Suppression of opinions do not weaken them, they make them stronger. That means that what Damore had to say was so dangerous that his views had to be crushed.
Yup. I mean I disagree with the left on economics but there you can mostly trade research papers and argue about tax policy.
However if I disagree with them on identity politics them I'm a heretic and need to be silence, fired, assaulted, etc. And the left wing media will run articles on how I deserve it.
There's nothing wrong with the memo. Writing it while employed in a nest of authoritarian leftists will obviously get you fired though.
It's Galileo wasn't wrong about physics. He would however have been very naive if he expected the church to change its views rather than crushing him like a bug.
"the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alters their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering"
How about Triffids? They're able to colonise new territory quickly, and also able to gain nutrients from... non traditional sources. They produce a valuable oil too, which can be used as a carbon neutral fuel source. Introducing triffids would also cut down on human overpopulation.
I.e. you need to give people an option for no security, passcode, fingerprint or FaceID and let them decide on what balance of security and convenience they want.
Right now it seems like the industry is either putting fingerprint scanners on the back or omitting them entirely. It's another example of a useful feature being omitted for mostly aesthetic reasons - i.e. bezel-less displays. Of course it saves on component cost too.
With gene doubling you could have a dog sized roach. You wouldn't need to buy food. It would feed itself from birds and small mammals.
I'd have achieved it if it weren't for those FOOLS AND LUDDITES at the University Ethics Board forcing me out of my lab and making me work in primitive conditions down in the sewers.
Right. But people didn't say "Oh you ignored this study, here's a link". They just tried to silence him by getting him fired. Gizmodo accused him of writing an 'anti diversity screed', and reproduced it without any of the charts and hyperlinks
Vox didn't try to address his arguments, they all said he was
The memo's stereotype-based arguments and cries for less empathy sparked immediate controversy
In Damore's memo, he states that women are more "neurotic" and have a lower "stress tolerance" than men, and that these characteristics - not systemic harassment, routinely being passed over for promotions, or other well-documented instances of sexism in tech culture - are the reason why women do not succeed as often as men do in the high-pressure industry.
He also argues that men have a "higher drive for status" than women, and suggests that this factor, rather than well-documented gender biases in the workplace, may be responsible for the lack of women in leadership positions both at Google and in the tech industry as a whole.
Finally, Damore calls for Google to "De-empathize empathy," arguing that "being emotionally unengaged [with the issue of diversity] helps us better reason about the facts." He decries political correctness, discounting the very concept of unconscious bias and arguing against unconscious bias training for Google employees.
Google's VP of diversity said it 'it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. and also refused to link to it because "itâ(TM)s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages". I.e. no one addressed his arguments - they caricatured them and effectively labelled him a heretic to the diverse faith.
And you haven't addressed his arguments. You put rational is scare quotes, implying he's actually motivated by sexism.
And I think we can all agree that as traumatic as being downvoted on slashdot is, it's not as bad as being fired. Also look at the the difference in institutional power between the two sides of the argument. The CEO and VP on one side and some hapless engineer on the other. As soon as the engineer disagreed with them, they fired him. Which was a sign to other engineers not to argue with their ideas.
Not to mention most of the media immediately sided with Google and denounced him.
In the old days the left would say that racism/sexism was 'prejudice plus power'. I.e. that white men could be sexist and racist because they held institutional power, but non whites and non men could not be because they did not. The problem with that is that the left holds institutional power these days, at least in the media and at Google. So in that case Damore could at worse be prejudiced, not actually sexist.
Isn't that what happened to Damore? He made a bunch of arguments, the left claimed they were 'offensive'. And by 'offensive' they mean 'we can't come up with a coherent counter argument, we must stop him speaking'.
It's weaponized offense really. Back in the old days of course this sort of thing was the tactic used by religious fundamentalist types and was denounced by people like Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens.
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Now it seems like the social justice left think that 'What you said is offensive' means 'You must be silenced/fired/beaten up'. In fact they've invented a whole new term - speech they don't like isn't just offensive, it's 'oppressive' to the oppressed groups they claim to speak for.
Normally they'll say something like 'silencing this sort of speech doesn't violate the First Amendment because it's not the government doing it'. Which is true in a narrow, legalistic American sense, but completely irrelevant. It's perfectly possible for freedom of speech to be violated by non governmental entities - e.g. the KKK was not a governmental organisation and was able to shut down speech they didn't like. Right now AntiFa is non governmental and does the same thing. Mobs can be incited online to get people fired or banned. All of these things violate free speech but probably not the First Amendment.
