Wile that *might* be true, it's still science. But this reasoning has no argumental value; wherever you put the budget in whatever scientific domain, other domains will claim it could be better used on theirs.
And especially with all the 'experts' on Slashdot, they always know what's best and where money should be spend.;-)
IMHO, what's really being a waste are government expenditure in researching things that aren't science at all but pseudo-science, like the EM-drive. In contrast, this still is science/engineering stuff, and if Musk puts his own money in it who are we (well, you) to complain? I've been sponsoring and spending money on the Planetary Society's Lightsail; some have told me that was a waste of money too. Well, maybe to them, but not to me. And I do with my own money whatever I want. It's not their concern in what endeavour I put it, nor do I feel bound by what others find worthwhile or not.
So, I can concur with what you said if it handles public money - with the caveat that it's impossible to ever determine in any absolute sense 'what is the best scientific bang for the buck', since this always involves some subjectivity. But, granted, some scientific committee might weed out the worst proposals. However, with private money it's just none of our business where people spend their money on what scientific project. As science-proponents ourselves, we should already be content IF they spend it on ANY scientific endeavour, since most millionaires just spend it on yachts or mansions with 5 swimming pools. The point is, private money is spend on what the billionaires like, not on a 'most science' basis... meaning if they don't spend it on a scientific/engineering concept - meagre as it might be - they like, it won't therefore go to a more worthwhile effort with more science but which they don't like. It doesn't work like that. With private money, there are no communicating vessels there, and no overall budget, where if doesn't go that ay, it becomes free to spend on something else and goes from one to the other depending on scientific output.
"Except that his objections and analysis are incredibly sane and valid."
Except they are not.
Or, to be fair, they are valid and reasonable sane in the domain he's an expert in, which is biochemistry. There, his vids are worthwhile watching. The further he deviates from his on field, the more his analysis because insane and invalid. This is most obvious in his 'analysis' (hardly the name worthy anymore) of political-economic topics like the Brexit, and of engineering domains he really doesn't know much about, such as the Hyperloop and SpaceX. For some reason, he has a pretty obvious bias in some regards (or to some persons, like Elon Musk). His arguments are incredibly weak in those instances, and amount to nothing more then a biased opinion without substantiation by hard data and logical arguments - rather resorting to some gleeful smug badmouthing.
This, in stark contrast to his more rational behaviour and analysis about things of his own field of endeavour.
As for this specific case; if you want a good rebuttal against thunderfoots 'arguments' in a logical and rational way, see: https://www.youtube.com/playli...
Though they too have the tendency to be a bot overzealous in their rebuttal, at least their (counter)arguments on themselves make actually sense.
But not necessarily. In essence, it's just an engineering problem, as the parent poster said. All the factors you describe, are not directly related to having such a system work. They *can* be factors of consideration in certain area's for it to be successfully implement in a long-term context, but they are not necessary components to get the system itself working. For instance, if one would build it in a country where dictators (half the middle-east) or authoritarian leaders (Putin) or the Party (China) have the definite say in everything, one can make it work regardless of social, economic or legal issues that would be a hindrance in other countries.
I would say: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" - though I want to avoid religious connotation hence I would be categorized as a Elon-wanker.;-)
But give to the man what he deserves, and he deserves at least some small praise. That some un-rightfully praise him into heavens is not his fault, and doesn't mean he deserves to be un-rightfully bashed neither. He's not at fault for wankers, nor for slashdot-stories, so I fail to see the logic why it would be justified to bash him without reason; it's as silly as blindly idolizing him without reason. Silliness and irrationality is not made less by adding silliness and irrationality. Both are sides immature in that case.
The most mature thing, is to be rational about things and evaluate it properly. This means acknowledging he has his faults, but also that he has accomplished some good things.
Sigh. Look, that's bordering on pedantry. I can do the same.
Well, since the first half has been proven wrong, it would mean everything depends on your second part. To claim there has 'never been' one that didn't deliver electricity at the promised cost nor met it's maintenance target would mean that you know of all and every instance of any nuclear plant in the world the exact promises and delivered electricity cost and/or it's maintenance targets. I have not the time nor the inclination to search for it on the Net as I did for your first half of the statement, but let me say it's highly unlikely you have such intimate knowledge and could speak for any and every nuclear plant.
Which means, let's face it, it's conjecture.
You know it as well as I do: it's a statement you can't make hard nor provide any conclusive evidence for. since the first part has been shown to be wrong, how will you ascertain and proof the second part is the half that is correct? Do you have a reference of a scientific paper where ALL nuclear plants have been scrutinized on as well it's promises that it first made, as it's subsequent deliverance on electricity cost?
Look, I feel we're both getting a bit annoyed here, and that's never a good sign for a fruitful debate. It's clear you have quite some other opinion on a lot of matters. That's ok. I don't even mind socialists all that much, I just wished they payed for their ideology out of their own pockets, and didn't ask me or others that don't share their worldview to co-pay for their socialist dream. If people only subsidized their own way of life and didn't expect others to comply to theirs and also pay for it, it would be far better.
Which, I think, is the main difference. I would leave everyone to his or her own devices, and feel free to pay for their own way of life, even socialism. But socialists never leave the rest alone and expect others to pay for their ideals and ideology. There should be a way for taxes to be divided between groups of people of different ideologies, where the socialists can live their socialist lives as they see feet, but have to pay for it themselves, and others can live and pay to their own belief-systems too. True, it would mean the non-socialists wouldn't 'benefit' from the advantages of socialism neither. But since, imho, it wouldn't last long if they had to cough it up of their own, there would be no great loss for those that didn't get into the group of socialists. I mean, you may be convinced otherwise, but wouldn't we be better of if we let each follow our own thing?
Look at this debate. We can both feel it's going to lead nowhere, we just have too much different thoughts on these issues. It's already a wonder we largely agreed on the Elon Musk thing. But this is going nowhere, let's be honest. At most we can agree to disagree. But isn't that fine also, in a sense? You can merely go your way, and I mine. If we did that in politics and taxes/money/subsidizing too, I wouldn't have any problems. Let the green subsidize windmills with their own money, the socialists can subsidize welfare with their own money and taxes, and the rightwingers can do their own thing - subsidizing nuclear plants maybe. And none gets the benefits of the others, since they didn't pay for it. Sounds fair to me.
The real problem starts with some people wanting others to adhere to their view and having to pay for their exercises in futility. And by its very nature, the left does that a lot more than the right. If I say: you don't have to pay for an immigrant that wants to be on welfare but hasn't contributed anything to the economy himself, but your socialist hart bleeds, you *can* still pay him and provide welfare with your (and the left's) money. However, if socialists rule and say: you have to pay for that immigrant, I don't really have choice in the matter now, do I? I can't just day 'no thanks', or I'll get thrown in jail. So in essence, a libertarian view gives you the opportunity to still act upon your ow, beliefs, but a socialist view will
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The 'working circumstances' and 'slave labour' are both hyperbole and emotional appeals, and have nothing to do with the fact the original claim is completely correct: that modern nuclear plants have been build on budget and on time. You can also look at India, btw, if you find that country more palatable. Or better still, take Korea - South-Korea that is, before you start with the 'slave-argument again - and you'll see a sharp decline in costs. As I've repeatedly pointed out by now, you make the mistake of looking at one or a few examples, and try to interpolate from these anecdotes a general rule. this is not a rational, nor scientific approach. Nor is it, simply, correct to do so.
