Yes! We have an urbanist here! Love trolling you guys, but in this case I will just point out that only a subset of the population is interested in living in dense housing. Yes of course build more dense housing and get the govt out of the business of protecting NIMBY homeowners through absurd zoning. But stop pretending that this is the primary reason that 30%+ of the population doesn't live in an urban area.
Ok, well, that's just one data point. I lived in downtown Austin and it took me 50+ minutes to get from my office in West Austin to my downtown apartment (9.8mi away) in rush hour. I moved to the northeast boonies just off the toll road system here, and it's a consistent 35 minute commute @ 85 mph to the office, bypassing all the traffic. More gas guzzling, but the point is it's not quite as black and white from a commute perspective.
Well, the biggest problem in education is actually the teachers unions. That used to be only something we right wing nutjobs would say, but then the left figured out this was mostly screwing over their voters and there is s growing consensus (DFER, KidsFirst, etc)
There is actually less of a correlation between well performing schools and well funded schools than you appear to believe. It's pretty weak in the raw data, and it gets a lot weaker when you pull out confounds like the education level of the students' parents.
Public school system needs reform, and for decades there has been only one ultimate source for resisting reform.
I'm afraid I must disagree strenuously, even though I am an urban-fleer myself (though I drove to the suburbs and kept going).
One of my favorite Twitters is urbanist Twitter. They are obsessed with urban living and think everyone would live in a city if it were car-less and properly zoned, etc. They are batshit insane, BUT they do have one very good point, which is we actually subsidize sprawl by building highways and interstates. This hides the true cost of moving to the suburbs or rural areas.
Now, I happen to be hopelessly pro-sprawl and believe it's a very important part of regulating housing costs. But I'm also a hopeless libertarian nutjob who thinks that I should have to pay for the infrastructure that allows me to live away from idiots while working with them in the city. They way I get urbanist Twitter to shut up is by saying I want roads to be user fee driven as much as possible.
To me markets are a good compromise. Rather than arguing over whether people would want to live in a city or suburb or rural area if we removed this subsidy or that subsidy, just stop subsidizing. Fewer people would live in the suburbs and rural areas, and those that decide to do it are paying the true cost of living out there. Meanwhile the people who for some reason want to live in a city don't have to pay for the infrastructure to support my daily commute.
This article is spot on. I have long said the country is great except for one major flaw: TOO MUCH WORK ETHIC! And this new generation has just gotten so much work. I try to tell these millennials there is more to life than work work work. But they don't listen! All they want to do is select the most profitable college major and work 120+ hour weeks in an office until they die. This massive work ethic is really making the rest of us look terrible, not to mention drastically increasing the effective labor supply, this depressing wages.
So, millennials, I know all you want to do is work harder than your parents ever did, but take a breather, would ya?! I need to catch up to you.
I hear you. It's a tough subject. I am pretty paranoid (in the general spectrum, not the slashdot spectrum), and I used KeePass and resisted LastPass for a long time. And I kept my KeePass vault in a TrueCrypt volume. It was a pain in the rear, and useless on my mobile device, and I slowly slid back to password strategies I could remember, which were unique to each site but if one site was compromised an attacker could figure out the pattern.
I did move to LastPass after reviewing managers and reading about how LastPass decrypts your vault locally, and deciding I believe them well enough. Of course that doesn't matter too much, because if they ever wanted my passphrase they could get it and store it when I log in. But again, my point is that there is a balance, and my own behavior when convenience was low was to slide into poor practices. With LastPass, I have a single point of failure, but I'm comfortable with it and outside of that my password practices are much much better.
You may not be from the US, so you may be unaware that we, the patriarchy, have burdened every attractive college age woman with many tens of thousands of dollars of student debt in an effort to make older men who can afford a Big Mac or better appear quite a catch.
It's overreach. TX is considering the same preemption for airbnb an also uber/lyft. I would like the outcome of the preemption but it's still preemption.
Article is wrong about Austin. It's very expensive. And there are no jobs for tech workers. And it's dirty. With marauding gangs of looters. Many reports of paranormal activity. High risk of pandemic or terrorist attack. No housing supply.