Of course a lot of people on the US have argued for Europe style hate speech laws as well, which would violate the First Amendment. E.g.
Countries throughout Europe have seen the danger in certain hate speech and have created laws that punish racist incitement without compromising their democratic values on free speech. These laws protect Jewish and other minority residents and show that societies clearly value their safety and security in their countries. These laws have not prevented all acts of racism and violence from occurring, as the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France remind us, but they send the right message to vulnerable minorities and galvanize public and police support to prevent future atrocities.
If the Oklahoma chant happened in, say, Germany and the n-word was replaced with a derogatory epithet for the Jewish people, and the method of murder was changed from lynching to something employed by the Nazis, the perpetrators would be in jail right now and few outside the extremist right would argue that an injustice was done. How can so many in American society condone this incitement as youthful indiscretion and even redirect blame away from the perpetrators to the people who have had to suffer the oppression inflicted by those who spew these vile words?
America can learn something from the international community, where the legacy and dangers of certain types of speech are better understood. We too must find an effective way to monitor and forbid dangerous speech, without unjustly infringing upon freedom of speech. We should have started the discussion long ago.
Now you know why it's irritating when people try to silence your arguments rather than trying to address them. Congratulations. You know why people despise the left.
Maybe the dawn of the $1000+ phone which is designed to be obsolete in a couple of years and need a bunch of dongles and/or new wireless headphones, a case and AppleCare to be viable means our society is in a Mobile Phone Event Horizon.
You have to wonder if 'you get what you pay for' is actually true.
Consider. I buy a Motorola phone for $200. I don't expect much from it. The odds are I'm likely to be pleasantly surprised - even though it's cheap it's not actually not too bad. Especially if I'm replacing a phone that is a couple of years old. It might turn out to be a big step up. I feel like I got an unexpected bargain and I'm happy.
The other option is I buy an iPhone X for $1000, plus some other stuff the people at the store managed to upsell me. AppleCare, some dongles, a pair of wireless headphones, a wireless charger and son on. My expectations are very high. The merest flaw and I'm really upset because I feel like I've been suckered, for some reason.
I.e. it could well be that people who buy a $200 phone may end up unexpectedly happy as they overshoot their low expectations. People who buy a $1000+ phone may be unexpectedly sad as they undershoot their high expectations.
I.e. the psychology of $1000+ phones is all wrong. Or, to put it another way, no phone is really worth $1000+.
I've worked at places that used Clearcase and it's a brilliant version control system - with dynamic views/MVFS you could do a binary search on a version tree of a file to see where a bug was introduced.
E.g if you know a bug was introduced between version 0 and version 100, try version 50. If it's still there try version 25 and so on. MVFS, dynamic views and config specs makes this easy. And they even had a version of make called clearmake that knew how to avoid doing a rebuild all
And the tools had the concept of a trivial merge - if there was only one set of changes, cleardiff was able to automerge them.
And they had a nice graphical version tree browser so you could see all the branches and merges for a file. And all the labels too. I.e. which versions of the file had passed QA tests.
It was all great, better than any version control system I've used since.
Then again it's like vxWorks really - if your client is paying for the infrastructure and licence fees, it's great. If you had to pay yourself you'd slum it with git or svn.Then again if you're the only one working, you probably don't need to do a binary search in version space to find out where someone broke something in a very subtle way.
Not really. People could scan a QR code on their receipts into a app into their smart phone. Then at the end of the year they'd submit a list of receipts and get refunded the VAT they paid on a tiered scale - so up to the first band they'd get 100% refund on vat, tailing off to 0% refund on the top band. The bands would be cunningly arranged so that poor people paid small amounts of VAT and rich people paid more.
That's only true on Earth though, What about slashdot readers who are browsing this article on other planets because they have joined the Space Cadet corps?
Eh, it's like DVD and BlueRay. Once content has been ripped to the standard it'll play fine on all your devices won't force you to watch ads and won't collect your data. Think of the groups that do it as like a firewall or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppression of opinions do not weaken them, they make them stronger. That means that what Damore had to say was so dangerous that his views had to be crushed.
Yup. I mean I disagree with the left on economics but there you can mostly trade research papers and argue about tax policy.
However if I disagree with them on identity politics them I'm a heretic and need to be silence, fired, assaulted, etc. And the left wing media will run articles on how I deserve it.
There's nothing wrong with the memo. Writing it while employed in a nest of authoritarian leftists will obviously get you fired though.
It's Galileo wasn't wrong about physics. He would however have been very naive if he expected the church to change its views rather than crushing him like a bug.
