AmiMoJo supplies one link to a Wired article with a few quotes from the authors as his source that they've 'discredited' his conclusions. Let's review:
As Schmitt tells WIRED via email, âoeThese sex differences in neuroticism are not very large, with biological sex perhaps accounting for only 10 percent of the variance.â The other 90 percent, in other words, are the result of individual variation, environment, and upbringing.
Damore didn't say it wasn't both nature and nurture. This is questioning effect size, not effect existence.
âoeIt is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. Thatâ(TM)s a huge stretch to me),â writes Schmitt. So, yes, thatâ(TM)s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore.
This is attacking the strawman that Damore said women hired into positions at Google were unqualified and unable to handle it; no such claim was made.
âoeI would assume that women in technical positions at Google are more thing-oriented than the average woman,â Lippa says. âoeBut then an interesting question is, are they more thing-oriented than the average male Google employee? I donâ(TM)t know the answer to that.â
That's posing a question, not disagreeing. And regardless of that answer to that, Damore is talking about how to get more qualified applicants in, not how to exclude qualified applicants because of their gender. Further, this is right below a quote where he explicitly agrees with Damore's thesis:
âoeOn averageâ"and I emphasize that, on averageâ"men are more interested in thing-oriented occupations and fields, and that difference is actually quite large,â says Richard Lipp
So how's this guy saying Damore's wrong again?
And that's how AmiMoJo concluded that the authors "debunked" Damores conclusions. A few quotes that don't make that case at all in a clearly biased article (among other things, it says there's no solid evidence for differences in IQ between races, and anyone even talking about it is a racist, both components of that being absurd).
So yeah you've posted this same claim several times now, all without links to back it up. Last time someone actually linked to rebuttals, I tore them to shreds for strawmanning, nitpicking irrelevant details not related to the controversial parts, and responding to things not in Damores paper... why do I get the feeling this is going to be like that. Odds are they didn't want their papers associated with this nonsense, so did like everyone else: misstated something Damore said then knocked down their straw man.
Wealthy executives losing share value isn't the same universe as people who will now have trouble paying rent/mortgage, bills, and kids tuition if they can't find a new job within a month or two (and the lowest level of employees even sooner). That you'd even make a comment like that shows you're disturbingly out of touch. Garbage like that is why people put the wealthy's heads on pikes come revolution time. "Oh no, poor CEO, he had to downgrade from a Bugatti to a Lambo." Who cares they lost more real dollars, drawing an equivalence like that is grotesque.
A police officer can't follow everyone all the time, to say there's no difference between an officer on the corner and a network that individually identifies everyone and creates a permanent database of their whereabouts or that the latter isn't a privacy violation is disturbing Orwellian authoritarianism. These weren't dumb cameras. And eventually, facial recognition will be so good even those won't be ok.
In 2004, Facebook was only for college students. You had to have a.edu e-mail at a whitelisted institution to sign up. Needless to say, we flocked to it like nothing before or since. It was when it lost that exclusivity and wanted the whole planet signed up that the data hoovering began and grew like a virus.
Does anyone really want the version of 'getting rid of DST' that involves not having that extra light after work/school when you can actually go do something instead of in the morning when it's useless, then dark way too early? Who wants daylight gone by 5:30pm like it is here now? Unless that's what we're getting, screw it, keep DST so at least we get it in the summer. (Your times and seasons may differ but the principle is no doubt the same).
Funny, you accuse me of doing the same thing you did: Look at one sentence and ignore the rest. The 62% was followed by noting it's 13-35 among a large sample of Europe+US; does knowing it's higher than that but lower than 62 in the rest of the Muslim world reduce the problem as to indicate a biased presentation? No. The following was concerning a global average, and the one after that covered both the low end and high end. I could have made the point explicitly, but even the low end in the west is a widespread and massive problem.
For polling error, unless you're proposing there's huge errors exclusively in one direction that happen across multiple polls across the last decade... it doesn't diminish the problem.
And it's not that the racist label bothers me specifically, it's that it indicates societies desire to pretend the problem doesn't exist because trying to fix it wouldn't be PC.
It's like looking into the racial disparity in IQ or violent crime... you can't investigate the causes and possible solutions, because even looking at the size of the effect you're a vile racist troll for even posing the question since it suggests that "there is a difference" might be a possible answer (notwithstanding that, whatever the reason, there *is*).
People always talk about the small percentage of Muslims that are terrorists. Less spoken about is, depending on the country, up to 62% of all Muslims say suicide bombings against civilians are often or sometimes justified. Among Muslims in the US and western Europe, 13-35% support suicide bombings at least some of the time. Large majorities of Muslims support Sharia Law to be the law of the land (and large percentages support then having it apply to non-Muslims as well). From country to country, support for stoning as a punishment for adultery runs from 25% to over 75%, and at least 6 countries with large Muslim populations they support the death penalty for leaving Islam.