And no Uber!
No, no. You don't want to move to Austin. Don't even bother checking it out.
BREAKING NEWS: The climate changes partly due to human activity and partly due to natural phenomena.
The only people who haven't always known this are wingbats on the internet. And even there, when you engage with the wingbats, once you get past the frothing mouth and projectile spittle while yelling about humans being the cause for climate change, you can generally walk them through the logic and leave agreeing that that's actually a linguistic shortcut and of course it would be silly to suggest human activity explains 100% of climate change.
Slightly more controversial is saying that nobody actually knows the % explained by human activity and the % explained by natural phenomena. But of course nobody does. And science will have a very difficult time getting insight into this question.
But it would be great if people would understand that "man creates climate change" doesn't really mean "man creates (all) climate change". And it would be great if people would understand that "man doesn't create climate change" doesn't really mean "man creates no climate change". Only a small minority of nutjobs believe either statement, and for everyone else they are essentially linguistic shortcuts of the debate over the %. But in this debate we like to think of the other side as stupid or holding ulterior motives, because it makes us feel better about our position.
"A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner.[1] It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors.[2] When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more responsibility for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting the ego from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem.[3] For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability or unfair test questions is exhibiting the self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace,[4] interpersonal relationships,[5] sports,[6] and consumer decisions.[7]"
Sorry to hear you are unemployed. I recommend you create a slashdot account so you can blame immigrants. Some day, you will get a job making mid 6 figures. Don't worry. You can still use your slashdot account to blame immigrants for keeping you from the high 6 figures.
You continue to make little sense. You said the jobs were high paying until women took them over, after which they were no longer high paying. My logic functions are working properly, so this means on a real basis the system began paying these positions less once women entered them in force. You further imply that this is cause and effect. What is your evidence for these claims? They appear quite outrageous.
I note you make no allegations of wrongdoing. This is the game your side plays. Say nothing and imply sexism. Make a claim and try to defend it. You can't.
This is a load of crap. Nothing suggests a given occupation should be 50-50 male/female except OCD-like biases in the human brain. Nothing suggests slicing wage data by gender should result in equal distributions. The entire topic is idiotic and only lives because 90% of Americans couldn't pass a stats101 final exam.
You don't explain why this is a problem. If there are growth or government ponzis that will be harmed if free people decide they would rather not reproduce, perhaps the ponzis should die.
Are you referring to single mothers? Married mothers have communal property so the "financial penalty", as you call it, is shouldered by both parents regardless of who stays home.
But ok so let's say we "fix" the pay gap issue and wave a magic wand and pay a woman with 10 years experience as if she had 15. What about the financial penalty of raising a kid for 18 years at a cost of 6 figures? Should we "fix" that too, and if not why is that not implied by your logic?
Kids have benefits and costs. Everyone knows the deal going into the decision and is freely choosing one way or the other. We already subsidize child rearing in many many ways. This certainly isn't discrimination so we should stop using the language of discrimination, and it's not clear to me there is anything needing to be fixed by govt.
Is this comment an article on The Onion? What exactly are you suggesting? Great paying jobs are systematically given pay cuts on a real basis once the patriarchy sees a critical mass of women joining the field?
Yesterday, I quit my job. This has caused an employment gap when compared with my neighbor. We must fight this injustice.
The point is, once we all agree that the outcome difference is almost entirely explained by people making choices with their lives, we need to stop calling it any name that implies injustice or even unnatural outcome.
This is the worst example of changing the definition I can think of. The gender pay gap refers to illegal discrimination by employers of employees based on the sex/gender if the employee.
Slowly, thinking people began to understand this largely does not exist any more, and other factors ("other" as in NOT DISCRIMINATION) explain much of the variance.
So where did the conversation go? Everyone pretends that the definition of the gender pay gap is just any reason pay might differ when sliced by sex/gender.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes! We have an urbanist here! Love trolling you guys, but in this case I will just point out that only a subset of the population is interested in living in dense housing. Yes of course build more dense housing and get the govt out of the business of protecting NIMBY homeowners through absurd zoning. But stop pretending that this is the primary reason that 30%+ of the population doesn't live in an urban area.