I also note you give almost no actual references for what you say. Here, let me give you the conclusion of a scientific paper on the subject, which more or less says exactly as I do: that you can't extrapolate from one experience to another. Things like wind energy, solar energy, nuclear energy, water energy, geothermic energy have very specific circumstances, and often are different from country to country. For the question whether one can built nuclear plants on time and on budget, however, one need only to establish that one can, not that one can everywhere in all circumstances. Anyway, here you go:
"The most surprising feature is the large diversity in trends, with the US and South Korea at the two extremes. Countries building reactors more recently, particularly those with construction starts after 1980, have different trend shapes than the early nuclear pioneers. Rather than an “invariable exhibition of negative learning” and “inevitable” increases in complexity intrinsic to nuclear technology that lead to cost escalation (Grubler, 2010), it is clear that there is not a singular cost trend for nuclear technology, but a plurality of different country-specific experiences. A consistent “rhythm” of cost escalation suggested by Grubler (2010) does not match the historical record."
-- Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors --
Bottomline: whether you like it or not, it *IS* possible to build nuclear plants on time and on budget. Period.
The same tendency for anecdotal extrapolation and emotional appeal is noticeable with your examples of the 'costs' of three mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yes, those had costs, monetary and death costs. No one is denying that, but that also isn't the issue. What really matter is the statistical analysis between the various energy sources/providers, and see whom, actually, has the most and the least death toll OVERALL. It's irrational to focus on these three examples and disregard the actual safety record of all the different sources in total. And if you do, you get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It's only a little vid, but it's based on hard data, statistically analyzed. I find it ironic you found my comment ironic, thus.
As for hydro not being intermittent... I'll give you partially right. For sure, it's not foreseeable when it rains or how much snowfall there is going to be that melt, so it is, in a sense, intermittent like wind and solar, but on the other hand, it has a much larger buffer then either, and thus can provide a baseload much longer. Let's refrase it thus way, then: it's less intermittent than wind and solar, and more intermittent than nuclear.
I also agree that batteries might make the negative aspects of wind less in the far future, but were not there yet by a long shot. It would need to hold enormous currents for large timeperiods - at least a week to be fairly sure to be able to provide a stable energy. Now, I can concur with that, but then: why is that sort of reasoning not applied in reciprocity. Yes, in the future, wind may become a better alternative. But so does nuclear. There is no reason why nuclear couldn't improve neither in the future IF you do researc
One should look at the facts, not ones own opinions. Remember that was a thing we agreed on about Elon Musk- bashers, after all. When one arbitrarily starts to exempt (or only allow) certain facts only because of arbitrary reasons, one starts to be irrational. China, for all it's faults and lipservice to communism, does show it's possible to create nuclear plants on time and at the foreseen budget. That the forbes article DID make clear.
The main problem with all alternative sources like hydro, solar and especially wind, is that there are, by their very nature, intermittent. This means they can never provide a stable base load (if you don't know the term or the importance of that, feel free to google it). And this in turn means you need something that CAN deliver it. If you close all nuclear plants, like in Germany, that means you have to build and provide the load balance with classical means: in the best case with gas and in the worst case with coal energy plants. Which means augmented CO2 and the statistical certainty of extra deaths far surpassing those of nuclear plants (looking at it statistically, the number of deaths per megawatt hour is FAR less with nuclear than with any other energy provider.) those are facts. Not emotional opinions. And as said, I prefer the former, not the latter, in determining the value of what is being argued.
I don't know the specific situation in Ontario good enough to give a substantiated response, but whatever anecdotal value you might derive from it, has little to no bearings to what is statistically relevant. So it might well be you are right about your specific case, but it doesn't change anything to the argument delivered.
"The difference with subsidizing wind and solar is that the money mostly stays in the communities where it's spent, generating an economic multiplier effect as well as electricity."
The majority of the production value has long since moved to China. So all the cost and value for the production of it, is no longer local or 'in the community it's spent'. The only thing remaining is those companies that place the solar/wind, but more to that later.
"Germany's "green" energy sector is now a larger employer than their auto sector"
Yes, but that on itself is nothing to celebrate. Being 'larger' says nothing about the economic surplus value of something. Contrary to the automobile industry, you seem to forget that the ten-thousands of people employed in the wind-energy sector in Germany are for the most part payed by SUBSIDIZED money. Subsidezed work does NOT create an economic surplus, since you first extracted the money from the economy, to give it to that particular domain. It's not something that creates wealth, thus, but rather consumes it. One can not have an economy run on subsidized work, and people payed by subsidies (aka, a cost, thus, since the money for that is being extracted from the economy in the first place) are the WORST kind of jobs one can create. Because, on themselves, they have no *economic* value. they can have other values (that's why social work is subsidized too), but it has no *economic* net value. The truth of that is obvious. If subsidezed work was truly beneficial and a net-surplus for the economy, it would be simple for any government: make ALL your citizens payed bureaucrats and civil servants, and your economy would boom. No-one would live in poverty, and everybody would have a paying job, no unemployment! Ever thought why this doesn't work?
The reason is, because for stuff that you need subsidizing, you need to extract that money first from the economy and then redistribute it - but it certainly does not create economic worth or surplus of it's own. If everyone would be a civil servant; who's going to pay for it all? See? Subsidized jobs are not an economic boost.
Now, nuclear plants are/were subsidized too, but calculated per megawatt hour delivered, they cost FAR LESS than windmills. Who, I repeat, also need a backup of gas/coal-plants to deliver a stable energy load.
"For starters, there has never been one built that was on time, on budget, delivered electricity at the promised cost and met its maintenance targets."
"And when you don't externalize the cost of dealing with uranium tailings, transportation and storage of waste, you don't get a lot more energy out than you've put in generating it."
The dealing, transportation and storage (which is done mainly underground) requires very little energy. I'm surprised you made this argument, and not one with 'work' or 'costs'... but in regard to energy, it's several orders of magnitude more that a nuclear plant delivers, than all what you describe together.
"we're now paying sky-high electricity rates, mostly to pay for maintenance of nuclear plants"
Germany pays even far higher rates, and it's mostly due to subsidizing wind- and solar energy . They subsidized their nuclear plants as well, but during whole that time, energy prizes were relatively low and stable. The prices skyrocketed there, when they *closed* the nuclear plants, and had to subsidize massively the 'neue wendung' with all the 'alternative' energy-sources (primarily wind).
Just saying: it's not all that clear cut. And I think the greens should at least be open to a mix where nuclear plants still play a role - being one of the few energy providers that can deliver a stable base load and isn't pumping CO2 in the air.
Dude... that's cartoon, making a joke. And it's from FOX... nuff said.
Most people - at least in the EU and in the states outside the bible-belt where they have at least a semblance of an education - understand perfectly what an autopilot is supposed to do.
And the argument is moot anyway, because the Tesla-drivers sure as hell know: it's been told to them, it's written in the manual, and it's mentioned every freak'in time you start autopilot.
There is NO WAY a Tesla driver doesn't know he has to keep his hands on his wheel and keep his eyes on the road. He might not always do it, but he KNOWS. Full well.
So let's stop acting as if the poor sods get confused so much by the word 'autopilot' they suddenly don't remember anything anymore. It's bull.
Well, with the caveat that I'm rather right myself, and certainly not a socialist, nor a green. (Though I think 'right' in the EU or in the USA differs quit substantially as far as I've noticed).
It's just that I think logic should prevail, not ideologies, and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Elon Musk certainly has proven his worth, and while one may argue he's not perfect nor a true genius in the sense that Einstein was, he certainly has shown he has vision and is actually aiming at improving things - and has grand goals, like going to Mars (which, in contrast to ma,ny other CEO's, the drive to do that is genuine with Musk). One doesn't even have to go into the whole 'green' and 'climate' thing (though it's silly to deny there is a climate problem like some Trump supporters claim): he just progresses technology and creates a future-oriented business as well.
