The initiatives are exactly why the shit didn't hit the fan. But then again, I'm done caring. Fuck up this world, I'm on the way out anyway.
I don't think that's true at all considering how we've exceeded those CO2 thresholds and global temperature thresholds that we should never get past. But please, tell me more.
Way to miss the point to go off into something tangentially related. For as long as I can remember, it's always, "if we don't make changes now, in x amount of years catastrophe will hit!" I've lived through most of those x amount of years so far, and catastrophe hasn't hit. Despite the environmentally friendly initiatives that have been done over the years, global green house gas has risen year after year. I don't think it's too much to ask to get people to stop scare mongering. You cry wolf enough times and people stop giving a shit.
It's almost Verbatim. "We're heading into a run away greenhouse gas scenario!" I get that it's important, but how many times do I need to suffer through my life time of hearing this same line? I bet 20 years from now this will still be used.
So what you're saying is that there are government and community programs aimed at making sure people don't starve to death as long as they don't "self-neglect".
I'm against GMO's until the owners of said GMO's stop trying to sue the shit out of farmers for incidental cross pollenization of crops. It's 100% out of their control and is a natural occurrence. If we could untangle GMO's from that shit, you'd see much less resistance to it.
I once worked for a company that asked its employees to do something similar. They opened up a forum so their customers could ask for help and discuss how to better fix the system that the modules we were selling them go into. - It was an after market repair company. There was a section for customer feedback they wanted us to fill up.
I laughed, laughed, and laughed some more. What ended up happening was the QA manager did all of this, pretending to be a customer initially, having a screen name so very similar to his actual name, which you could find on the "about us" page of their website. Then he continued to answer technical questions on the forum in a official capacity of the company under the same user name.
Sometime soon in the near future, everyone will be banned from everything for something they did that one time, that ultimately, no one gives a shit about.
From the study it's using, it describes 1. JUNK News, and 2. that junk news includes wrong, or misleading headlines and articles. The Guardian is literally junk news by their own admission.
You're full of shit. As someone else pointed out, you post the best you have. The evidence should always be looked at, and if it seems suspect, should be questioned. Why my original post got modded down as flamebait for calling you out for being purposely disingenuous is beyond me. In your next post you double down on being disingenuous.
It's clear you're not here to participate in good faith.
Why should it work that way? It's just an easy cop out to not provide evidence. If you don't feel like participating in the discussion, then don't participate at all, instead of proudly proclaiming that you're not going to hop into in good faith.
I just want to add I'm not saying this in defense of the previous comments here. Just the idea that you let your prisoners of war go, during a war time, when you have millions of them, is mind numbingly dumb.
You would never win a war, you fucking dimwit. You don't let your ideological enemies go once you have them captured. What do you think they will do? Not take up arms against you the moment they have a chance?
By that logic we shouldn't protest anything the government does because if it doesn't work out just wastes money.
Not even what I'm implying. Strawman arguments. This is why I never give you the benefit of the doubt. You purposely twist arguments in ways that are intellectually dishonest. I see it from a mile away.
Money is clearly the most important thing here, a few million in litigation tops out of the billions being pissed away on this thing.
The political will currently exists to get it done. It's not one of those things where forcing any litigation to stop it is going to work.
Or maybe we could go really nuts and claim it's a subsidy to Mexico. A 30ft high wall is a massive stimulus program for 31ft ladder manufacturers south of the border.
Look, another irrelevant statement to support your strawmanning!
Also, well done calling my post retarded. Really adds credibility to your argument-by-Trump "it will definitely happen, and it will be easy" narrative.
I dunno, maybe you should stop making retarded statements, stop strawmanning, stop adding useless rhetoric, and actually discuss what I'm writing and not what you think I might be writing to get into one of those "gotcha" moments.
Their goal was to prevent the wall being built, saving billions of dollars. If they can delay long enough Trump might run out of time or political capital to do it.
The wall is going to be built. The government will either easily seize the land, or build around it. They aren't saving billions of dollars by doing this. They are creating more government spending. Once the wall is built, there will be less money, because of them, to be spent on other government services that they probably really like. Their efforts would be better spent on donating to campaigns in what they feel are key states to get the right people in congress.
Or did you think Mexico was paying for it?
Do you have anything else absolutely retarded to add that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing?
So you can bitch about the govt not spending money on healthcare, and waste the money they spend on wrong priorities
You can, but it's still pretty hypocritical. Government services cost money. If there's less of it to go around because you're purposely creating road blocks to quash initiatives that are more than likely going through, there will be less money to go around after those initiatives are completed, or become a continuous sunk cost. Their efforts would be better spent on donating to campaigns in what they feel are key states to get the right people in congress.
You can't bitch about the government not having enough money to pay for healthcare, and then in the same breath proudly claim you're doing things to cost the government more money.