Ok, well, that's just one data point. I lived in downtown Austin and it took me 50+ minutes to get from my office in West Austin to my downtown apartment (9.8mi away) in rush hour. I moved to the northeast boonies just off the toll road system here, and it's a consistent 35 minute commute @ 85 mph to the office, bypassing all the traffic. More gas guzzling, but the point is it's not quite as black and white from a commute perspective.
Well, the biggest problem in education is actually the teachers unions. That used to be only something we right wing nutjobs would say, but then the left figured out this was mostly screwing over their voters and there is s growing consensus (DFER, KidsFirst, etc)
There is actually less of a correlation between well performing schools and well funded schools than you appear to believe. It's pretty weak in the raw data, and it gets a lot weaker when you pull out confounds like the education level of the students' parents.
Public school system needs reform, and for decades there has been only one ultimate source for resisting reform.
I'm afraid I must disagree strenuously, even though I am an urban-fleer myself (though I drove to the suburbs and kept going).
One of my favorite Twitters is urbanist Twitter. They are obsessed with urban living and think everyone would live in a city if it were car-less and properly zoned, etc. They are batshit insane, BUT they do have one very good point, which is we actually subsidize sprawl by building highways and interstates. This hides the true cost of moving to the suburbs or rural areas.
Now, I happen to be hopelessly pro-sprawl and believe it's a very important part of regulating housing costs. But I'm also a hopeless libertarian nutjob who thinks that I should have to pay for the infrastructure that allows me to live away from idiots while working with them in the city. They way I get urbanist Twitter to shut up is by saying I want roads to be user fee driven as much as possible.
To me markets are a good compromise. Rather than arguing over whether people would want to live in a city or suburb or rural area if we removed this subsidy or that subsidy, just stop subsidizing. Fewer people would live in the suburbs and rural areas, and those that decide to do it are paying the true cost of living out there. Meanwhile the people who for some reason want to live in a city don't have to pay for the infrastructure to support my daily commute.
This article is spot on. I have long said the country is great except for one major flaw: TOO MUCH WORK ETHIC! And this new generation has just gotten so much work. I try to tell these millennials there is more to life than work work work. But they don't listen! All they want to do is select the most profitable college major and work 120+ hour weeks in an office until they die. This massive work ethic is really making the rest of us look terrible, not to mention drastically increasing the effective labor supply, this depressing wages.
So, millennials, I know all you want to do is work harder than your parents ever did, but take a breather, would ya?! I need to catch up to you.
I hear you. It's a tough subject. I am pretty paranoid (in the general spectrum, not the slashdot spectrum), and I used KeePass and resisted LastPass for a long time. And I kept my KeePass vault in a TrueCrypt volume. It was a pain in the rear, and useless on my mobile device, and I slowly slid back to password strategies I could remember, which were unique to each site but if one site was compromised an attacker could figure out the pattern.
I did move to LastPass after reviewing managers and reading about how LastPass decrypts your vault locally, and deciding I believe them well enough. Of course that doesn't matter too much, because if they ever wanted my passphrase they could get it and store it when I log in. But again, my point is that there is a balance, and my own behavior when convenience was low was to slide into poor practices. With LastPass, I have a single point of failure, but I'm comfortable with it and outside of that my password practices are much much better.
You may not be from the US, so you may be unaware that we, the patriarchy, have burdened every attractive college age woman with many tens of thousands of dollars of student debt in an effort to make older men who can afford a Big Mac or better appear quite a catch.
Thanks, I forgot that one too. Austin has a severe undersupply of coastal elitism.
It's overreach. TX is considering the same preemption for airbnb an also uber/lyft. I would like the outcome of the preemption but it's still preemption.
Thank you. I forgot to mention that one. Don't move here unless you want to be slaughtered by the state government.
That's Amarillo. I've been to that steakhouse. Quite a spectacle
I don't get it. Everyone here was born in Cali or the Midwest, and they couldn't pick an armadillo out of a lineup.