The Elon Musk/Tesla/SpaceX/(Bezos/Blue Origin/etc) bashing is just getting annoying. It's based on nothing accept ego-tripping for trolls, and personal pet peeves one wants to hold on to and grind an axe with. There is seldom a logical argument to be discovered, rather mostly either some sort of jealousy or rabid libertarian dogma ("He gets subsidies for his cars!" - as if other car companies and whole industries didn't before and after) is the core root to all the complaints.
Now, I don't think highly of the left, nor greens, because they have their own dogma's and are as rigid and annoying in their thinking (aka; nuclear plants, for instance), and I also think the free market in a liberal capitalistic system trumps socialism/communism - but all that has nothing to do with it, really. It just doesn't make sense to bash the guy (and others like him) for no valid reason at all.
And I'm in the ICT-business AND an anime-adept as well, so I guess I qualify too.:-p As many here do, no doubt. Though I must say I find the quality of slashdot has dropped considerably from back in the beginnings, where I had another login/nickname altogether. Is that due to there being less geeks and more...idiots...here, or because the geeks themselves have dropped in intelligence (or at least, the effort to get things precise)? I wonder.
As for geeks and women: it's partially true what you say, but for a large part it's also a myth and generalization. Most geeks ultimately get a woman. Even Linus did.:-) And for those that don't, the majority still isn't outright misogynistic, me thinks, but rather in their field of work, there are less (or less capable as they perceive it) women at work. In general, the emotional/relational is of less importance to geeks than the logical and rational, which is why they often clash with women. But I'm quite sure most geeks can deal with women just fine if they are as rational, capable and logical as themselves - at least as friends/co-workers. For a love-life it might be a bit of a bigger hurdle, but that's because a love-life per definition involves the emotional/relational component.;-) There is a prevalence of geeks to being introvert, I'll grant you that.
Your first sentence is a fallacy. As I've said repeatedly, to know if it's gender-related, you also need to know the relative prevalence of the % of women and men in that workplace. It's *obvious* that if there are far more men than women, within the pool of complaints, there will be far more complaints about men too. What do you not understand about that, Sherlock?
Furthermore, your assertion that because there has been no complaint of men against woman means it's some sort of misogynist gender-related one-sided mentality is unsubstantiated. With the same token, one could claim that there is no abuse being done by the women versus the men in (married or not) couple, but only the reverse, because there is hardly any complaints of men being abused by women. This, too, has shown to be erroneous: research have demonstrated there is also a considerable amount of men getting abused by women, but this is VASTLY under-reported, due to the prevailing mentality and culture, where it's considered extra shameful for a man to be the 'weak' partner and getting victimized. while women in the same situation get a lot of support, rather the contrary is the case for men in the same situation. Logic would dictate this is even less likely to be outed when it's a female co-worker or manager on the workfloor. This is not to say women do not get sexually harassed at all, mind you - because I know the mindset of you types of snowflakes - but that what you say, namely that the lack of complaints of men towards women is proof that no such abuse happens, is *false*.
Given those two counters, it's impossible to gauge at face value whether 1)there is really an abundance of sexual harasment going on with Tesla, even going as far as being a 'predatory zone' and speaking of 'safe zones' - both terms typically used by snowflakes that wallow in hyperbole.
Your insistence that you 'KNOW' it's all true I find laughable; you know as much as the rest of us in this particular case, which is very little. For starters, we only heard one side of the story, of people who got fired and thus have a reason to be revengeful. Furthermore, if one reads the article, one sees things like: "At the crowded meeting at the Fremont factory, women took the microphone one-by-one and shared stories of sexual harassment, mistreatment by male managers, unfair promotion decisions and more, sources said."
It is not said how many women, nor what prevalence of the women workforce they constituted (obviously, if it's a small majority, the hyperbole becomes more obvious), what exactly they thought constituted 'sexual harassment', what is 'mistreated' and why they thought it was gender specific if they got mistreated - I'm assuming male employees got mistreated by managers too, if those managers were assholes, and why it would be 'unfair' promotion decisions and even if it were, why other males that didn't get promoted would be fair as opposed to their (female) denial of promotions.
All this, we can not derive from the article, so saying you 'KNOW' how things really are and in what context it's true or not, is ridiculous.
Get this through your skull: while it's quite possible there is or was (actual, in the legal sense, not in the snowflake sense) sexual and other harassment is possible, but one can't be certain of it either way: the justice department must do its work here, if that's really the case. It's also possible this is done by a bunch of disgruntled female employees who THINK that because they didn't got promotion or got fired means it's due specifically to misogyny and gender-related bias, forgetting that perhaps even more men didn't get a promotion or were fired during the same timeperiod too. And/or it could be done by snowflake-types, who blow up everything in hyperbole and can't handle anything anymore which breaches their imagined 'safespace'.
The sensible and rational thing to do, thus, is leaving it up to the judge to decide, and not to get drawn into the hyperbole and emo-driven conjecture, because of a claim made in a newspaper by some disgruntled female employees. Is that too much asked? Or are you one of these snowflake-types as well?
"Note that many towns and villages in history were under 200 people"
Yes, but this seems to forget that once in a while, someone from another village or even from far away spread his genes also within that genepool - a wanderer, a pilgrim, etc.. It also forgets that during war (and there were many back in history), women were often raped too, which also spread genes around. And this is what I mean: with random 'live-example' sizes without any proper research and analysis done, you are absolutely nothing. Most of the tribes and/or villages were not truly closed of to (genetic) influences from the outside. What conclusions can one draw from a village of less than 200, if you don't know the genetic make-up of it and the rate at which 'foreign' genes were introduced in it? I would assume that even a 0,1% influx each ten years makes already a whole difference. So that means that any such examples under 200 individuals would have to be completely closed of from genetic influx to determine how inbreeding deteriorates biological fitness. The few examples of THAT, that I know of, rather substantiate the claim it isn't conductive to a good genepool with fit individuals. But even that I wouldn't consider any proof - as said, I remain consistent - since there is no researched data-set on it, so I don't know how big the genetic drift in those communities were, even when it's said they were almost completely sealed off, nor can I be sure their demise is purely due to genetic deterioration.
For the rest: there are several things you say here I largely agree with. One note about the hypothesis of the 'one mother': I've also read that there is an overabundance of 'one mother' or 'a few couples' genealogy-tree(s) for the different human races, which isn't realistic. This is rather a result of the procedure and structure of the methodology, rather than an actual reality. Researchers have the tendency to go 'up' the tree to end with an 'origins' mother and father, while in practice, it's very unlikely every tree really only had one mother or father where the whole tree sprout forth from; in most likelihood, it will have been a small tribe, even at the beginning. And, as you correctly point out, there have even been genepool-influences by other branches of the human race, even with the Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Anyways, I think we both said what we had to say. There is a lot we seem to agree on, and for the things we do not agree, well... let's agree to disagree on those, then.;-) Eventually, science will prove it one way or the other in a more definite way, no doubt.
"Good job repeating again what I said way the fuck up there before you got involved, like you thought of it first. I'm not going to let you try to rip off my post and pretend you invented the thing."
Well, I'm glad you agree. In which case, you'll no doubt also understand that, with a machine which is more durable, the LIFE-SPAN per definition augments as well, if you put in 7-cent parts.
You're truly being willfully obtuse here, aren't you? Or do you really not comprehend that saying "If you put a 7-cent part in a machine where a 3-cent part typically falls within the lifespan of the machine, you waste money (and labor)." simply isn't true in all cases. Are you daft, or what?