It's still not fair to paint everyone with the same brush, but support for extremism is a major problem in the Muslim faith, and it's not limited to a small minority. (And no, there's not parity with Christian support for their nutjob fanatics).
And you know what's sad? I think things don't have to be this way, and think we can move past it. But that begins with acknowledging the problem, and for refusing to stick my head in the stand and pretend this issue doesn't exist, I'll be painted as an evil racist.
Facebook recently went so far over the line I'd hope a civil suit might even have a chance... the mobile app is taking recent photos, uploading them Facebooks servers, and asking if you want to share them, without having any ability to turn off the "feature" short of revoking access to photos through the app manager entirely (so you can't even upload the photos you do want to share). Whenever this is brought up in the support forum, the thread is locked.
Since it's YouTube/Google, to the authoritarian progressive* snowflakes who have made it their mission in life to be offended by as many things as possible. Those perpetually one slightly off-color joke away from running off to a safe-space with puppies to cry about how the joke was literally violence and they're literally shaking; who don't at all see the problem with then turning around to explain why 'kill all white men' and 'kill yourself cis-het scum' are perfectly fine, non-hateful things to say which would be oppression to censor.
To look like they're doing something; what else? Of course nothing is being done. The director of the agency is fundamentally opposed to his own agency existing, requested a budget of $0, and won't even go after abusive payday lenders. That's par for the course with Trump; appointing someone who hates the agency they're now leading.
Well until we evolve into a more intelligent species and dramatically improve education, we're stuck with the vast majority of people unable or unwilling to step outside their bias.
The FDA and DEA want it placed on Schedule I, which will make it virtually impossible to study. And yeah, it's a plant, you absolutely should just be able to start selling it.
Close; opiates are naturally occurring opioids. The endogenous chemicals morphine mimicks, e.g. endorphins and enkephalins, are also opiates. Then opioids are divided into synthetic (fentanyl) and semisynthetic (oxycodone, which is derived from the natural opium alkaloid thebaine).
This action by the FDA is going farther than just saying 'since this binds to opiate receptors it's an opioid', which was already a universally accepted scientific fact, it's an action designed to bolster the case for scheduling it and banning it.
Love it when poorly informed comments get modded up by people who also don't know what's going on. The government is actively attempting to ban kratom. There was an emergency scheduling action against it, which was only slowed to a normal schedule action after popular outcry. Making this classification bolsters the case for scheduling, as alluded to in the very first sentence of the summary. Customs routinely seizes any kratom imports they find coming into the country.
Not all opiates should be treated the same. They're planning on putting kratom on Schedule I, aka a complete ban. In this case, no scheduling is appropriate, and in fact will cause great harm. I'm not objecting to the classification in general, but this finding goes a lot further than simply recognizing the obvious. Please try to refrain from trying to correct others on subjects where you're not closely following the topic.
You have to be careful with loperamide. 100mg then tapering lower for a week or two is fine and will stop withdrawal 90% or better; but taking 800mg at once or 200+mg/day long-term (some people have taken up to 1200mg/day--- yes, 600 pills-- for months) is associated with heart rhythm abnormalities that have resulted in a number of fatalities.
If SCOTUS ruled that the sky was red, it wouldn't change the fact that the sky is really blue and they're just making a ruling they know is wrong because they support the law. 'Regulate interstate commerce' meaning that a federal police force can arrest you for growing a plant on your own land, exclusively for your own use, in accordance with state law, as a bona fide medical treatment approved by a doctor, is absolute unmitigated bullshit on the scale of that sky color ruling (Raich upholding precedent from Wickard). They didn't want to undermine the drug war, so made a ruling that is blatantly intellectually dishonest in its direct contradiction of objective fact.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if we replace prohibition with education, prevention, and treatment, using regulated commercial products, users would just OD. In reality, the number of addicts in general, and the percentage of addict ODs specifically, would plummet (see Portugal and Heroin Maintenance Programs).
And how many fatal overdoses were avoided because people were able to get off heroin (the primary use of kratom; some use it recreationally but most people use it for quitting harder opioids)? I'm guessing way more than 44. There's nobody that's going right now "Oh, well if the FDA makes kratom illegal that's it for me, I'm going to stop using opiates". No-bod-y. Users will invariably switch to a more dangerous opiate instead.
Slashdot Mirror
As Schmitt tells WIRED via email, âoeThese sex differences in neuroticism are not very large, with biological sex perhaps accounting for only 10 percent of the variance.â The other 90 percent, in other words, are the result of individual variation, environment, and upbringing.
