The point of the pills is to allow someone who is depressed to be able to function well enough to be able to benefit from counseling aimed at helping them cope.
People with severe depression often aren't able to function at a level where they can "face the pain and become a fully functional human being" without a chemical assist at the beginning.
Pills alone aren't the answer. Then you're just someone who has had a lifetime of behavior and patterns built around being depresses, and it isn't much different from actually BEING depressed. Pills and therapy - and you have to work at the therapy - can be life changing.
Having useful stuff to do - that's important. I think that when a person feels like what they're doing - whatever it is - matters, they will find some fulfillment.
Having artificial responsibilities tied to a job? Not so much.
I find no value in responsibilities tied to work that may or may not be meaningful in any real way. I find zero value in responsibilities tied to an arbitrary job for an arbitrary entity - they are pointless constraints on my time, energy and freedom.
I do find value in responsibilities voluntarily tied to people or persons, where my unique self is of specific value to the people or persons I'm responsible to.
What do we do when people have no "work" responsibility? We hopefully teach people to care about other people, rather than just economic gain.
If that were actually the intent, then lottery tickets and casinos would likewise require people to prove they can afford to lose that money.
They don't, and this rule is just another way that the haves are trying to remove the ability of the have nots to better their lot in life. If one thinks otherwise, one hasn't been paying attention.
Based on the comments here every time gender imbalance in tech comes up, I guess it must be because men in general just aren't biologically, emotionally, and intellectually suited to being veterinarians nowadays. Only someone with a radical SJW agenda would say that we should try and get more men in veterinary medicine.
We do. They just need to be good. By good, I mean:
- Relevant tech skills and the demonstrated ability to keep current - A "years of experience" appropriate understanding of architecture, team operations, the non-code parts of writing good code - Age appropriate interpersonal skills or better (communication, empathy, that kind of thing) - The ability to demonstrate clearly how they will generate more value than it costs to bring them onboard - Make me feel confident that it's a good fit and it looks like it'll work out for 2-3 years
That's it. A pretty low bar, I think.
With the fit part, lest anyone think that's a hidden gotcha - I'm over 45 myself and I actually prefer older people because basically, by the time someone's 45 or so, they are who they are and are generally comfortable enough in their own skin to show that at an interview. I'm biased against hiring people in their 20's because they're still figuring out their shit and while I don't have a problem with that on a personal level, I'd really rather not have them do that on my dime.
Speaking of intellectual honesty, you should try some.
Nobody is "pro-illegal" first and foremost - that's pretty dishonest to use that term, about as dishonest as "pro-abortion" is. Secondly, you're lumping the entire group of people who have different views into one mass when it's a hell of a lot more complex than that. Thirdly, you're then mocking that entire group using intentionally infantilizing and simplistic language. Finally you're blaming those people you have treated as a monolith and infantilized as entirely responsible for the tone of the discussion.
So, if you actually want to have an intellectually honest conversation you're off to a very bad start.
Here, let me help:
The only people I feel are xenophobic are people who say or cheer for people who make xenophobic remarks. I believe that It's perfectly possible to have a problem with immigration (whether legal or illegal) without being xenophobic.
I'm opposed to illegal immigration. I feel that it is an incredibly dangerous thing to do just to get here, and then when here, people are forced to live half-lives for fear of being caught. I think this leads to a situation where those here illegally are able to be exploited and ultimately that exploitation causes huge problems in many areas.
However, I do not think that deporting people is the solution. I would much rather we overhaul our immigration and guest worker policies to make it easier for people to use legal means to come here than illegal means. I think the effort would be worth it and everyone would benefit. I think we should do a sort of amnesty for people who are here illegally so that they can contribute more fully and be better protected from exploitation that hurts EVERYONE, not just them.
Some people will say that amnesty isn't "fair" to the people who came here through sanctioned means, but I think that it is. People who came here legally are able to go to the police if they are threatened, are able to partake in civic life, are able to live without having to constantly fear deportation - they are free. People who came here illegally pay a different price, and I think it balances out.
With regards to this administration - I think some may be xenophobic, as certainly the president has said some xenophobic stuff and many of his supporters cheered him on. My gut tells me it's more craven pandering to get votes than outright malevolence. I think the bigger problem with this administration in regards to immigration is that they're looking for quick fixes - they want to be seen as doing something/having some wins - and as a result they're advocating short-sighted policy initiatives that won't solve the existing problem and are causing even more problems down the line.
But sure, if you want, you can say that the entire sum of my argument boils down to 'OAMG the administration hatez the dreamers!!!111!!one!!'
Specify in your cover letter that you have to give samples because the back-end stuff, where you were able to follow best practices, is owned by your company and your front end code wound up going through a process that pretty much turned it into garbage. Give them links to the stuff you worked on that is live, but also the samples, and you'll be on your way.
If you're any good - I mean, literally, if you have a pulse and don't scream and hurl feces during your interview and demonstrate that you know at least how to slap at the keyboard and make something that works - you'll find a job.
I don't hate people who smoke - I hate people who smoke and are assholes about it. Smoke yourself silly when I don't have to smell it, fine by me. Smoke when it affects me, or make a mess that I have to deal with - no, that's not acceptable.
BTW, I also grew up when smoking was cool and smoked for decades and quit as well - climb off your fucking cross.