Except he never said anyone was inferior based on their gender or race. He said people were different based on their gender. Different doesn't mean inferior. People are different based on their gender. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
James Damore is not a scientist specializing in evolutionary neurology and his memo was not a scholarly work. You can tell this easily because the memo wasn't submitted to a journal of neurology or even sociology, it was posted to an internal company forum aimed at software engineers. It was also poorly researched and cherry-picked studies (some of which apparently have been discredited).
Why must it have been submitted to journals? Why can't employees have ideas, right or wrongly, and discuss workplace issues that surround these things? Why is he not allowed to have these opinions? As far as "cherry-picked studies" is concerned, any contrary evidence I've seen has also been cherry-picked. Are people no longer allowed to discuss issues with each other even if they don't have all of the information?
If it's not science, then what is it? It's opinion, it's politics, and it's written with the specific intent of marginalizing an entire group of people with statements like 'women are better suited for pair programming because they are hard-wired for cooperative interaction'.
You do realize that the memo was up for over a month, and he was changing it as he got feedback on it, right? There was no intention of marginalizing anyone, and if they felt that way, that's because they were thinking with their feelings. You need to back that claim up.
Guess what, that kind of thing annoys people. Google got a *lot* of internal feedback from engineers that were offended and there were serious concerns that this would affect recruiting. At that point they did what businesses do, they made a business decision.
No, they fired him because it became public - they having lawsuits against them for gender wage discrimination, and being very public about their wanting to have gender parity in the company, and this memo looks bad in the politically ridden times we are in.
No goal posts have been shifted. Do you even understand what that term means? You want to cry about non-response's, but you make these wild accusations that are either completely wrong, or don't bother backing them up.
If you read the memo more carefully, without your rage blinders, pages 2 - 5, discuss the differences between men and women. He spells it out there. What part specifically do you not understand?
As far as him discussing race goes, he doesn't just casually lump it in there with gender biases. The whole discussion in the memo is about Googles diversity initiatives. That part seems to be more observational of what's happening at Google than anything else.
Perhaps in your next response could lay off the hyperbole and have an actual discussion, that is, if that's something you're capable of doing.
Way to miss-characterize Damore's memo. Damore's memo wasn't about one's ability to do the work, but that the gender differences means people are more or less inclined towards doing certain tasks. He even suggested ways Google could better reach their lofty goals of gender parity by taking advantage of that.
Slashdot Mirror
The initiatives are exactly why the shit didn't hit the fan. But then again, I'm done caring. Fuck up this world, I'm on the way out anyway.
I don't think that's true at all considering how we've exceeded those CO2 thresholds and global temperature thresholds that we should never get past. But please, tell me more.
Way to miss the point to go off into something tangentially related. For as long as I can remember, it's always, "if we don't make changes now, in x amount of years catastrophe will hit!" I've lived through most of those x amount of years so far, and catastrophe hasn't hit. Despite the environmentally friendly initiatives that have been done over the years, global green house gas has risen year after year. I don't think it's too much to ask to get people to stop scare mongering. You cry wolf enough times and people stop giving a shit.
It's almost Verbatim. "We're heading into a run away greenhouse gas scenario!" I get that it's important, but how many times do I need to suffer through my life time of hearing this same line? I bet 20 years from now this will still be used.
So what you're saying is that there are government and community programs aimed at making sure people don't starve to death as long as they don't "self-neglect".
Let's not pretend firearms aren't regulated, as many states do regulate them.
You argue like a child. "This stuff is bad because I don't like it!" You have zero objectivity.
I'm against GMO's until the owners of said GMO's stop trying to sue the shit out of farmers for incidental cross pollenization of crops. It's 100% out of their control and is a natural occurrence. If we could untangle GMO's from that shit, you'd see much less resistance to it.
I once worked for a company that asked its employees to do something similar. They opened up a forum so their customers could ask for help and discuss how to better fix the system that the modules we were selling them go into. - It was an after market repair company. There was a section for customer feedback they wanted us to fill up.
I laughed, laughed, and laughed some more. What ended up happening was the QA manager did all of this, pretending to be a customer initially, having a screen name so very similar to his actual name, which you could find on the "about us" page of their website. Then he continued to answer technical questions on the forum in a official capacity of the company under the same user name.
Sometime soon in the near future, everyone will be banned from everything for something they did that one time, that ultimately, no one gives a shit about.
From the study it's using, it describes 1. JUNK News, and 2. that junk news includes wrong, or misleading headlines and articles. The Guardian is literally junk news by their own admission.
You're full of shit. As someone else pointed out, you post the best you have. The evidence should always be looked at, and if it seems suspect, should be questioned. Why my original post got modded down as flamebait for calling you out for being purposely disingenuous is beyond me. In your next post you double down on being disingenuous.
It's clear you're not here to participate in good faith.
Why should it work that way? It's just an easy cop out to not provide evidence. If you don't feel like participating in the discussion, then don't participate at all, instead of proudly proclaiming that you're not going to hop into in good faith.
