Quite a few of them so. Lady Gaga, though, interestingly, is a curious exception. Supposedly - from accounts of quite a few people - she's intelligent, educated, with sharp wit and good critical sense, a very no-nonsense person. The 'crazy diva' is all an act, something that is expected from a top pop star, required to stay in the spotlight, in focus of the 'brand' press, keep idiot fans interested and rake mountains of money.
I'd find it extremely amusing if they hired her as a publicity stunt for show off, and then she proceeded to stay out of spotlight and be a very competent manager instead.
There are tech companies that benefit from the celebrity endorsement, being "fashionable brands". Apple, Dr. Dre, GoPro.
It's really hard to gain the "fashionable" status though, and unless you already have it, you won't benefit from celebrities. And if you're an established "office" brand like Dell, Microsoft or IBM, you have precisely zero chance at ever becoming "hip". Your best bet is to create an entirely new brand (a'la Lenovo), bury the connection to the parent company so deep you need a forensics expert to find it, and promote it as the "new hip" thing using funds, tech and supply chain of the "real company" but keeping the original brand as far as possible.
Try to process data in a tree structure without recursion. Say, scan all files in a directory tree for a string.
Recursive approach: - iterate over every file and directory in current directory - if file, scan. If found, return the find, or add it to the list of found files. - if directory, open and restart self recursively with that directory as new root.
Now if you want to do this iteratively, you're most likely to duplicate the recursive algorithm, except turning all the neat recursive calls the compiler normally makes for you into a hand-crafted monstrosity of storing current state on custom stacks.
> yet it was them, both of them, that rated rightwing white militia member's the highest terrorist risk in America.
Oh. So I don't qualify after all. I'm moderate, not a militia member, and not affiliated with any such groups. What you did is precisely the thing you claim to be opposed to: stereotyping, through encompassing the whole group basing on behavior of its small minority. Congratulations, you're a bigot.
I've been to the discussion about frequency of black shooting before. It's a self-propelling machine of hate, where a moderate disproportion in crime rate results in a big disproportion in persecution involving violence. Blacks are already dealing with their internal problems, and once these are gone, it will be time to heal the rift. But as long as violence and crime is glorified by the popculture (the whole "gangsta" style) this is an uphill battle. The fault is on both sides, and it won't get better if only one side steps down.
> I didn't, you did. I said, that not knowing you personally, I can only judge based on statistics.
And then you judged me basing on statistics concerning "rightwing white militia" instead of the whole white populace. That's not how statistics works.
> Your proposed solution
This is not a proposed solution. It's the observation of reality, which is definitely unpleasant and harmful at a large scale, but it's immediately beneficial to the employers. "Tragedy of the commons." It's a social situation that guides social behaviors along the locally, immediately most profitable path, with disregard for society-wide consequences. And it's the laws you introduced that created this social situation. Not only "minorities" want to live free of harassment, and making every minor offense, no matter how minimal, punishable severely - is definitely harassment. And since the majority doesn't have the nice, individualized system solutions for dealing with that harassment (it's been made legal - made into law!) they use whatever tools they have. If that tool happens to be equivalent to sledgehammer - too bad.
> Here's a much more sensible way to prevent such problems: act professionally in your professional life. Leave sex for after-hours.
It's the misconception, that "professional" = "behaving like a professional salesperson." In STEM, this is completely wrong. Most brilliant minds are very frequently eccentric. And as result of your suggestion, you end up with corporate culture of mild-mannered, professional looking, and completely inept staff. Because the TRUE professionals left - or were fired.
With lower tolerances, more precise engineering, variance drops. Mean time to failure may remain the same, but instead of one disk working a month, and another ten years, you have twenty disks failing within three months of each other, five years from now. Bearings wearing the same, grease drying up at the same rate, springs losing flexibility at the same rate - the date of failure ceases to be a random factor, and becomes highly deterministic. And the fact that not a single disk failed within a year means only that they are performing very similarly - not that they are performing extremely well.