Damore didn't say it wasn't both nature and nurture. This is questioning effect size, not effect existence.
âoeIt is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. Thatâ(TM)s a huge stretch to me),â writes Schmitt. So, yes, thatâ(TM)s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore.
This is attacking the strawman that Damore said women hired into positions at Google were unqualified and unable to handle it; no such claim was made.
âoeI would assume that women in technical positions at Google are more thing-oriented than the average woman,â Lippa says. âoeBut then an interesting question is, are they more thing-oriented than the average male Google employee? I donâ(TM)t know the answer to that.â
That's posing a question, not disagreeing. And regardless of that answer to that, Damore is talking about how to get more qualified applicants in, not how to exclude qualified applicants because of their gender. Further, this is right below a quote where he explicitly agrees with Damore's thesis:
âoeOn averageâ"and I emphasize that, on averageâ"men are more interested in thing-oriented occupations and fields, and that difference is actually quite large,â says Richard Lipp
So how's this guy saying Damore's wrong again?
And that's how AmiMoJo concluded that the authors "debunked" Damores conclusions. A few quotes that don't make that case at all in a clearly biased article (among other things, it says there's no solid evidence for differences in IQ between races, and anyone even talking about it is a racist, both components of that being absurd).
So yeah you've posted this same claim several times now, all without links to back it up. Last time someone actually linked to rebuttals, I tore them to shreds for strawmanning, nitpicking irrelevant details not related to the controversial parts, and responding to things not in Damores paper... why do I get the feeling this is going to be like that. Odds are they didn't want their papers associated with this nonsense, so did like everyone else: misstated something Damore said then knocked down their straw man.
Is that just to the satellite? It's important for a lot of games and a few other things that the total trip is 25ms at most.
Wealthy executives losing share value isn't the same universe as people who will now have trouble paying rent/mortgage, bills, and kids tuition if they can't find a new job within a month or two (and the lowest level of employees even sooner). That you'd even make a comment like that shows you're disturbingly out of touch. Garbage like that is why people put the wealthy's heads on pikes come revolution time. "Oh no, poor CEO, he had to downgrade from a Bugatti to a Lambo." Who cares they lost more real dollars, drawing an equivalence like that is grotesque.
Skokie seems somewhat dampened by the fact the ACLU now believes social justice supersedes constitutional rights.
A police officer can't follow everyone all the time, to say there's no difference between an officer on the corner and a network that individually identifies everyone and creates a permanent database of their whereabouts or that the latter isn't a privacy violation is disturbing Orwellian authoritarianism. These weren't dumb cameras. And eventually, facial recognition will be so good even those won't be ok.
In 2004, Facebook was only for college students. You had to have a .edu e-mail at a whitelisted institution to sign up. Needless to say, we flocked to it like nothing before or since. It was when it lost that exclusivity and wanted the whole planet signed up that the data hoovering began and grew like a virus.
Does anyone really want the version of 'getting rid of DST' that involves not having that extra light after work/school when you can actually go do something instead of in the morning when it's useless, then dark way too early? Who wants daylight gone by 5:30pm like it is here now? Unless that's what we're getting, screw it, keep DST so at least we get it in the summer. (Your times and seasons may differ but the principle is no doubt the same).
Funny, you accuse me of doing the same thing you did: Look at one sentence and ignore the rest. The 62% was followed by noting it's 13-35 among a large sample of Europe+US; does knowing it's higher than that but lower than 62 in the rest of the Muslim world reduce the problem as to indicate a biased presentation? No. The following was concerning a global average, and the one after that covered both the low end and high end. I could have made the point explicitly, but even the low end in the west is a widespread and massive problem.
For polling error, unless you're proposing there's huge errors exclusively in one direction that happen across multiple polls across the last decade... it doesn't diminish the problem.
And it's not that the racist label bothers me specifically, it's that it indicates societies desire to pretend the problem doesn't exist because trying to fix it wouldn't be PC.
It's like looking into the racial disparity in IQ or violent crime... you can't investigate the causes and possible solutions, because even looking at the size of the effect you're a vile racist troll for even posing the question since it suggests that "there is a difference" might be a possible answer (notwithstanding that, whatever the reason, there *is*).
People always talk about the small percentage of Muslims that are terrorists. Less spoken about is, depending on the country, up to 62% of all Muslims say suicide bombings against civilians are often or sometimes justified. Among Muslims in the US and western Europe, 13-35% support suicide bombings at least some of the time. Large majorities of Muslims support Sharia Law to be the law of the land (and large percentages support then having it apply to non-Muslims as well). From country to country, support for stoning as a punishment for adultery runs from 25% to over 75%, and at least 6 countries with large Muslim populations they support the death penalty for leaving Islam.