Article is wrong about Austin. It's very expensive. And there are no jobs for tech workers. And it's dirty. With marauding gangs of looters. Many reports of paranormal activity. High risk of pandemic or terrorist attack. No housing supply.
And no Uber!
No, no. You don't want to move to Austin. Don't even bother checking it out.
BREAKING NEWS: The climate changes partly due to human activity and partly due to natural phenomena.
The only people who haven't always known this are wingbats on the internet. And even there, when you engage with the wingbats, once you get past the frothing mouth and projectile spittle while yelling about humans being the cause for climate change, you can generally walk them through the logic and leave agreeing that that's actually a linguistic shortcut and of course it would be silly to suggest human activity explains 100% of climate change.
Slightly more controversial is saying that nobody actually knows the % explained by human activity and the % explained by natural phenomena. But of course nobody does. And science will have a very difficult time getting insight into this question.
But it would be great if people would understand that "man creates climate change" doesn't really mean "man creates (all) climate change". And it would be great if people would understand that "man doesn't create climate change" doesn't really mean "man creates no climate change". Only a small minority of nutjobs believe either statement, and for everyone else they are essentially linguistic shortcuts of the debate over the %. But in this debate we like to think of the other side as stupid or holding ulterior motives, because it makes us feel better about our position.
"A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner.[1] It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors.[2] When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more responsibility for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting the ego from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem.[3] For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability or unfair test questions is exhibiting the self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace,[4] interpersonal relationships,[5] sports,[6] and consumer decisions.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sorry to hear you are unemployed. I recommend you create a slashdot account so you can blame immigrants. Some day, you will get a job making mid 6 figures. Don't worry. You can still use your slashdot account to blame immigrants for keeping you from the high 6 figures.
The 50-50 split is the flawed root of this logic. A 90-10 split is de facto evidence of injustice or the skews of "social context". It isn't.
You continue to make little sense. You said the jobs were high paying until women took them over, after which they were no longer high paying. My logic functions are working properly, so this means on a real basis the system began paying these positions less once women entered them in force. You further imply that this is cause and effect. What is your evidence for these claims? They appear quite outrageous.
I note you make no allegations of wrongdoing. This is the game your side plays. Say nothing and imply sexism. Make a claim and try to defend it. You can't.
This is a load of crap. Nothing suggests a given occupation should be 50-50 male/female except OCD-like biases in the human brain. Nothing suggests slicing wage data by gender should result in equal distributions. The entire topic is idiotic and only lives because 90% of Americans couldn't pass a stats101 final exam.
You don't explain why this is a problem. If there are growth or government ponzis that will be harmed if free people decide they would rather not reproduce, perhaps the ponzis should die.
Are you referring to single mothers? Married mothers have communal property so the "financial penalty", as you call it, is shouldered by both parents regardless of who stays home.
But ok so let's say we "fix" the pay gap issue and wave a magic wand and pay a woman with 10 years experience as if she had 15. What about the financial penalty of raising a kid for 18 years at a cost of 6 figures? Should we "fix" that too, and if not why is that not implied by your logic?
Kids have benefits and costs. Everyone knows the deal going into the decision and is freely choosing one way or the other. We already subsidize child rearing in many many ways. This certainly isn't discrimination so we should stop using the language of discrimination, and it's not clear to me there is anything needing to be fixed by govt.
Is this comment an article on The Onion? What exactly are you suggesting? Great paying jobs are systematically given pay cuts on a real basis once the patriarchy sees a critical mass of women joining the field?
Yesterday, I quit my job. This has caused an employment gap when compared with my neighbor. We must fight this injustice.
The point is, once we all agree that the outcome difference is almost entirely explained by people making choices with their lives, we need to stop calling it any name that implies injustice or even unnatural outcome.
This is the worst example of changing the definition I can think of. The gender pay gap refers to illegal discrimination by employers of employees based on the sex/gender if the employee.
Slowly, thinking people began to understand this largely does not exist any more, and other factors ("other" as in NOT DISCRIMINATION) explain much of the variance.
So where did the conversation go? Everyone pretends that the definition of the gender pay gap is just any reason pay might differ when sliced by sex/gender.
Stop. Just stop.