He didn't write a manifesto, he wrote an argument for reviewing some of their procedures and practices at the company.
Yes, he did write an obviously inflammatory manifesto, citing cherry-picked data to promote conservative views (affirmative action for conservatives) and to stop anti-bias training to make sure fewer minorities are hired.
And as usual, like any good white male anti-SJW warrior, he started virtue signaling to the usual right-wingers by whining like a 2-year old. Just yesterday he's been comparing Google with 6-figure salaries to work camps in Soviet Russia.
Actually, no. What he wrote was not that men on average are better at tech than women, but that it may be due to biological differences that more men are interested in tech and choose it as their career.
The percentage of female engineer students in Hong Kong and China is much bigger than in the US. It's not quite at gender parity, but it's close. Something tells me that this undermines the "biological difference" arguments pretty heavily.
I have a view that Jews are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work alongside with faithful Christians. I plant to publish my manifesto, on the corporate network. I'm now thinking about a name for it, "My Struggle" has a nice ring to it. What do you think?
Are there Jim Crow laws that somehow discriminate against whiny white males? Are there feminist-designated areas in buses where whiny white males are not allowed to sit? Are there mobs of feminists that rove around the country and lynch whiny white males?
Every fucking time I hear a comparison with Jim Crow, I want to punch the idiots making such comparisons. They're even more pathetic than a bunch of pick up artists.
Let me be clear, he's saying: "I'm not a sexist, but I'm a sexist". Have you read the OTHER parts? Like the fucking "Why we're blind" nonsense (from a whiny male, of course) or the BS "Men's higher drive for status"?
Multiple people have already replied that orchestras are now close to gender parity while they used to be almost completely male. The changes to fix it were simple: blind auditions and gender-parity in hiring commissions.
I can offer more examples - female engineers (including mechanical, chemical and process engineers) are very common in xUSSR, simply because gender parity was taken quite seriously by bolsheviks from the beginning.
Tesla doesn't see a cent out of these $7500, the buyer gets the subsidy. Other cars are also eligible, like GM Volt or LEAF - and it's a much more significant amount for them.
Tesla does not receive subsidies apart from zero-emission credits. Tesla's _customers_ receive them ($7500 federal tax rebate) until Tesla sells 100000 cars. Other automakers also receive them - I claimed it for my Chevy Volt, for example. And Tesla is going to do just fine without it.
For SpaceX it's even more disingenuous - they counted governmental launch contracts as "subsidies".
At around 35C wet bulb people will die, perspiration won't be able to carry away any heat. It won't even matter if you're in a shade.
Comparison with cold weather is off the mark. To survive cold you simply need to slow down heat exchange by wearing enough insulation (=warm clothes). There's nothing comparable for the heat, except air conditioning.
Sure. I have one at home - a car battery that I can use to power my phones in case of power outage. Right now the _only_ significant energy storage system is pumped hydro, everything else exists in trace quantities.
If you want to replace nuclear with solar panels then you need to store multiple _days_ of electricity and no system can do that right now. The best designs I've seen (for Germany) combine electrolyzers, pumped hydro, compressed air storage and batteries - and still are impractically expensive and will still likely require emergency natgas backups for a significant part of the normal generation.
Pretending that grid-level storage exists now (never mind 70-s) is not just stupid, it's total assholery. I haven't checked the US data, but for Germany the price of storage to cope with troughs in renewable energy generation was something like 1 trillion USD and 70 years of current battery production.
Repeat after me: "solar panels are not replacement for the baseload generation". If people spent on solar panels in 1970-s then we'd have daily blackouts during winters. As it is, nuclear power saved US butt more than once. The most recent example - the polar vortex in 2015 would have caused total havoc without nuclear power plants.
Leningrad 2 was delayed by about 1 year in total. The project was started on March 2008 and had been supposed to finish by the end of 2016. It will now be finished around Jan 2018 - this is not really a significant delay. Most of other non-US projects have similar delays, they are really inevitable in large-scale projects and are OK as long as they are not too ridiculous.
Oil refineries come with a risk, chemical plants come with a risk, rare earth mining and smelting comes with a risk. It all can be managed. But the US apparently lost capability to do it for nuclear power. Other countries have not.
There was an embarrassing accident during construction - they dropped a part of control rod assembly that had to be replaced, but this article is just fear-mongering. And there are other comparable projects in Russia itself: Leningradskaya AES-2 and Rostovskaya AES. Both are being built pretty much within the budget and on time.