I wouldn't be so sure. Take a running hard disk in your hand and tilt it this way and that. The gyroscopic force is surprisingly strong - it's well beyond "perceptible" - it actually requires some effort to fight it. Sure if you distribute the tilt over 24 hours it's much weaker, but then add that up over many years and it's no longer negligible.
> That makes you the most likely to be a serial killer, the most likely to be a mass shooter, the most likely to rape somebody AND the most likely to commit an act of domestic terrorism.
Compare number of deaths by the means you listed to deaths caused by armed assault, then compare demographics of assailants.
Don't forget to normalize for total population of given demographics, because somehow it seems you believe if there were 100 crimes committed by group A and 50 crimes committed by group B, that means A is twice as dangerous as B - while you totally disregard the fact A is ten times as numerous as B, meaning, in fact any member of B is 5 times as dangerous as a member of A.
These numbers really cease to support your point if you normalize them to "per 1000 members of given group".
> You seem to be confusing "statistics" with "anecdotes". Anecdotal evidence isn't.
You don't use statistics to describe a set of exactly one. Statistical sample of one isn't.
> Perhaps you'd have done better applying your hard work to a profession more suited to your IQ..
To my IQ AND SKIN COLOR, you meant? Because were I black, my IQ would be sufficient. It's "stand up to make room for the 'preferred ethnicity' on the bus" all over again, being white being penalized. And no, what my great-grandfather did is not my fault.
> But on the other hand having to give an apology is not, as you seem to suggest, some terrible torture that no human should ever be forced to experience.
Have you seen a video of that apology? The guy was a nervous wreck. He was about to lose his life's work. THAT is a torture nobody should be forced to experience. Over what?
That's not an isolated incident. The cases, where the "offended" would begin a witch hunt are numerous. And you're shooting your own foot, because top professionals hate walking on eggshells around "special snowflakes" and simply move to the "backwards, bigoted" firms that don't like to take the risk associated with employing the "easily offended".
Nobody can force an employer to choose a candidate of demographic that is a legal risk, or might lead to losing top professionals, and increasing number of employers are getting aware of this; "We'll stay in contact", a firm handshake, and pat your back on the way to the exit, while checking the box next to the white male's name - because if he's underperforming, he can be fired with no risk of costly legal battle over discrimination.
When - roughly 7 years ago - I was working with an all-male team, and the management suggested hiring a woman to join our team, we were open and practically enthusiastic. I know what my answer would be today: Hell, no. If a slip of a tongue could mean disciplinary action, I'll pass. Yes, there are many reasonable, skilled women who would definitely contribute to the group and give new insights, but you know... that analogy about a bowl of M&Ms, some of them poisoned?
"What's that got to do with anything ? Statistically YOU are FAR more dangerous than the people you are seeking to keep out."
Statistically there's exactly one instance of me, and I know well how dangerous or safe I am. OTOH, I've faced quite a few transsexuals, who - completely apart from being trans - were raving lunatics, abusive, violent and paranoid. Even towards people sympathetic to them. So, statistically - you're full of shit.
"Neither has anybody else. If you worked that hard, you would get accepted somewhere else, probably a few places. And the odds that you can actually afford to GO somewhere else is significantly higher." Suuure, Keep repeating the lie until you believe it.
So, "they did it first, therefore it makes it right for me to do this too"?
Fighting bigotry with a different kind of bigotry? That is suuure to work.
> Being offended has never been a factor
Except in case of the Shirtstorm. Nobody was ever hurt over the shirt the lead of Philae mission wore. A shirt he received as a birthday gift from a female friend. Suddenly the fact he managed to perform a landing on a comet became moot in the eyes of his fashion choice, and he was facing losing his life's work over the fashion choice.
> There is no such thing. The slippery slope is a fallacy. Slippery slopes do not exist.
You don't have random strangers use the bathroom in your house at the same time you do. You didn't suffer through having your hard work be for naught because someone was accepted over you basing on their skin color. You didn't have to apologize to the whole world for your fashion choices.