And stop your broken record about 'I said it first, I said it first!' What are you; a toddler having his tantrum? Read thsi comprehensively, and try to understand this: I am talking about YOUR SENTENCE in which you describe THE 7-cent part replacing the 3-cent part IN THAT MACHINE. I'm not talking about a 'more durable machine where you replace 6-cent parts with 35 cent parts'. that the fuck has nothing to do with what I'm saying, you only THINK it deals with that, but *I* am talking about your first part.
So where did you say "It's not always a waste of money to replace a 3-cent part with a 7-cent part"? Nowhere! And certainly not in your "cherrypicked sentence", you dumbass. You're continuing to claim you said that 'with my next sentence' but you did nothing of the sort. At least, NOT if you would understand what I'm saying is wrong with it.
This is what you said in your next sentence: " Likewise, you may find that the expensive part can go in a more-durable machine, and that said machine often replaces 6-cent parts with 35-cent parts, and so costs 4-5 times as much." and this after that: "You can take this out farther. You can build a machine that lasts thrice as long as a cheaper machine, but costs four times as much; or you can build the cheaper machine and replace it four times, and get 33% more lifetime out of the same expense. "
NEITHER says ANYTHING about the fact that, even in a NON-DURABLE machine (aka, where the 3 cent part is in), when you remove that 3-cent part with a 7-cent part, the 'lifespan' is automatically raised, so saying 'you waste money (and labor).' MAKES NO SENSE. Obviously, if you replace it while it was that part that made it non-durable, the effort WILL NOT be waste of money and labor. ON THAT MACHINE.
I think this is indeed the problem. you have *actual* harassment, and then you have this kind of 21st century third-generation-feminist-sensitivity, where snowflakes yell 'sexual harassment' just because she didn't get a promotion she wanted (just like the majority of the men around her, but thet she ignores), or because someone is an asshole (which isn't gender-specific neither), or a male wants to to hit on her (which is pretty normal if you're a cute/nice/intelligent/sexy women (and sometimes even if she ain't). As long as trying to gauge the interest isn't done in an aggressive way, I don't see what the problem is. that's how men and women get it on with each other, after all.
But no, nowadays, every o-so-slight remark, wink, look or gesture (or even a suggestion for 'drinking a coffee' in his room made to a woman who sits at a bar at 4 o'clock in the morning) - which normally is understood to be part of the process of getting it on - is now considered an invasion of the 'safe space' and all that BS. A lot of those women of the 3th gen feminism are nothing more than snowflakes that have been pampered as hothouse plants and raised with self-entitlement and wallow in the victimization-role.
What's more, they're doing a disservice to the rest. Because it can happen there actually IS gender-discrimination and actuall sexual harrasment - like when it's clearly said 'no', but the man still continuous to be pushy and aggressively. Those are relative rare cases, but with all the snowflake safe-space cries, who can still say how serious a certain thing is?
It's the story of the boy that cried wolf, with this kind of thing.
It's high time the BS disappears and 'rape' and 'sexual assault/harassment' gets back to the status it had before some vocal minority of women tried to pin *everything* on it. As you say: use a term for all and anything, and it looses its value. If it starts to mean everything, it looses its meaning.
Wait... you're doing exactly the same thing as what you claim I did.
You're now saying:
"If you take a machine with shit parts and make one part last 5,000 times longer, one of the other shit parts breaks first and the machine doesn't last longer."
Where I said:
"what you say here, thus, is only valid if one would replace a few 3-cent parts with 7-cent parts, AND LEAVE OTHER KEY-COMPONENTS as 3-cent parts"
That's...exactly reiterating what I said... So I'm going to ignore your last paragraph, since it's an elaborate form of ad hominem, and given your own reasons to draw the conclusion, your actually describing yourself as 'a complete idiot'.
And if you're arguing *you* already said that: you didn't. You originally said: "If you put a 7-cent part in a machine where a 3-cent part typically falls within the lifespan of the machine, you waste money (and labor)." This is obviously only true if there are more than one key component and you *only* changed one of those components to a higher quality one, and all the rest are 3-cent parts. If there is only one key component to begin with, or all the rest are already high-quality ones, or you have replaced all other 3-cent components with 7-cent components, then obviously what you say isn't true anymore.
You can claim a machine where all the other key parts are 7 cent wouldn't 'typically fall within the lifespan' of a 3-cent part, but that would contradict what you say yourself, namely that a machine, even with one 3-cent part, only lasts as long as that 3-cent part. Replace THAT part, then, and your machine becomes far more durable. The same if you change the other low quality components.
Thus, I repeat: if you change the 3-cent parts (note the plural) with 7-cent parts, your machine WILL get more durable.
So many? You gave two. And it isn't exactly clear what those examples actually prove. No, I disagree there: even myriads of loose anecdotal 'evidence' has little weight, unless it's researched and analyzed well, including the possible variables. This goes both ways, btw, so I'm remaining consistent. There isn't exactly an overabundance of scientific evidence for the Westermarck effect, granted, but at least there is some, and it has more weight to random live examples where one really have no dataset for to even make a valid conclusion. I think your link to that abstract is about the best reference you gave in your post, thus.
As for inbreeding: while the effects may be less severe and degradation much slower the bigger the population is, if I recall correctly you need a minimum of 200 individuals who are fairly genetically distinct to each other to not suffer from any biological deterioration of the species. Which is why with animals on the endangered species list, it becomes increasingly difficult to get a viable bloodline and successful continuation/propagation of the race the less genetically distinct individuals there are. The closer related a community is, the more problems one gets, which is why first and second degree incest gives the worst results. It doesn't mean cousins and nieces don't suffer from the same fate eventually, though - even if it's partially true the first time it happens it may give pretty fit offspring, in repetition through generations it will deteriorate as well. If a small community is isolated, than sooner or later all individuals of that community will be too closely related. One may counter that by saying most communities are larger than 200 people, but if people are that unrelated, I would hardly call it inbreeding in the classical sense anymore. Regardless, saying inbreeding gives you more fit people either is factual erroneous, or a (too) broad generalization to be possibly true, since first and second degree incest inherently also falls under 'inbreeding', and that *certainly* isn't conductive for producing more 'biological fitter' individuals.
As for people who are not closely related having sex, one wouldn't call that inbreeding.
Not going into the content of what you said, but it seems mildly ironic to me that in your statements you address the populace writing on slashdot as geeks, yet you implicitly seem to distance yourself from it due to your own remarks.
May I remind you, that you are also posting and reading on slashdot, and thus, for all intents and purposes, you can be considered a 'geek' by the same right. So why are you acting as what you say doesn't involve yourself?;-)
The point of the other poster was, that you can not claim the complaints of the women are gender-specific, if you don't know what the difference would be if the ratio was different. For instance, you would need to see if, in a company where the majority of managers are women, and the minority men under them, if their behavior would be different.
Because, while it's possible that they behave as assholes, it doesn't take a specific gender to be an asshole, and that men (apparently) hit more on the women then vice versa is not a sign off gender-specificity, when the ratio of men-women indicates there are far more men than women in that company.
To be clear: I'm not saying there is or isn't, I'm just saying one has to be careful with broad statements, since bias gets in easily, if you do not statistically analyses it properly. Ones own assertions and conviction are not a substitute for this.
The truth is, it's an understandable but WRONG reaction to try to shield your kids from all hardships in the world. Far better it is, to let them experience it in small amounts, so they build some resistance to adversities in life and learn to have a spine.
It's exactly because we treat our kids like hothouse plants they turn out to be such obnoxious snowflakes as adults.
Slashdot Mirror
Wile that *might* be true, it's still science. But this reasoning has no argumental value; wherever you put the budget in whatever scientific domain, other domains will claim it could be better used on theirs.