It's still not fair to paint everyone with the same brush, but support for extremism is a major problem in the Muslim faith, and it's not limited to a small minority. (And no, there's not parity with Christian support for their nutjob fanatics).
And you know what's sad? I think things don't have to be this way, and think we can move past it. But that begins with acknowledging the problem, and for refusing to stick my head in the stand and pretend this issue doesn't exist, I'll be painted as an evil racist.
Facebook recently went so far over the line I'd hope a civil suit might even have a chance... the mobile app is taking recent photos, uploading them Facebooks servers, and asking if you want to share them, without having any ability to turn off the "feature" short of revoking access to photos through the app manager entirely (so you can't even upload the photos you do want to share). Whenever this is brought up in the support forum, the thread is locked.
Since it's YouTube/Google, to the authoritarian progressive* snowflakes who have made it their mission in life to be offended by as many things as possible. Those perpetually one slightly off-color joke away from running off to a safe-space with puppies to cry about how the joke was literally violence and they're literally shaking; who don't at all see the problem with then turning around to explain why 'kill all white men' and 'kill yourself cis-het scum' are perfectly fine, non-hateful things to say which would be oppression to censor.
* - progressives are not liberals
To look like they're doing something; what else? Of course nothing is being done. The director of the agency is fundamentally opposed to his own agency existing, requested a budget of $0, and won't even go after abusive payday lenders. That's par for the course with Trump; appointing someone who hates the agency they're now leading.
Well until we evolve into a more intelligent species and dramatically improve education, we're stuck with the vast majority of people unable or unwilling to step outside their bias.
The FDA and DEA want it placed on Schedule I, which will make it virtually impossible to study. And yeah, it's a plant, you absolutely should just be able to start selling it.
Close; opiates are naturally occurring opioids. The endogenous chemicals morphine mimicks, e.g. endorphins and enkephalins, are also opiates. Then opioids are divided into synthetic (fentanyl) and semisynthetic (oxycodone, which is derived from the natural opium alkaloid thebaine).
This action by the FDA is going farther than just saying 'since this binds to opiate receptors it's an opioid', which was already a universally accepted scientific fact, it's an action designed to bolster the case for scheduling it and banning it.
Well we can't have a cheap plant with no patents competing with methadone and buprenorphine, can we?
Love it when poorly informed comments get modded up by people who also don't know what's going on. The government is actively attempting to ban kratom. There was an emergency scheduling action against it, which was only slowed to a normal schedule action after popular outcry. Making this classification bolsters the case for scheduling, as alluded to in the very first sentence of the summary. Customs routinely seizes any kratom imports they find coming into the country.
Not all opiates should be treated the same. They're planning on putting kratom on Schedule I, aka a complete ban. In this case, no scheduling is appropriate, and in fact will cause great harm. I'm not objecting to the classification in general, but this finding goes a lot further than simply recognizing the obvious. Please try to refrain from trying to correct others on subjects where you're not closely following the topic.
You have to be careful with loperamide. 100mg then tapering lower for a week or two is fine and will stop withdrawal 90% or better; but taking 800mg at once or 200+mg/day long-term (some people have taken up to 1200mg/day--- yes, 600 pills-- for months) is associated with heart rhythm abnormalities that have resulted in a number of fatalities.
If SCOTUS ruled that the sky was red, it wouldn't change the fact that the sky is really blue and they're just making a ruling they know is wrong because they support the law. 'Regulate interstate commerce' meaning that a federal police force can arrest you for growing a plant on your own land, exclusively for your own use, in accordance with state law, as a bona fide medical treatment approved by a doctor, is absolute unmitigated bullshit on the scale of that sky color ruling (Raich upholding precedent from Wickard). They didn't want to undermine the drug war, so made a ruling that is blatantly intellectually dishonest in its direct contradiction of objective fact.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if we replace prohibition with education, prevention, and treatment, using regulated commercial products, users would just OD. In reality, the number of addicts in general, and the percentage of addict ODs specifically, would plummet (see Portugal and Heroin Maintenance Programs).
And how many fatal overdoses were avoided because people were able to get off heroin (the primary use of kratom; some use it recreationally but most people use it for quitting harder opioids)? I'm guessing way more than 44. There's nobody that's going right now "Oh, well if the FDA makes kratom illegal that's it for me, I'm going to stop using opiates". No-bod-y. Users will invariably switch to a more dangerous opiate instead.
Yeah I'm with you, screw using kratom, go back to heroin or $randomfentanalog instead. Way safer.
So they're lying, got it.