Except that definition is a slippery slope. Who is a bigot? A person, who expresses discomfort about a woman (self-identifying as a man) uses men's bathroom? A person unhappy about losing a place in university in favor of someone with worse score, who passed through 'affirmative action'? Someone threatened to be fired from work which is his life, for wearing a shirt that some consider offensive?
Keep your definitions strict, and we can all agree what constitutes bigotry. Let the scope encompass majority of the nation and nobody cares about the shit they became.
Oh, many "progressive feminists" have mastered portraying themselves as victims just in order to attract sympathy to their cause despite actual lack of merit, and to shut up all opposition through accusations of victim blaming and hate speech when confronted with actual criticism.
Not to look far, the "hero" of this article somehow ignores all the death threats issued by her goons to Gamergaters.
"First, you just lost your chance for 10 out of 10 by badgering me about that. There, no need to call me - I absolutely hate being pressured into giving dishonest reviews, that's the reason.
The only way to fix this system "from outside" is to break it thoroughly. You're shifting the blame on the victim. It's not your or the driver's fault that the manager decided 90% rating is the minimum. It's the manager's. And the only way to stop the scoundrel is to stop the money flow up stream.
African-American specifically, or Ethnic Minorities generally, especially if you're not absolutely sure given person is not from African descent (but e.g. Jamaica - oh, you'll hear no end of it if you make that mistake. Seen that one once, luckily wasn't on the receiving end.).
Slashdot Mirror
Way longer.
Desalination of sea water using nuclear fusion energy, transport as steam to agricultural areas, and providing water to plants.
a.k.a rain.
Steve Jobs? ;)
Never mind product placement in all-star movie superproductions.
GoPro gets a lot of "product placement" from Youtube 'celebrities'.
Quite a few of them so. Lady Gaga, though, interestingly, is a curious exception. Supposedly - from accounts of quite a few people - she's intelligent, educated, with sharp wit and good critical sense, a very no-nonsense person. The 'crazy diva' is all an act, something that is expected from a top pop star, required to stay in the spotlight, in focus of the 'brand' press, keep idiot fans interested and rake mountains of money.
I'd find it extremely amusing if they hired her as a publicity stunt for show off, and then she proceeded to stay out of spotlight and be a very competent manager instead.
There are tech companies that benefit from the celebrity endorsement, being "fashionable brands". Apple, Dr. Dre, GoPro.
It's really hard to gain the "fashionable" status though, and unless you already have it, you won't benefit from celebrities. And if you're an established "office" brand like Dell, Microsoft or IBM, you have precisely zero chance at ever becoming "hip". Your best bet is to create an entirely new brand (a'la Lenovo), bury the connection to the parent company so deep you need a forensics expert to find it, and promote it as the "new hip" thing using funds, tech and supply chain of the "real company" but keeping the original brand as far as possible.
Do they leverage synergy in these letters yet?
If not, there's still hope.
Try to process data in a tree structure without recursion. Say, scan all files in a directory tree for a string.
Recursive approach:
- iterate over every file and directory in current directory
- if file, scan. If found, return the find, or add it to the list of found files.
- if directory, open and restart self recursively with that directory as new root.
Now if you want to do this iteratively, you're most likely to duplicate the recursive algorithm, except turning all the neat recursive calls the compiler normally makes for you into a hand-crafted monstrosity of storing current state on custom stacks.
> yet it was them, both of them, that rated rightwing white militia member's the highest terrorist risk in America.
Oh. So I don't qualify after all. I'm moderate, not a militia member, and not affiliated with any such groups. What you did is precisely the thing you claim to be opposed to: stereotyping, through encompassing the whole group basing on behavior of its small minority. Congratulations, you're a bigot.
I've been to the discussion about frequency of black shooting before. It's a self-propelling machine of hate, where a moderate disproportion in crime rate results in a big disproportion in persecution involving violence. Blacks are already dealing with their internal problems, and once these are gone, it will be time to heal the rift. But as long as violence and crime is glorified by the popculture (the whole "gangsta" style) this is an uphill battle. The fault is on both sides, and it won't get better if only one side steps down.
> I didn't, you did. I said, that not knowing you personally, I can only judge based on statistics.