And especially with all the 'experts' on Slashdot, they always know what's best and where money should be spend. ;-)
IMHO, what's really being a waste are government expenditure in researching things that aren't science at all but pseudo-science, like the EM-drive. In contrast, this still is science/engineering stuff, and if Musk puts his own money in it who are we (well, you) to complain? I've been sponsoring and spending money on the Planetary Society's Lightsail; some have told me that was a waste of money too. Well, maybe to them, but not to me. And I do with my own money whatever I want. It's not their concern in what endeavour I put it, nor do I feel bound by what others find worthwhile or not.
So, I can concur with what you said if it handles public money - with the caveat that it's impossible to ever determine in any absolute sense 'what is the best scientific bang for the buck', since this always involves some subjectivity. But, granted, some scientific committee might weed out the worst proposals. However, with private money it's just none of our business where people spend their money on what scientific project. As science-proponents ourselves, we should already be content IF they spend it on ANY scientific endeavour, since most millionaires just spend it on yachts or mansions with 5 swimming pools. The point is, private money is spend on what the billionaires like, not on a 'most science' basis... meaning if they don't spend it on a scientific/engineering concept - meagre as it might be - they like, it won't therefore go to a more worthwhile effort with more science but which they don't like. It doesn't work like that. With private money, there are no communicating vessels there, and no overall budget, where if doesn't go that ay, it becomes free to spend on something else and goes from one to the other depending on scientific output.
"Except that his objections and analysis are incredibly sane and valid."
Except they are not.
Or, to be fair, they are valid and reasonable sane in the domain he's an expert in, which is biochemistry. There, his vids are worthwhile watching. The further he deviates from his on field, the more his analysis because insane and invalid. This is most obvious in his 'analysis' (hardly the name worthy anymore) of political-economic topics like the Brexit, and of engineering domains he really doesn't know much about, such as the Hyperloop and SpaceX. For some reason, he has a pretty obvious bias in some regards (or to some persons, like Elon Musk). His arguments are incredibly weak in those instances, and amount to nothing more then a biased opinion without substantiation by hard data and logical arguments - rather resorting to some gleeful smug badmouthing.
This, in stark contrast to his more rational behaviour and analysis about things of his own field of endeavour.
As for this specific case; if you want a good rebuttal against thunderfoots 'arguments' in a logical and rational way, see: https://www.youtube.com/playli...
Though they too have the tendency to be a bot overzealous in their rebuttal, at least their (counter)arguments on themselves make actually sense.
But not necessarily. In essence, it's just an engineering problem, as the parent poster said. All the factors you describe, are not directly related to having such a system work. They *can* be factors of consideration in certain area's for it to be successfully implement in a long-term context, but they are not necessary components to get the system itself working. For instance, if one would build it in a country where dictators (half the middle-east) or authoritarian leaders (Putin) or the Party (China) have the definite say in everything, one can make it work regardless of social, economic or legal issues that would be a hindrance in other countries.
I would say: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" - though I want to avoid religious connotation hence I would be categorized as a Elon-wanker. ;-)
But give to the man what he deserves, and he deserves at least some small praise. That some un-rightfully praise him into heavens is not his fault, and doesn't mean he deserves to be un-rightfully bashed neither. He's not at fault for wankers, nor for slashdot-stories, so I fail to see the logic why it would be justified to bash him without reason; it's as silly as blindly idolizing him without reason. Silliness and irrationality is not made less by adding silliness and irrationality. Both are sides immature in that case.
The most mature thing, is to be rational about things and evaluate it properly. This means acknowledging he has his faults, but also that he has accomplished some good things.
Then let the Elon Musk bashing begin!
It's been the favourite pastime for trolls on Slashdot these last years, after all.
Sigh. Look, that's bordering on pedantry. I can do the same.
Well, since the first half has been proven wrong, it would mean everything depends on your second part. To claim there has 'never been' one that didn't deliver electricity at the promised cost nor met it's maintenance target would mean that you know of all and every instance of any nuclear plant in the world the exact promises and delivered electricity cost and/or it's maintenance targets. I have not the time nor the inclination to search for it on the Net as I did for your first half of the statement, but let me say it's highly unlikely you have such intimate knowledge and could speak for any and every nuclear plant.
Which means, let's face it, it's conjecture.
You know it as well as I do: it's a statement you can't make hard nor provide any conclusive evidence for. since the first part has been shown to be wrong, how will you ascertain and proof the second part is the half that is correct? Do you have a reference of a scientific paper where ALL nuclear plants have been scrutinized on as well it's promises that it first made, as it's subsequent deliverance on electricity cost?
Look, I feel we're both getting a bit annoyed here, and that's never a good sign for a fruitful debate. It's clear you have quite some other opinion on a lot of matters. That's ok. I don't even mind socialists all that much, I just wished they payed for their ideology out of their own pockets, and didn't ask me or others that don't share their worldview to co-pay for their socialist dream. If people only subsidized their own way of life and didn't expect others to comply to theirs and also pay for it, it would be far better.
Which, I think, is the main difference. I would leave everyone to his or her own devices, and feel free to pay for their own way of life, even socialism. But socialists never leave the rest alone and expect others to pay for their ideals and ideology. There should be a way for taxes to be divided between groups of people of different ideologies, where the socialists can live their socialist lives as they see feet, but have to pay for it themselves, and others can live and pay to their own belief-systems too. True, it would mean the non-socialists wouldn't 'benefit' from the advantages of socialism neither. But since, imho, it wouldn't last long if they had to cough it up of their own, there would be no great loss for those that didn't get into the group of socialists. I mean, you may be convinced otherwise, but wouldn't we be better of if we let each follow our own thing?
Look at this debate. We can both feel it's going to lead nowhere, we just have too much different thoughts on these issues. It's already a wonder we largely agreed on the Elon Musk thing. But this is going nowhere, let's be honest. At most we can agree to disagree. But isn't that fine also, in a sense? You can merely go your way, and I mine. If we did that in politics and taxes/money/subsidizing too, I wouldn't have any problems. Let the green subsidize windmills with their own money, the socialists can subsidize welfare with their own money and taxes, and the rightwingers can do their own thing - subsidizing nuclear plants maybe. And none gets the benefits of the others, since they didn't pay for it. Sounds fair to me.
The real problem starts with some people wanting others to adhere to their view and having to pay for their exercises in futility. And by its very nature, the left does that a lot more than the right. If I say: you don't have to pay for an immigrant that wants to be on welfare but hasn't contributed anything to the economy himself, but your socialist hart bleeds, you *can* still pay him and provide welfare with your (and the left's) money. However, if socialists rule and say: you have to pay for that immigrant, I don't really have choice in the matter now, do I? I can't just day 'no thanks', or I'll get thrown in jail. So in essence, a libertarian view gives you the opportunity to still act upon your ow, beliefs, but a socialist view will
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The 'working circumstances' and 'slave labour' are both hyperbole and emotional appeals, and have nothing to do with the fact the original claim is completely correct: that modern nuclear plants have been build on budget and on time. You can also look at India, btw, if you find that country more palatable. Or better still, take Korea - South-Korea that is, before you start with the 'slave-argument again - and you'll see a sharp decline in costs. As I've repeatedly pointed out by now, you make the mistake of looking at one or a few examples, and try to interpolate from these anecdotes a general rule. this is not a rational, nor scientific approach. Nor is it, simply, correct to do so.
