look right means nothing, much more unbiased analysis needs to be done, to find out why it is the case. Going in with the opinion it must be sexism is not going to lead to an unbiased result.
I see you agree with me. That's exactly what I've been trying to say. I want severe inequalities in outcome investigated.
It maybe that a perceived reward for being a director is that you get have sex with lots of actors, and women are just not as interested in that reward.
Conceivably, although it seems unlikely to me (and probably also to you).
What makes you think I haven't talked to feminists? I'm a gay man and former progressive.
The fact that your description of feminists is much different from my experience. I'm really unimpressed with your "former progressive" claim; that's an old rhetorical trick. I'm not giving it any credence.
You seem to think that people should get power even if they don't compete for that power.
No. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't have to compete for power to avoid being dominated. People should be able to opt out of the power game and live civilized lives. The natural state of humanity is cooperative and lacks power struggles. Those came along relatively recently, as the population of groups increased.
Well, in that case, it should be no problem for you to disprove it. So far, you have been unable. Where exactly are there opportunities denied to women that are available to men?
There are studies that involve sending out test resumes with male and female names on them, and measuring the response rate. Easy to show, although (as I said) minor. Most opportunities aren't denied to women but are available to men (there are some, such as sperm donor), and I didn't claim that.
I was replying to an upmodded AC, who is less upmodded than when I replied. When I used the word "force", you could equally read it as "he'd end women's careers if they didn't become prostitutes for him". I do consider being unjustly shut out of a desired career to be harm, even if the career is iffy to begin with.
You find women who screwed Weinstein in order to have a better chance of success distasteful? Why? Weinstein had the power, and misused it badly. I don't like blaming people for doing what they have to do to get around corrupt power.
Making movies takes a lot of money. It may be that launching good female directors takes a lot less, but there isn't a real business motive for spending money so other people can go away and be successful.
It could be that there is a business opportunity here, given a few billion in capital, but that's a rather high barrier to entry. The upside is more dubious. Hiring more female directors might be a good business move, but a company would need a lot of other good business moves to break into the field and do well.
I'm not insisting anything about what sex ratios should be. I'm not claiming that any occupation should have a 50/50 split. I'm claiming that it's intellectually lazy to figure that we've done enough so that all remaining inequalities are results of free choice. Unequal outcomes are often due to unequal opportunities, and that holds true today.
You go ahead and find a way to fund film schools for a billion students. Resources are limited. I haven't looked into it, but I've seen a claim that women tend to get a lot less funding than men at a critical stage of their career, so they find it much harder and less certain to show what they can do.
There's a female urban fantasy writer I like, and she wrote recently about her approach to the business of writing.
She said that spending money and time on her clothes and makeup for conventions makes a significant difference in how people react to her, and she has realized that to be successful she has to continue looking her society-defined best, while male authors are not so judged. She is not happy about this, but sees it as something she has to do. It doesn't matter whether she has to impress women or men, or in what ratio; what matters is that she has to spend more on clothes and style and such than a male author.
She may be wrong, of course, but she knows her business better than I do.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at Wikipedia, it would appear that there's two different definitions of GDP. China's significantly behind the US in nominal, based on official exchange rates, but ahead in purchasing power parity. My source was using PPP.
Not really. Given how editions get shuffled, it helps a lot to have the students and instructor have the same edition. If you can't get enough of last year's edition for all the students, this year's edition looks awful tempting.
Nope. We know lots more about algebra and trig than Newton did. Also, Isaac probably learned his geometry from Euclid, which is a lousy teaching text. It's neither easy nor rigorous. Science has changed considerably since Newton.
The latest figures I've got show China's GDP ahead of the US's. Of course, comparing the GDPs of very different economies is partly a matter of interpretation.
If you use your real name, and many people do, people can infer things from your name (and possibly from your use of English). They won't always be right, but it only takes a few assholes looking for black-sounding or female names to make a site less friendly.
There's comments that are unkind but useful. For some odd reason, I'm thinking of Linus Torvalds right now. There's also unkind and not useful, and it's not going to hurt anything if those comments just go away.
We're all special snowflakes. Deal with it.
Wrong; read the Labor Relations Board report.
However, I don't need "check your privilege" reeducation camp. Whenever I check mine, it appears to be working just fine.
Depends. If those usernames are from Slashdot, it's considered polite to assume they're sexually inexperienced male neckbeards living in their mother's basement. There's no real default for race, and sexual orientation towards other people is considered irrelevant and inapplicable.
My computer said "illegal operation". Should I make a run for it, or just sit and wait for the police to come?
The hostile jerks I've run into tend to be straight white males, because I tend to run into straight white people, and the males tend to be hostile jerks more often than the females.
My experience is that some people don't know how to ask a good question, or describe a stupid proposed solution rather than a problem, and sometimes react negatively when asked questions. It's not easy for a noob to tell whether someone's trying to help or trying to be patronizing, I guess, and if someone's used to being picked on because of race or gender or whatever, it might feel like the same thing.
"Correlates well" doesn't mean "matches exactly". If I were to give my name as David Thornley, and write in good English, you'd probably assume I was male and likely a native English speaker (lots of non-native English speakers are completely fluent in English, but the numbers suggests a native speaker), and since my last name is English in origin you'd likely assume my ancestry was something like that (you'd miss the Swedish component entirely, FWIW).