And then you judged me basing on statistics concerning "rightwing white militia" instead of the whole white populace. That's not how statistics works.
> Your proposed solution
This is not a proposed solution. It's the observation of reality, which is definitely unpleasant and harmful at a large scale, but it's immediately beneficial to the employers. "Tragedy of the commons." It's a social situation that guides social behaviors along the locally, immediately most profitable path, with disregard for society-wide consequences. And it's the laws you introduced that created this social situation. Not only "minorities" want to live free of harassment, and making every minor offense, no matter how minimal, punishable severely - is definitely harassment. And since the majority doesn't have the nice, individualized system solutions for dealing with that harassment (it's been made legal - made into law!) they use whatever tools they have. If that tool happens to be equivalent to sledgehammer - too bad.
> Here's a much more sensible way to prevent such problems: act professionally in your professional life. Leave sex for after-hours.
It's the misconception, that "professional" = "behaving like a professional salesperson." In STEM, this is completely wrong. Most brilliant minds are very frequently eccentric. And as result of your suggestion, you end up with corporate culture of mild-mannered, professional looking, and completely inept staff. Because the TRUE professionals left - or were fired.
With lower tolerances, more precise engineering, variance drops. Mean time to failure may remain the same, but instead of one disk working a month, and another ten years, you have twenty disks failing within three months of each other, five years from now. Bearings wearing the same, grease drying up at the same rate, springs losing flexibility at the same rate - the date of failure ceases to be a random factor, and becomes highly deterministic. And the fact that not a single disk failed within a year means only that they are performing very similarly - not that they are performing extremely well.
I wouldn't be so sure. Take a running hard disk in your hand and tilt it this way and that. The gyroscopic force is surprisingly strong - it's well beyond "perceptible" - it actually requires some effort to fight it. Sure if you distribute the tilt over 24 hours it's much weaker, but then add that up over many years and it's no longer negligible.
> That makes you the most likely to be a serial killer, the most likely to be a mass shooter, the most likely to rape somebody AND the most likely to commit an act of domestic terrorism.
Compare number of deaths by the means you listed to deaths caused by armed assault, then compare demographics of assailants.
Don't forget to normalize for total population of given demographics, because somehow it seems you believe if there were 100 crimes committed by group A and 50 crimes committed by group B, that means A is twice as dangerous as B - while you totally disregard the fact A is ten times as numerous as B, meaning, in fact any member of B is 5 times as dangerous as a member of A.
These numbers really cease to support your point if you normalize them to "per 1000 members of given group".
> You seem to be confusing "statistics" with "anecdotes". Anecdotal evidence isn't.
You don't use statistics to describe a set of exactly one. Statistical sample of one isn't.
> Perhaps you'd have done better applying your hard work to a profession more suited to your IQ..
To my IQ AND SKIN COLOR, you meant? Because were I black, my IQ would be sufficient. It's "stand up to make room for the 'preferred ethnicity' on the bus" all over again, being white being penalized. And no, what my great-grandfather did is not my fault.
> But on the other hand having to give an apology is not, as you seem to suggest, some terrible torture that no human should ever be forced to experience.
Have you seen a video of that apology? The guy was a nervous wreck. He was about to lose his life's work. THAT is a torture nobody should be forced to experience. Over what?
That's not an isolated incident. The cases, where the "offended" would begin a witch hunt are numerous. And you're shooting your own foot, because top professionals hate walking on eggshells around "special snowflakes" and simply move to the "backwards, bigoted" firms that don't like to take the risk associated with employing the "easily offended".
Nobody can force an employer to choose a candidate of demographic that is a legal risk, or might lead to losing top professionals, and increasing number of employers are getting aware of this; "We'll stay in contact", a firm handshake, and pat your back on the way to the exit, while checking the box next to the white male's name - because if he's underperforming, he can be fired with no risk of costly legal battle over discrimination.