I also note you give almost no actual references for what you say. Here, let me give you the conclusion of a scientific paper on the subject, which more or less says exactly as I do: that you can't extrapolate from one experience to another. Things like wind energy, solar energy, nuclear energy, water energy, geothermic energy have very specific circumstances, and often are different from country to country. For the question whether one can built nuclear plants on time and on budget, however, one need only to establish that one can, not that one can everywhere in all circumstances. Anyway, here you go:
"The most surprising feature is the large diversity in trends, with the US and South Korea at the two extremes. Countries building reactors more recently, particularly those with construction starts after 1980, have different trend shapes than the early nuclear pioneers. Rather than an “invariable exhibition of negative learning” and “inevitable” increases in complexity intrinsic to nuclear technology that lead to cost escalation (Grubler, 2010), it is clear that there is not a singular cost trend for nuclear technology, but a plurality of different country-specific experiences. A consistent “rhythm” of cost escalation suggested by Grubler (2010) does not match the historical record."
-- Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors --
Bottomline: whether you like it or not, it *IS* possible to build nuclear plants on time and on budget. Period.
The same tendency for anecdotal extrapolation and emotional appeal is noticeable with your examples of the 'costs' of three mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yes, those had costs, monetary and death costs. No one is denying that, but that also isn't the issue. What really matter is the statistical analysis between the various energy sources/providers, and see whom, actually, has the most and the least death toll OVERALL. It's irrational to focus on these three examples and disregard the actual safety record of all the different sources in total. And if you do, you get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's only a little vid, but it's based on hard data, statistically analyzed. I find it ironic you found my comment ironic, thus.
As for hydro not being intermittent... I'll give you partially right. For sure, it's not foreseeable when it rains or how much snowfall there is going to be that melt, so it is, in a sense, intermittent like wind and solar, but on the other hand, it has a much larger buffer then either, and thus can provide a baseload much longer. Let's refrase it thus way, then: it's less intermittent than wind and solar, and more intermittent than nuclear.
I also agree that batteries might make the negative aspects of wind less in the far future, but were not there yet by a long shot. It would need to hold enormous currents for large timeperiods - at least a week to be fairly sure to be able to provide a stable energy. Now, I can concur with that, but then: why is that sort of reasoning not applied in reciprocity. Yes, in the future, wind may become a better alternative. But so does nuclear. There is no reason why nuclear couldn't improve neither in the future IF you do researc
One should look at the facts, not ones own opinions. Remember that was a thing we agreed on about Elon Musk- bashers, after all. When one arbitrarily starts to exempt (or only allow) certain facts only because of arbitrary reasons, one starts to be irrational. China, for all it's faults and lipservice to communism, does show it's possible to create nuclear plants on time and at the foreseen budget. That the forbes article DID make clear.
The main problem with all alternative sources like hydro, solar and especially wind, is that there are, by their very nature, intermittent. This means they can never provide a stable base load (if you don't know the term or the importance of that, feel free to google it). And this in turn means you need something that CAN deliver it. If you close all nuclear plants, like in Germany, that means you have to build and provide the load balance with classical means: in the best case with gas and in the worst case with coal energy plants. Which means augmented CO2 and the statistical certainty of extra deaths far surpassing those of nuclear plants (looking at it statistically, the number of deaths per megawatt hour is FAR less with nuclear than with any other energy provider.) those are facts. Not emotional opinions. And as said, I prefer the former, not the latter, in determining the value of what is being argued.
I don't know the specific situation in Ontario good enough to give a substantiated response, but whatever anecdotal value you might derive from it, has little to no bearings to what is statistically relevant. So it might well be you are right about your specific case, but it doesn't change anything to the argument delivered.
"The difference with subsidizing wind and solar is that the money mostly stays in the communities where it's spent, generating an economic multiplier effect as well as electricity."
The majority of the production value has long since moved to China. So all the cost and value for the production of it, is no longer local or 'in the community it's spent'. The only thing remaining is those companies that place the solar/wind, but more to that later.
"Germany's "green" energy sector is now a larger employer than their auto sector"
Yes, but that on itself is nothing to celebrate. Being 'larger' says nothing about the economic surplus value of something. Contrary to the automobile industry, you seem to forget that the ten-thousands of people employed in the wind-energy sector in Germany are for the most part payed by SUBSIDIZED money. Subsidezed work does NOT create an economic surplus, since you first extracted the money from the economy, to give it to that particular domain. It's not something that creates wealth, thus, but rather consumes it. One can not have an economy run on subsidized work, and people payed by subsidies (aka, a cost, thus, since the money for that is being extracted from the economy in the first place) are the WORST kind of jobs one can create. Because, on themselves, they have no *economic* value. they can have other values (that's why social work is subsidized too), but it has no *economic* net value. The truth of that is obvious. If subsidezed work was truly beneficial and a net-surplus for the economy, it would be simple for any government: make ALL your citizens payed bureaucrats and civil servants, and your economy would boom. No-one would live in poverty, and everybody would have a paying job, no unemployment! Ever thought why this doesn't work?
The reason is, because for stuff that you need subsidizing, you need to extract that money first from the economy and then redistribute it - but it certainly does not create economic worth or surplus of it's own. If everyone would be a civil servant; who's going to pay for it all? See? Subsidized jobs are not an economic boost.
Now, nuclear plants are/were subsidized too, but calculated per megawatt hour delivered, they cost FAR LESS than windmills. Who, I repeat, also need a backup of gas/coal-plants to deliver a stable energy load.
One shou
"For starters, there has never been one built that was on time, on budget, delivered electricity at the promised cost and met its maintenance targets."
There have been several; https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
"And when you don't externalize the cost of dealing with uranium tailings, transportation and storage of waste, you don't get a lot more energy out than you've put in generating it."
The dealing, transportation and storage (which is done mainly underground) requires very little energy. I'm surprised you made this argument, and not one with 'work' or 'costs'... but in regard to energy, it's several orders of magnitude more that a nuclear plant delivers, than all what you describe together.
"we're now paying sky-high electricity rates, mostly to pay for maintenance of nuclear plants"
Germany pays even far higher rates, and it's mostly due to subsidizing wind- and solar energy . They subsidized their nuclear plants as well, but during whole that time, energy prizes were relatively low and stable. The prices skyrocketed there, when they *closed* the nuclear plants, and had to subsidize massively the 'neue wendung' with all the 'alternative' energy-sources (primarily wind).
Just saying: it's not all that clear cut. And I think the greens should at least be open to a mix where nuclear plants still play a role - being one of the few energy providers that can deliver a stable base load and isn't pumping CO2 in the air.
Dude... that's cartoon, making a joke. And it's from FOX... nuff said.
Most people - at least in the EU and in the states outside the bible-belt where they have at least a semblance of an education - understand perfectly what an autopilot is supposed to do.
And the argument is moot anyway, because the Tesla-drivers sure as hell know: it's been told to them, it's written in the manual, and it's mentioned every freak'in time you start autopilot.
There is NO WAY a Tesla driver doesn't know he has to keep his hands on his wheel and keep his eyes on the road. He might not always do it, but he KNOWS. Full well.
So let's stop acting as if the poor sods get confused so much by the word 'autopilot' they suddenly don't remember anything anymore. It's bull.
Well, with the caveat that I'm rather right myself, and certainly not a socialist, nor a green. (Though I think 'right' in the EU or in the USA differs quit substantially as far as I've noticed).
It's just that I think logic should prevail, not ideologies, and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Elon Musk certainly has proven his worth, and while one may argue he's not perfect nor a true genius in the sense that Einstein was, he certainly has shown he has vision and is actually aiming at improving things - and has grand goals, like going to Mars (which, in contrast to ma,ny other CEO's, the drive to do that is genuine with Musk). One doesn't even have to go into the whole 'green' and 'climate' thing (though it's silly to deny there is a climate problem like some Trump supporters claim): he just progresses technology and creates a future-oriented business as well.
The Elon Musk/Tesla/SpaceX/(Bezos/Blue Origin/etc) bashing is just getting annoying. It's based on nothing accept ego-tripping for trolls, and personal pet peeves one wants to hold on to and grind an axe with. There is seldom a logical argument to be discovered, rather mostly either some sort of jealousy or rabid libertarian dogma ("He gets subsidies for his cars!" - as if other car companies and whole industries didn't before and after) is the core root to all the complaints.