"the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alters their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering"
They're also misrepresenting what he says. As usual.
How about Triffids? They're able to colonise new territory quickly, and also able to gain nutrients from ... non traditional sources. They produce a valuable oil too, which can be used as a carbon neutral fuel source. Introducing triffids would also cut down on human overpopulation.
... and on the front too, not the back.
I.e. you need to give people an option for no security, passcode, fingerprint or FaceID and let them decide on what balance of security and convenience they want.
Right now it seems like the industry is either putting fingerprint scanners on the back or omitting them entirely. It's another example of a useful feature being omitted for mostly aesthetic reasons - i.e. bezel-less displays. Of course it saves on component cost too.
I believe House CNBC are bannermen sworn to House Apple.
With gene doubling you could have a dog sized roach. You wouldn't need to buy food. It would feed itself from birds and small mammals.
I'd have achieved it if it weren't for those FOOLS AND LUDDITES at the University Ethics Board forcing me out of my lab and making me work in primitive conditions down in the sewers.
Monsanto's alien organisms need a living human host to gestate in in order to reach maturity. Telling humans not to eat them is effectively genocide!
If Attila the Hun is on your lawn with a sword it is time to destroy, not time to hold out a welcome sign.
Maybe you should have built a border wall to keep him out.
Sticks and stones will break my bones but words are oppression and require federal regulation.
Right. But people didn't say "Oh you ignored this study, here's a link". They just tried to silence him by getting him fired. Gizmodo accused him of writing an 'anti diversity screed', and reproduced it without any of the charts and hyperlinks
https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-...
Vox called it a 'sexist screed' and said it reflected a 'divided tech culture' and said it ignored 'well documented gender biases'
https://www.vox.com/identities...
Vox didn't try to address his arguments, they all said he was
The memo's stereotype-based arguments and cries for less empathy sparked immediate controversy
In Damore's memo, he states that women are more "neurotic" and have a lower "stress tolerance" than men, and that these characteristics - not systemic harassment, routinely being passed over for promotions, or other well-documented instances of sexism in tech culture - are the reason why women do not succeed as often as men do in the high-pressure industry.
He also argues that men have a "higher drive for status" than women, and suggests that this factor, rather than well-documented gender biases in the workplace, may be responsible for the lack of women in leadership positions both at Google and in the tech industry as a whole.
Finally, Damore calls for Google to "De-empathize empathy," arguing that "being emotionally unengaged [with the issue of diversity] helps us better reason about the facts." He decries political correctness, discounting the very concept of unconscious bias and arguing against unconscious bias training for Google employees.
Google's VP of diversity said it 'it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. and also refused to link to it because "itâ(TM)s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages". I.e. no one addressed his arguments - they caricatured them and effectively labelled him a heretic to the diverse faith.
And you haven't addressed his arguments. You put rational is scare quotes, implying he's actually motivated by sexism.
And I think we can all agree that as traumatic as being downvoted on slashdot is, it's not as bad as being fired. Also look at the the difference in institutional power between the two sides of the argument. The CEO and VP on one side and some hapless engineer on the other. As soon as the engineer disagreed with them, they fired him. Which was a sign to other engineers not to argue with their ideas.
Not to mention most of the media immediately sided with Google and denounced him.
In the old days the left would say that racism/sexism was 'prejudice plus power'. I.e. that white men could be sexist and racist because they held institutional power, but non whites and non men could not be because they did not. The problem with that is that the left holds institutional power these days, at least in the media and at Google. So in that case Damore could at worse be prejudiced, not actually sexist.
Isn't that what happened to Damore? He made a bunch of arguments, the left claimed they were 'offensive'. And by 'offensive' they mean 'we can't come up with a coherent counter argument, we must stop him speaking'.
It's weaponized offense really. Back in the old days of course this sort of thing was the tactic used by religious fundamentalist types and was denounced by people like Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens.
https://www.goodreads.com/quot...
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Now it seems like the social justice left think that 'What you said is offensive' means 'You must be silenced/fired/beaten up'. In fact they've invented a whole new term - speech they don't like isn't just offensive, it's 'oppressive' to the oppressed groups they claim to speak for.
Normally they'll say something like 'silencing this sort of speech doesn't violate the First Amendment because it's not the government doing it'. Which is true in a narrow, legalistic American sense, but completely irrelevant. It's perfectly possible for freedom of speech to be violated by non governmental entities - e.g. the KKK was not a governmental organisation and was able to shut down speech they didn't like. Right now AntiFa is non governmental and does the same thing. Mobs can be incited online to get people fired or banned. All of these things violate free speech but probably not the First Amendment.