Especially since you can just pay them 77 cents to the dollar. They should be aiming to have all female workers.
I just want to add I'm not saying this in defense of the previous comments here. Just the idea that you let your prisoners of war go, during a war time, when you have millions of them, is mind numbingly dumb.
You would never win a war, you fucking dimwit. You don't let your ideological enemies go once you have them captured. What do you think they will do? Not take up arms against you the moment they have a chance?
You just need a Fox Mulder to put all of the pieces together.
By that logic we shouldn't protest anything the government does because if it doesn't work out just wastes money.
Not even what I'm implying. Strawman arguments. This is why I never give you the benefit of the doubt. You purposely twist arguments in ways that are intellectually dishonest. I see it from a mile away.
Money is clearly the most important thing here, a few million in litigation tops out of the billions being pissed away on this thing.
The political will currently exists to get it done. It's not one of those things where forcing any litigation to stop it is going to work.
Or maybe we could go really nuts and claim it's a subsidy to Mexico. A 30ft high wall is a massive stimulus program for 31ft ladder manufacturers south of the border.
Look, another irrelevant statement to support your strawmanning!
Also, well done calling my post retarded. Really adds credibility to your argument-by-Trump "it will definitely happen, and it will be easy" narrative.
I dunno, maybe you should stop making retarded statements, stop strawmanning, stop adding useless rhetoric, and actually discuss what I'm writing and not what you think I might be writing to get into one of those "gotcha" moments.
Their goal was to prevent the wall being built, saving billions of dollars. If they can delay long enough Trump might run out of time or political capital to do it.
The wall is going to be built. The government will either easily seize the land, or build around it. They aren't saving billions of dollars by doing this. They are creating more government spending. Once the wall is built, there will be less money, because of them, to be spent on other government services that they probably really like. Their efforts would be better spent on donating to campaigns in what they feel are key states to get the right people in congress.
Or did you think Mexico was paying for it?
Do you have anything else absolutely retarded to add that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing?
So you can bitch about the govt not spending money on healthcare, and waste the money they spend on wrong priorities
You can, but it's still pretty hypocritical. Government services cost money. If there's less of it to go around because you're purposely creating road blocks to quash initiatives that are more than likely going through, there will be less money to go around after those initiatives are completed, or become a continuous sunk cost. Their efforts would be better spent on donating to campaigns in what they feel are key states to get the right people in congress.
You can't bitch about the government not having enough money to pay for healthcare, and then in the same breath proudly claim you're doing things to cost the government more money.
It's good to see that you don't understand the memo.
Except he never said anyone was inferior based on their gender or race. He said people were different based on their gender. Different doesn't mean inferior. People are different based on their gender. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
James Damore is not a scientist specializing in evolutionary neurology and his memo was not a scholarly work. You can tell this easily because the memo wasn't submitted to a journal of neurology or even sociology, it was posted to an internal company forum aimed at software engineers. It was also poorly researched and cherry-picked studies (some of which apparently have been discredited).
Why must it have been submitted to journals? Why can't employees have ideas, right or wrongly, and discuss workplace issues that surround these things? Why is he not allowed to have these opinions? As far as "cherry-picked studies" is concerned, any contrary evidence I've seen has also been cherry-picked. Are people no longer allowed to discuss issues with each other even if they don't have all of the information?
If it's not science, then what is it? It's opinion, it's politics, and it's written with the specific intent of marginalizing an entire group of people with statements like 'women are better suited for pair programming because they are hard-wired for cooperative interaction'.
You do realize that the memo was up for over a month, and he was changing it as he got feedback on it, right? There was no intention of marginalizing anyone, and if they felt that way, that's because they were thinking with their feelings. You need to back that claim up.
Guess what, that kind of thing annoys people. Google got a *lot* of internal feedback from engineers that were offended and there were serious concerns that this would affect recruiting. At that point they did what businesses do, they made a business decision.
No, they fired him because it became public - they having lawsuits against them for gender wage discrimination, and being very public about their wanting to have gender parity in the company, and this memo looks bad in the politically ridden times we are in.
No goal posts have been shifted. Do you even understand what that term means? You want to cry about non-response's, but you make these wild accusations that are either completely wrong, or don't bother backing them up.
If you read the memo more carefully, without your rage blinders, pages 2 - 5, discuss the differences between men and women. He spells it out there. What part specifically do you not understand?
As far as him discussing race goes, he doesn't just casually lump it in there with gender biases. The whole discussion in the memo is about Googles diversity initiatives. That part seems to be more observational of what's happening at Google than anything else.
Perhaps in your next response could lay off the hyperbole and have an actual discussion, that is, if that's something you're capable of doing.
Way to miss-characterize Damore's memo. Damore's memo wasn't about one's ability to do the work, but that the gender differences means people are more or less inclined towards doing certain tasks. He even suggested ways Google could better reach their lofty goals of gender parity by taking advantage of that.