When - roughly 7 years ago - I was working with an all-male team, and the management suggested hiring a woman to join our team, we were open and practically enthusiastic. I know what my answer would be today: Hell, no. If a slip of a tongue could mean disciplinary action, I'll pass. Yes, there are many reasonable, skilled women who would definitely contribute to the group and give new insights, but you know... that analogy about a bowl of M&Ms, some of them poisoned?
"What's that got to do with anything ? Statistically YOU are FAR more dangerous than the people you are seeking to keep out."
Statistically there's exactly one instance of me, and I know well how dangerous or safe I am. OTOH, I've faced quite a few transsexuals, who - completely apart from being trans - were raving lunatics, abusive, violent and paranoid. Even towards people sympathetic to them. So, statistically - you're full of shit.
"Neither has anybody else. If you worked that hard, you would get accepted somewhere else, probably a few places. And the odds that you can actually afford to GO somewhere else is significantly higher."
Suuure, Keep repeating the lie until you believe it.
"What the fuck was your fashion choices ? A KKK hoodie in swastika print !?!?!"
A gaudy shirt gifted by a female friend for birthday.
So, "they did it first, therefore it makes it right for me to do this too"?
Fighting bigotry with a different kind of bigotry? That is suuure to work.
> Being offended has never been a factor
Except in case of the Shirtstorm. Nobody was ever hurt over the shirt the lead of Philae mission wore. A shirt he received as a birthday gift from a female friend. Suddenly the fact he managed to perform a landing on a comet became moot in the eyes of his fashion choice, and he was facing losing his life's work over the fashion choice.
Keep repeating the lie, until you believe it.
> There is no such thing. The slippery slope is a fallacy. Slippery slopes do not exist.
You don't have random strangers use the bathroom in your house at the same time you do.
You didn't suffer through having your hard work be for naught because someone was accepted over you basing on their skin color.
You didn't have to apologize to the whole world for your fashion choices.
Keep repeating the lie, until you believe it.
It seems Sweden just accepted suppression of women's rights, through excusing rapists who are immigrants from responsibility for the crime.
'LITERALLY DEFINED AS "being a bigot".'
Except that definition is a slippery slope. Who is a bigot? A person, who expresses discomfort about a woman (self-identifying as a man) uses men's bathroom? A person unhappy about losing a place in university in favor of someone with worse score, who passed through 'affirmative action'? Someone threatened to be fired from work which is his life, for wearing a shirt that some consider offensive?
Keep your definitions strict, and we can all agree what constitutes bigotry. Let the scope encompass majority of the nation and nobody cares about the shit they became.
Oh, many "progressive feminists" have mastered portraying themselves as victims just in order to attract sympathy to their cause despite actual lack of merit, and to shut up all opposition through accusations of victim blaming and hate speech when confronted with actual criticism.
Not to look far, the "hero" of this article somehow ignores all the death threats issued by her goons to Gamergaters.
Oh, neither is okay. The problem is SJWs only see the former as wrong.
Also: being offended is not the same as being hurt.
Except going without a major part of your salary is far less optional than going without watching a shitty action flick.
I agree the system is wrong, but as opposed to Sony's claims, it's a fact - not an delusional belief.
"First, you just lost your chance for 10 out of 10 by badgering me about that. There, no need to call me - I absolutely hate being pressured into giving dishonest reviews, that's the reason.
The only way to fix this system "from outside" is to break it thoroughly.
You're shifting the blame on the victim. It's not your or the driver's fault that the manager decided 90% rating is the minimum. It's the manager's. And the only way to stop the scoundrel is to stop the money flow up stream.
Every system is flawed in one form or another. Let's give National Socialism one more try.
It's hardly a career if 95% performance means losing it. They are better off moving to greener pastures.
Except if your salary is so low, the salary + bonus is the actual realistic baseline, and bonuses lost are actually penalties incurred.
I usually give a negative feedback about obnoxious, intrusive customer feedback demands.
African-American specifically, or Ethnic Minorities generally, especially if you're not absolutely sure given person is not from African descent (but e.g. Jamaica - oh, you'll hear no end of it if you make that mistake. Seen that one once, luckily wasn't on the receiving end.).