Of course a lot of people on the US have argued for Europe style hate speech laws as well, which would violate the First Amendment. E.g.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Countries throughout Europe have seen the danger in certain hate speech and have created laws that punish racist incitement without compromising their democratic values on free speech. These laws protect Jewish and other minority residents and show that societies clearly value their safety and security in their countries. These laws have not prevented all acts of racism and violence from occurring, as the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France remind us, but they send the right message to vulnerable minorities and galvanize public and police support to prevent future atrocities.
If the Oklahoma chant happened in, say, Germany and the n-word was replaced with a derogatory epithet for the Jewish people, and the method of murder was changed from lynching to something employed by the Nazis, the perpetrators would be in jail right now and few outside the extremist right would argue that an injustice was done. How can so many in American society condone this incitement as youthful indiscretion and even redirect blame away from the perpetrators to the people who have had to suffer the oppression inflicted by those who spew these vile words?
America can learn something from the international community, where the legacy and dangers of certain types of speech are better understood. We too must find an effective way to monitor and forbid dangerous speech, without unjustly infringing upon freedom of speech. We should have started the discussion long ago.
Now you know why it's irritating when people try to silence your arguments rather than trying to address them. Congratulations. You know why people despise the left.
That Peterson/Haidt conversation has loads of interesting stuff in it.
BleachBit sell a 'cloth or something' referencing former future president Clinton's comments on their software
https://www.bleachbit.org/clot...
The situation is exactly analogous to this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's no need to be upset
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Maybe the dawn of the $1000+ phone which is designed to be obsolete in a couple of years and need a bunch of dongles and/or new wireless headphones, a case and AppleCare to be viable means our society is in a Mobile Phone Event Horizon.
You have to wonder if 'you get what you pay for' is actually true.
Consider. I buy a Motorola phone for $200. I don't expect much from it. The odds are I'm likely to be pleasantly surprised - even though it's cheap it's not actually not too bad. Especially if I'm replacing a phone that is a couple of years old. It might turn out to be a big step up. I feel like I got an unexpected bargain and I'm happy.
The other option is I buy an iPhone X for $1000, plus some other stuff the people at the store managed to upsell me. AppleCare, some dongles, a pair of wireless headphones, a wireless charger and son on. My expectations are very high. The merest flaw and I'm really upset because I feel like I've been suckered, for some reason.
I.e. it could well be that people who buy a $200 phone may end up unexpectedly happy as they overshoot their low expectations. People who buy a $1000+ phone may be unexpectedly sad as they undershoot their high expectations.
I.e. the psychology of $1000+ phones is all wrong. Or, to put it another way, no phone is really worth $1000+.
... buy expensive toy, expensive toy does not make them happy.
They blame the company which made the toy.
Hey it reminds me of a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I've worked at places that used Clearcase and it's a brilliant version control system - with dynamic views/MVFS you could do a binary search on a version tree of a file to see where a bug was introduced.
E.g if you know a bug was introduced between version 0 and version 100, try version 50. If it's still there try version 25 and so on. MVFS, dynamic views and config specs makes this easy. And they even had a version of make called clearmake that knew how to avoid doing a rebuild all
https://www.ibm.com/support/kn...
And the tools had the concept of a trivial merge - if there was only one set of changes, cleardiff was able to automerge them.
And they had a nice graphical version tree browser so you could see all the branches and merges for a file. And all the labels too. I.e. which versions of the file had passed QA tests.
It was all great, better than any version control system I've used since.
Then again it's like vxWorks really - if your client is paying for the infrastructure and licence fees, it's great. If you had to pay yourself you'd slum it with git or svn.Then again if you're the only one working, you probably don't need to do a binary search in version space to find out where someone broke something in a very subtle way.
Not really. People could scan a QR code on their receipts into a app into their smart phone. Then at the end of the year they'd submit a list of receipts and get refunded the VAT they paid on a tiered scale - so up to the first band they'd get 100% refund on vat, tailing off to 0% refund on the top band. The bands would be cunningly arranged so that poor people paid small amounts of VAT and rich people paid more.
That's only true on Earth though, What about slashdot readers who are browsing this article on other planets because they have joined the Space Cadet corps?
You could reduce income tax and have a federal sales tax like VAT in the UK/EU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Eh, it's like DVD and BlueRay. Once content has been ripped to the standard it'll play fine on all your devices won't force you to watch ads and won't collect your data. Think of the groups that do it as like a firewall or something.
Or maybe Franken is guilty and Moore is innocent.