There's nothing inherently different about nuclear power - it's just that the US has lost necessary technologies and experience to build power plants, so this leads to predictable budget and deadline blowups.
Russian power plants are much cheaper than the US ones. For example, Byelorussian nuclear power plant (the first reactor is 90% complete now) will have two reactors for the total power output of 2.4GWe for the price of $10B. It has all the modern safety features, like passive cooling and molten fuel traps. And it's going to be delivered on time.
And no amount of solar panels on roofs can replace it, you can masturbate on your solar panels as much as you can, but right now there's no credible path for them to replace the baseload generation.
That's exactly why China is building more nuclear reactors than the rest of the world, all the while installing more solar panels and wind generators than the rest of the world _combined_. Nuclear is absolutely indispensable for a truly non-carbon-based economy.
Meanwhile, Russia is building 7 reactors right now: https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/Worl... , and is collaborating with China. Russian nuclear export agency is also building reactors in Bangladesh and Thailand.
Oh, but it's not all. Russia has the world's only power-generating fast-neutron reactor (BN-800) and is preparing to build the second generation (BN-1200) of this reactor type. All the while pursuing the revolutionary project of lead-cooled reactor (i.e. reactor cooled with molten lead as coolant) that will allow to achieve almost 100% closed loop within the territory of a power plant, including fuel reprocessing.
Yep, US is way behind in nuclear technology, and it's entirely self-inflicted.
Really? When did the nazi-right start allowing liberals having equal access to rightie news outlets? Because they are essentially demanding being allowed just that.
iPhones don't have that many replaceable and expensive components. You basically have the phone body and screen, everything else is too cheap to bother. And the phone screen is $79 new, so you're looking for at most $10-15 for the thief, too little to bother.
BS. ACA was discussed for many months with tons of hearings. The final text was known and scored by the CBO. Pelosi's comment was a joke answer to a request to read the bill aloud - a delaying tactic by Reps.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they are. Especially when you don't cite opposing viewpoints.
He didn't write a manifesto, he wrote an argument for reviewing some of their procedures and practices at the company.
Yes, he did write an obviously inflammatory manifesto, citing cherry-picked data to promote conservative views (affirmative action for conservatives) and to stop anti-bias training to make sure fewer minorities are hired.
And as usual, like any good white male anti-SJW warrior, he started virtue signaling to the usual right-wingers by whining like a 2-year old. Just yesterday he's been comparing Google with 6-figure salaries to work camps in Soviet Russia.
Actually, no. What he wrote was not that men on average are better at tech than women, but that it may be due to biological differences that more men are interested in tech and choose it as their career.
The percentage of female engineer students in Hong Kong and China is much bigger than in the US. It's not quite at gender parity, but it's close. Something tells me that this undermines the "biological difference" arguments pretty heavily.
Yes, he did. And yes, I read it.
I have a view that Jews are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work alongside with faithful Christians. I plant to publish my manifesto, on the corporate network. I'm now thinking about a name for it, "My Struggle" has a nice ring to it. What do you think?
(for the irony-impaired: this is a satire)
Are there Jim Crow laws that somehow discriminate against whiny white males? Are there feminist-designated areas in buses where whiny white males are not allowed to sit? Are there mobs of feminists that rove around the country and lynch whiny white males?
Every fucking time I hear a comparison with Jim Crow, I want to punch the idiots making such comparisons. They're even more pathetic than a bunch of pick up artists.
Let me be clear, he's saying: "I'm not a sexist, but I'm a sexist". Have you read the OTHER parts? Like the fucking "Why we're blind" nonsense (from a whiny male, of course) or the BS "Men's higher drive for status"?
Multiple people have already replied that orchestras are now close to gender parity while they used to be almost completely male. The changes to fix it were simple: blind auditions and gender-parity in hiring commissions.
I can offer more examples - female engineers (including mechanical, chemical and process engineers) are very common in xUSSR, simply because gender parity was taken quite seriously by bolsheviks from the beginning.
Tesla doesn't see a cent out of these $7500, the buyer gets the subsidy. Other cars are also eligible, like GM Volt or LEAF - and it's a much more significant amount for them.
Tesla does not receive subsidies apart from zero-emission credits. Tesla's _customers_ receive them ($7500 federal tax rebate) until Tesla sells 100000 cars. Other automakers also receive them - I claimed it for my Chevy Volt, for example. And Tesla is going to do just fine without it.
For SpaceX it's even more disingenuous - they counted governmental launch contracts as "subsidies".