The more distinctive black names tend to be given names, not family names. I'd expect someone to identify a person named "Nekisha Smith" as probably a black woman.
The name can indicate race, gender, and ethnicity. The nature of the English used can provide more clues. Other than that, pretty much nothing.
What I've tended to see is a questioner who is bad at English. Fine, fine, I'm worse at German or Farsi or whatever language it is that you speak. The questioner finds it difficult to write in English, and so writes a short question with little detail and confusing English. If I can't figure out what the question is, all I can do is ask questions in the comments. That's caused some disagreement.
I asked a question once, and it started to get "close" votes for reasons I had to show were invalid, in a comment. I did know the rules, and I had a reputation in the tens of thousands (I used to answer a lot of C++ questions and answer them well), so this annoyed me.
Slashdot articles are frequently stupid. I read them for the comments. There can be interesting and insightful comments on stupid articles.
If there's no link to the question asked before, SO is not doing its job. That's something they can address. Since they are saying they're interested in improving, that's an obvious thing to do.
Yes. Do you have a reason why not? We know it's likely to be unreliable, but law enforcement doesn't just use reliable information. They get information from liars and criminals, after all. The Steele dossier might well have real facts in it. If, say, Steele says something specific and we have corroborating evidence, then Steele might well have gotten that right. Say that the dossier said that X had dinner with Y in Belgrade. By itself, that's unreliable. If another unreliable but unrelated source says the same thing, then that's good evidence to think X likely had dinner with Y in Belgrade. At this point in the investigation, we're not looking for evidence that can be used to convict, but rather evidence that there's probable cause to think X is worth investigating.
Slow down and tell me where you got that. Did you read the warrant application? If not, where did you get it? The Nunes memo describes an article that clearly is from Steele, and hence is not corroboration. It doesn't actually say that article was used as corroboration, and it doesn't actually say that there was nothing else used for corroboration. The Democrat memo wisely didn't get into that level of specifics, but attempted to respect the secrecy of the process. So, where did you get that? There are very few sources of information on this that aren't secret, and none of the non-secret sources say what you claim. Either you literally don't know what you're talking about, or the FBI needs to talk to you about leaking secret information.
Um, why would I be getting unglued? The FBI investigates lots of things, which doesn't mean they find any wrongdoing. You're claiming that the investigative process is invalid, and you don't actually have evidence for that. You aren't showing that the investigation led to any uncalled-for consequences. I don't trust the FBI, but I do need some evidence of wrongdoing before I think they're doing wrong.
I see you agree with me. That's exactly what I've been trying to say. I want severe inequalities in outcome investigated.
Conceivably, although it seems unlikely to me (and probably also to you).
The fact that your description of feminists is much different from my experience. I'm really unimpressed with your "former progressive" claim; that's an old rhetorical trick. I'm not giving it any credence.
No. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't have to compete for power to avoid being dominated. People should be able to opt out of the power game and live civilized lives. The natural state of humanity is cooperative and lacks power struggles. Those came along relatively recently, as the population of groups increased.
There are studies that involve sending out test resumes with male and female names on them, and measuring the response rate. Easy to show, although (as I said) minor. Most opportunities aren't denied to women but are available to men (there are some, such as sperm donor), and I didn't claim that.
I was replying to an upmodded AC, who is less upmodded than when I replied. When I used the word "force", you could equally read it as "he'd end women's careers if they didn't become prostitutes for him". I do consider being unjustly shut out of a desired career to be harm, even if the career is iffy to begin with.
You find women who screwed Weinstein in order to have a better chance of success distasteful? Why? Weinstein had the power, and misused it badly. I don't like blaming people for doing what they have to do to get around corrupt power.
Making movies takes a lot of money. It may be that launching good female directors takes a lot less, but there isn't a real business motive for spending money so other people can go away and be successful.
It could be that there is a business opportunity here, given a few billion in capital, but that's a rather high barrier to entry. The upside is more dubious. Hiring more female directors might be a good business move, but a company would need a lot of other good business moves to break into the field and do well.
Infinite loop? Where?
I'm not insisting anything about what sex ratios should be. I'm not claiming that any occupation should have a 50/50 split. I'm claiming that it's intellectually lazy to figure that we've done enough so that all remaining inequalities are results of free choice. Unequal outcomes are often due to unequal opportunities, and that holds true today.
You go ahead and find a way to fund film schools for a billion students. Resources are limited. I haven't looked into it, but I've seen a claim that women tend to get a lot less funding than men at a critical stage of their career, so they find it much harder and less certain to show what they can do.
There's a female urban fantasy writer I like, and she wrote recently about her approach to the business of writing.
She said that spending money and time on her clothes and makeup for conventions makes a significant difference in how people react to her, and she has realized that to be successful she has to continue looking her society-defined best, while male authors are not so judged. She is not happy about this, but sees it as something she has to do. It doesn't matter whether she has to impress women or men, or in what ratio; what matters is that she has to spend more on clothes and style and such than a male author.
She may be wrong, of course, but she knows her business better than I do.