Now, I don't think highly of the left, nor greens, because they have their own dogma's and are as rigid and annoying in their thinking (aka; nuclear plants, for instance), and I also think the free market in a liberal capitalistic system trumps socialism/communism - but all that has nothing to do with it, really. It just doesn't make sense to bash the guy (and others like him) for no valid reason at all.
As has been said over and over again, 'auto' stands for 'automatic', NOT 'autonomous'. Why keep acting as if you don't already know that?
Or, more generally, the Elon Musk bashing.
It's become a tradition for the /. trolls, after all.
It ain't xenophobia if a group of strangers are really threatening.
I, for one, welcome our incomprehensible Overlords!
Or should I say:
"I I I welcome to me to me to me overlords!"
And I'm in the ICT-business AND an anime-adept as well, so I guess I qualify too. :-p As many here do, no doubt. Though I must say I find the quality of slashdot has dropped considerably from back in the beginnings, where I had another login/nickname altogether. Is that due to there being less geeks and more...idiots...here, or because the geeks themselves have dropped in intelligence (or at least, the effort to get things precise)? I wonder.
As for geeks and women: it's partially true what you say, but for a large part it's also a myth and generalization. Most geeks ultimately get a woman. Even Linus did. :-) And for those that don't, the majority still isn't outright misogynistic, me thinks, but rather in their field of work, there are less (or less capable as they perceive it) women at work. In general, the emotional/relational is of less importance to geeks than the logical and rational, which is why they often clash with women. But I'm quite sure most geeks can deal with women just fine if they are as rational, capable and logical as themselves - at least as friends/co-workers. For a love-life it might be a bit of a bigger hurdle, but that's because a love-life per definition involves the emotional/relational component. ;-) There is a prevalence of geeks to being introvert, I'll grant you that.
Well, that's my take on it.
Your first sentence is a fallacy. As I've said repeatedly, to know if it's gender-related, you also need to know the relative prevalence of the % of women and men in that workplace. It's *obvious* that if there are far more men than women, within the pool of complaints, there will be far more complaints about men too. What do you not understand about that, Sherlock?
Furthermore, your assertion that because there has been no complaint of men against woman means it's some sort of misogynist gender-related one-sided mentality is unsubstantiated. With the same token, one could claim that there is no abuse being done by the women versus the men in (married or not) couple, but only the reverse, because there is hardly any complaints of men being abused by women. This, too, has shown to be erroneous: research have demonstrated there is also a considerable amount of men getting abused by women, but this is VASTLY under-reported, due to the prevailing mentality and culture, where it's considered extra shameful for a man to be the 'weak' partner and getting victimized. while women in the same situation get a lot of support, rather the contrary is the case for men in the same situation. Logic would dictate this is even less likely to be outed when it's a female co-worker or manager on the workfloor. This is not to say women do not get sexually harassed at all, mind you - because I know the mindset of you types of snowflakes - but that what you say, namely that the lack of complaints of men towards women is proof that no such abuse happens, is *false*.
Given those two counters, it's impossible to gauge at face value whether 1)there is really an abundance of sexual harasment going on with Tesla, even going as far as being a 'predatory zone' and speaking of 'safe zones' - both terms typically used by snowflakes that wallow in hyperbole.
Your insistence that you 'KNOW' it's all true I find laughable; you know as much as the rest of us in this particular case, which is very little. For starters, we only heard one side of the story, of people who got fired and thus have a reason to be revengeful. Furthermore, if one reads the article, one sees things like: "At the crowded meeting at the Fremont factory, women took the microphone one-by-one and shared stories of sexual harassment, mistreatment by male managers, unfair promotion decisions and more, sources said."
It is not said how many women, nor what prevalence of the women workforce they constituted (obviously, if it's a small majority, the hyperbole becomes more obvious), what exactly they thought constituted 'sexual harassment', what is 'mistreated' and why they thought it was gender specific if they got mistreated - I'm assuming male employees got mistreated by managers too, if those managers were assholes, and why it would be 'unfair' promotion decisions and even if it were, why other males that didn't get promoted would be fair as opposed to their (female) denial of promotions.
All this, we can not derive from the article, so saying you 'KNOW' how things really are and in what context it's true or not, is ridiculous.
Get this through your skull: while it's quite possible there is or was (actual, in the legal sense, not in the snowflake sense) sexual and other harassment is possible, but one can't be certain of it either way: the justice department must do its work here, if that's really the case. It's also possible this is done by a bunch of disgruntled female employees who THINK that because they didn't got promotion or got fired means it's due specifically to misogyny and gender-related bias, forgetting that perhaps even more men didn't get a promotion or were fired during the same timeperiod too. And/or it could be done by snowflake-types, who blow up everything in hyperbole and can't handle anything anymore which breaches their imagined 'safespace'.
The sensible and rational thing to do, thus, is leaving it up to the judge to decide, and not to get drawn into the hyperbole and emo-driven conjecture, because of a claim made in a newspaper by some disgruntled female employees. Is that too much asked? Or are you one of these snowflake-types as well?
"Note that many towns and villages in history were under 200 people"
Yes, but this seems to forget that once in a while, someone from another village or even from far away spread his genes also within that genepool - a wanderer, a pilgrim, etc.. It also forgets that during war (and there were many back in history), women were often raped too, which also spread genes around. And this is what I mean: with random 'live-example' sizes without any proper research and analysis done, you are absolutely nothing. Most of the tribes and/or villages were not truly closed of to (genetic) influences from the outside. What conclusions can one draw from a village of less than 200, if you don't know the genetic make-up of it and the rate at which 'foreign' genes were introduced in it? I would assume that even a 0,1% influx each ten years makes already a whole difference. So that means that any such examples under 200 individuals would have to be completely closed of from genetic influx to determine how inbreeding deteriorates biological fitness. The few examples of THAT, that I know of, rather substantiate the claim it isn't conductive to a good genepool with fit individuals. But even that I wouldn't consider any proof - as said, I remain consistent - since there is no researched data-set on it, so I don't know how big the genetic drift in those communities were, even when it's said they were almost completely sealed off, nor can I be sure their demise is purely due to genetic deterioration.
For the rest: there are several things you say here I largely agree with. One note about the hypothesis of the 'one mother': I've also read that there is an overabundance of 'one mother' or 'a few couples' genealogy-tree(s) for the different human races, which isn't realistic. This is rather a result of the procedure and structure of the methodology, rather than an actual reality. Researchers have the tendency to go 'up' the tree to end with an 'origins' mother and father, while in practice, it's very unlikely every tree really only had one mother or father where the whole tree sprout forth from; in most likelihood, it will have been a small tribe, even at the beginning. And, as you correctly point out, there have even been genepool-influences by other branches of the human race, even with the Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Anyways, I think we both said what we had to say. There is a lot we seem to agree on, and for the things we do not agree, well... let's agree to disagree on those, then. ;-) Eventually, science will prove it one way or the other in a more definite way, no doubt.
"Good job repeating again what I said way the fuck up there before you got involved, like you thought of it first. I'm not going to let you try to rip off my post and pretend you invented the thing."
Well, I'm glad you agree. In which case, you'll no doubt also understand that, with a machine which is more durable, the LIFE-SPAN per definition augments as well, if you put in 7-cent parts.
You're truly being willfully obtuse here, aren't you? Or do you really not comprehend that saying "If you put a 7-cent part in a machine where a 3-cent part typically falls within the lifespan of the machine, you waste money (and labor)." simply isn't true in all cases. Are you daft, or what?