I'm using brakes to only slow from around 10mph to complete stop. Everything else is regenerative. That's typically more than 90% of energy.
At around 35C wet bulb people will die, perspiration won't be able to carry away any heat. It won't even matter if you're in a shade.
Comparison with cold weather is off the mark. To survive cold you simply need to slow down heat exchange by wearing enough insulation (=warm clothes). There's nothing comparable for the heat, except air conditioning.
Sure. I have one at home - a car battery that I can use to power my phones in case of power outage. Right now the _only_ significant energy storage system is pumped hydro, everything else exists in trace quantities.
If you want to replace nuclear with solar panels then you need to store multiple _days_ of electricity and no system can do that right now. The best designs I've seen (for Germany) combine electrolyzers, pumped hydro, compressed air storage and batteries - and still are impractically expensive and will still likely require emergency natgas backups for a significant part of the normal generation.
Pretending that grid-level storage exists now (never mind 70-s) is not just stupid, it's total assholery. I haven't checked the US data, but for Germany the price of storage to cope with troughs in renewable energy generation was something like 1 trillion USD and 70 years of current battery production.
Repeat after me: "solar panels are not replacement for the baseload generation". If people spent on solar panels in 1970-s then we'd have daily blackouts during winters. As it is, nuclear power saved US butt more than once. The most recent example - the polar vortex in 2015 would have caused total havoc without nuclear power plants.
Leningrad 2 was delayed by about 1 year in total. The project was started on March 2008 and had been supposed to finish by the end of 2016. It will now be finished around Jan 2018 - this is not really a significant delay. Most of other non-US projects have similar delays, they are really inevitable in large-scale projects and are OK as long as they are not too ridiculous.
Oil refineries come with a risk, chemical plants come with a risk, rare earth mining and smelting comes with a risk. It all can be managed. But the US apparently lost capability to do it for nuclear power. Other countries have not.
There was an embarrassing accident during construction - they dropped a part of control rod assembly that had to be replaced, but this article is just fear-mongering. And there are other comparable projects in Russia itself: Leningradskaya AES-2 and Rostovskaya AES. Both are being built pretty much within the budget and on time.
There's nothing inherently different about nuclear power - it's just that the US has lost necessary technologies and experience to build power plants, so this leads to predictable budget and deadline blowups.
Russian power plants are much cheaper than the US ones. For example, Byelorussian nuclear power plant (the first reactor is 90% complete now) will have two reactors for the total power output of 2.4GWe for the price of $10B. It has all the modern safety features, like passive cooling and molten fuel traps. And it's going to be delivered on time.
And no amount of solar panels on roofs can replace it, you can masturbate on your solar panels as much as you can, but right now there's no credible path for them to replace the baseload generation.
That's exactly why China is building more nuclear reactors than the rest of the world, all the while installing more solar panels and wind generators than the rest of the world _combined_. Nuclear is absolutely indispensable for a truly non-carbon-based economy.
Meanwhile, Russia is building 7 reactors right now: https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/Worl... , and is collaborating with China. Russian nuclear export agency is also building reactors in Bangladesh and Thailand.
Oh, but it's not all. Russia has the world's only power-generating fast-neutron reactor (BN-800) and is preparing to build the second generation (BN-1200) of this reactor type. All the while pursuing the revolutionary project of lead-cooled reactor (i.e. reactor cooled with molten lead as coolant) that will allow to achieve almost 100% closed loop within the territory of a power plant, including fuel reprocessing.
Yep, US is way behind in nuclear technology, and it's entirely self-inflicted.
Yeah, yeah. "I'm not a racist, but I'm a racist".
Grow a fucking spine. You sound like a fucking whiny 2-year old toddler: "There are other people out there! No! Cuddle meeeeeeeee!"
Really? When did the nazi-right start allowing liberals having equal access to rightie news outlets? Because they are essentially demanding being allowed just that.
iPhones don't have that many replaceable and expensive components. You basically have the phone body and screen, everything else is too cheap to bother. And the phone screen is $79 new, so you're looking for at most $10-15 for the thief, too little to bother.
At this point, probably yes. There's a critical mass of Rust-based projects, enough to continue maintenance and development of new features.
BS. ACA was discussed for many months with tons of hearings. The final text was known and scored by the CBO. Pelosi's comment was a joke answer to a request to read the bill aloud - a delaying tactic by Reps.
That's the plot of Zendegi by Greg Egan. It didn't end well...