And stop your broken record about 'I said it first, I said it first!' What are you; a toddler having his tantrum? Read thsi comprehensively, and try to understand this: I am talking about YOUR SENTENCE in which you describe THE 7-cent part replacing the 3-cent part IN THAT MACHINE. I'm not talking about a 'more durable machine where you replace 6-cent parts with 35 cent parts'. that the fuck has nothing to do with what I'm saying, you only THINK it deals with that, but *I* am talking about your first part.
So where did you say "It's not always a waste of money to replace a 3-cent part with a 7-cent part"? Nowhere! And certainly not in your "cherrypicked sentence", you dumbass. You're continuing to claim you said that 'with my next sentence' but you did nothing of the sort. At least, NOT if you would understand what I'm saying is wrong with it.
This is what you said in your next sentence: " Likewise, you may find that the expensive part can go in a more-durable machine, and that said machine often replaces 6-cent parts with 35-cent parts, and so costs 4-5 times as much." and this after that: "You can take this out farther. You can build a machine that lasts thrice as long as a cheaper machine, but costs four times as much; or you can build the cheaper machine and replace it four times, and get 33% more lifetime out of the same expense. "
NEITHER says ANYTHING about the fact that, even in a NON-DURABLE machine (aka, where the 3 cent part is in), when you remove that 3-cent part with a 7-cent part, the 'lifespan' is automatically raised, so saying 'you waste money (and labor).' MAKES NO SENSE. Obviously, if you replace it while it was that part that made it non-durable, the effort WILL NOT be waste of money and labor. ON THAT MACHINE.
What do you NOT understand about this, Sherlock?
I think this is indeed the problem. you have *actual* harassment, and then you have this kind of 21st century third-generation-feminist-sensitivity, where snowflakes yell 'sexual harassment' just because she didn't get a promotion she wanted (just like the majority of the men around her, but thet she ignores), or because someone is an asshole (which isn't gender-specific neither), or a male wants to to hit on her (which is pretty normal if you're a cute/nice/intelligent/sexy women (and sometimes even if she ain't). As long as trying to gauge the interest isn't done in an aggressive way, I don't see what the problem is. that's how men and women get it on with each other, after all.
But no, nowadays, every o-so-slight remark, wink, look or gesture (or even a suggestion for 'drinking a coffee' in his room made to a woman who sits at a bar at 4 o'clock in the morning) - which normally is understood to be part of the process of getting it on - is now considered an invasion of the 'safe space' and all that BS. A lot of those women of the 3th gen feminism are nothing more than snowflakes that have been pampered as hothouse plants and raised with self-entitlement and wallow in the victimization-role.
What's more, they're doing a disservice to the rest. Because it can happen there actually IS gender-discrimination and actuall sexual harrasment - like when it's clearly said 'no', but the man still continuous to be pushy and aggressively. Those are relative rare cases, but with all the snowflake safe-space cries, who can still say how serious a certain thing is?
It's the story of the boy that cried wolf, with this kind of thing.
It's high time the BS disappears and 'rape' and 'sexual assault/harassment' gets back to the status it had before some vocal minority of women tried to pin *everything* on it. As you say: use a term for all and anything, and it looses its value. If it starts to mean everything, it looses its meaning.
Wait... you're doing exactly the same thing as what you claim I did.
You're now saying:
"If you take a machine with shit parts and make one part last 5,000 times longer, one of the other shit parts breaks first and the machine doesn't last longer."
Where I said:
"what you say here, thus, is only valid if one would replace a few 3-cent parts with 7-cent parts, AND LEAVE OTHER KEY-COMPONENTS as 3-cent parts"
That's...exactly reiterating what I said... So I'm going to ignore your last paragraph, since it's an elaborate form of ad hominem, and given your own reasons to draw the conclusion, your actually describing yourself as 'a complete idiot'.
And if you're arguing *you* already said that: you didn't. You originally said: "If you put a 7-cent part in a machine where a 3-cent part typically falls within the lifespan of the machine, you waste money (and labor)." This is obviously only true if there are more than one key component and you *only* changed one of those components to a higher quality one, and all the rest are 3-cent parts. If there is only one key component to begin with, or all the rest are already high-quality ones, or you have replaced all other 3-cent components with 7-cent components, then obviously what you say isn't true anymore.
You can claim a machine where all the other key parts are 7 cent wouldn't 'typically fall within the lifespan' of a 3-cent part, but that would contradict what you say yourself, namely that a machine, even with one 3-cent part, only lasts as long as that 3-cent part. Replace THAT part, then, and your machine becomes far more durable. The same if you change the other low quality components.
Thus, I repeat: if you change the 3-cent parts (note the plural) with 7-cent parts, your machine WILL get more durable.
So many? You gave two. And it isn't exactly clear what those examples actually prove. No, I disagree there: even myriads of loose anecdotal 'evidence' has little weight, unless it's researched and analyzed well, including the possible variables. This goes both ways, btw, so I'm remaining consistent. There isn't exactly an overabundance of scientific evidence for the Westermarck effect, granted, but at least there is some, and it has more weight to random live examples where one really have no dataset for to even make a valid conclusion. I think your link to that abstract is about the best reference you gave in your post, thus.
As for inbreeding: while the effects may be less severe and degradation much slower the bigger the population is, if I recall correctly you need a minimum of 200 individuals who are fairly genetically distinct to each other to not suffer from any biological deterioration of the species. Which is why with animals on the endangered species list, it becomes increasingly difficult to get a viable bloodline and successful continuation/propagation of the race the less genetically distinct individuals there are. The closer related a community is, the more problems one gets, which is why first and second degree incest gives the worst results. It doesn't mean cousins and nieces don't suffer from the same fate eventually, though - even if it's partially true the first time it happens it may give pretty fit offspring, in repetition through generations it will deteriorate as well. If a small community is isolated, than sooner or later all individuals of that community will be too closely related. One may counter that by saying most communities are larger than 200 people, but if people are that unrelated, I would hardly call it inbreeding in the classical sense anymore. Regardless, saying inbreeding gives you more fit people either is factual erroneous, or a (too) broad generalization to be possibly true, since first and second degree incest inherently also falls under 'inbreeding', and that *certainly* isn't conductive for producing more 'biological fitter' individuals.
As for people who are not closely related having sex, one wouldn't call that inbreeding.
Not going into the content of what you said, but it seems mildly ironic to me that in your statements you address the populace writing on slashdot as geeks, yet you implicitly seem to distance yourself from it due to your own remarks.
May I remind you, that you are also posting and reading on slashdot, and thus, for all intents and purposes, you can be considered a 'geek' by the same right. So why are you acting as what you say doesn't involve yourself? ;-)
The point of the other poster was, that you can not claim the complaints of the women are gender-specific, if you don't know what the difference would be if the ratio was different. For instance, you would need to see if, in a company where the majority of managers are women, and the minority men under them, if their behavior would be different.
Because, while it's possible that they behave as assholes, it doesn't take a specific gender to be an asshole, and that men (apparently) hit more on the women then vice versa is not a sign off gender-specificity, when the ratio of men-women indicates there are far more men than women in that company.
To be clear: I'm not saying there is or isn't, I'm just saying one has to be careful with broad statements, since bias gets in easily, if you do not statistically analyses it properly. Ones own assertions and conviction are not a substitute for this.
It's not 'despite' of that, it's BECAUSE of that.
The truth is, it's an understandable but WRONG reaction to try to shield your kids from all hardships in the world. Far better it is, to let them experience it in small amounts, so they build some resistance to adversities in life and learn to have a spine.
It's exactly because we treat our kids like hothouse plants they turn out to be such obnoxious snowflakes as adults.