A friend of mine does public health work, specifically around cancer and outcomes, with a number of hospitals directly and with data from a great many more.
One of the interesting things they've found is that outcomes are greatly influenced by one's socio-economic status even when people are able to get the same treatment. Why?
Because having cancer - actually dealing with it, getting treatment for it - is complicated. Keeping on top of myriad appointments, following through on issues with insurance, basically just working with the system, is hard for people who a) have a fundamental distrust of a system that hasn't worked well for them and b) don't know enough about this particular system to navigate through it. Patients from poorer backgrounds were less likely to advocate for themselves than patients from more affluent backgrounds, and would ultimately lead to an increased mortality or worse outcomes for people in the less affluent group.
In one hospital, they addressed the problem by getting volunteers who had been through the process (either as a survivor or partner of someone who had cancer) to help them navigate through this complex process and let the patient focus instead on getting well. Lo and behold, outcomes improved - not to the same level (there were factors outside of treatment that impacted survival - such as stress), but substantially.
To say that the difference is purely biological is frankly uninformed. Sorry, chum, but when you're dealing with science that is heavily human involved, politics in fact are important considerations. And, based on the improvements in outcomes (and resultant policy changes to try and provide more assistance), I'd say in this case that politics has HELPED rather than hindered.
"Politics" is EXTREMELY relevant to medical outcome, and the fact that you were voted 5 for your comment just makes it it clear that there are a great number of people who have no idea what they're talking about, to the detriment of others.
You're an old white guy who is completely ignorant about how "classes" work, as you claim that you cannot be a member of a "victim class" by definition.
Do you have a gender? If so, congratulations, you are part of a protected class: you cannot be discriminated against because of your gender.
Do you have a race/ethnicity? If so, congratulations, you are part of a protected class: you cannot be discriminated against because of your race/ethnicity.
And in the US, people 40+ years old are a protected class when it comes to employment discrimination. Since you claim to be "old" one assumes you're past 40, so you're by definition part of one of the one protected classes that actually doesn't protect everyone Congratulations!
Yes, I get that you were aiming for funny, except I see that particular bit of misinformation (that only minorities are in protected classes) so often here, I figured I'd mention the actual facts.
When I was little, I told my brother that Cheerios were just dried up cat assholes, so that he wouldn't eat them all.
Weirdly, when I sent that anecdote in to them for possible use in a cute little "how far will kids go for Cheerios" campaign, all I got was a request to never contact them again.
Because short near-sighted bald guys with beer bellies are a dime a dozen and aren't sexy to most people. Do you understand what the words "sex" and "symbol" mean, when put together like that?
Personally, I find the article stupid - "fat lady has problem finding something glamorous to wear" isn't a fucking headline, it's every 30 seconds in any store that sells clothes in America.
The system absolutely does have ways to deal with it. The "good" solution would have been them either not having a puritanical shit-fit over someone's kinks that they got squeamish about OR, if they had any verifiable evidence or signs of abuse, to take that info to the authorities ASAP, fire Garfield with no explanation - they don't have to give one - and then shut the fuck up in public about it, offering only "no comment" to any questions.
Instead, they did the least helpful possible thing. They fired the guy with claims that his private behavior would harm their organization despite having zero evidence that he had behaved unprofessionally at any time, because they got squeamish about his kinks. They then tried to litigate this in the court of public opinion, and started making vague statements that maybe he was abusive based on their biased thinking that individuals with autism can't possibly provide full consent in a relationship. On top of that, they're opening themselves and their organization up to massive legal repercussions since they are making these claims in their capacity as leaders of the organization. And finally and worst, they muddied the waters sufficiently that it's going to be even harder to get any justice (if any is needed) for the individual they are claiming to want to protect.
The fact that they weren't able to respond with anything remotely approaching emotional maturity to this situation says to me that they are wholly unqualified to be in any position of responsibility until they grow up. They will be lucky to come out of this without their careers being turned into smoldering craters. and their abysmal handling of this has almost certainly caused far more harm to the organization than Garfield's private life would have.
I'm as socially liberal as they come, and I'm a huge fan of codes of conduct for projects in an industry where it's very clear that codes of conduct are needed. That said, I am able to understand when someone's private behavior is irrelevant to their professional behavior. In this case the situation was caused by, I'm sure, well meaning idiots who have demonstrated they don't have the emotional maturity to be in leadership positions in an organization, and just keep on proving that over and over as this thing goes on. From what I've read, other than some kind of hand gesture thing, there was zero public behavior on Garfield's part in any context related to Drupal that was also related to his private life.
For several years I was a mandated reporter and will always err on the side of reporting signs or claims of abuse so that they can be investigated. If they believed that there was abuse and they didn't go to police, then they are proving that they don't give a fuck about the person they are claiming to want to protect, and only trying (badly) to cover their asses. I don't personally care for Garfield's kinks, but that's none of my business unless and until he makes it my business, which, as far as I can tell, he hasn't.
I give him credit for at least *trying* to do things that are ultra-long shots at best.
People come up with long-shot ideas *all* *the* *time* yet they are never willing to put in effort, or risk their reputation or finances to do them. Can't say that about Musk - he knows that if he fails there will be people gleefully tearing at his corpse cackling "TOLDYASO TOLDYASO." Those same people will, of course, consistently move the goal posts when he succeeds at something, sniffing disdainfully, "It wasn't that hard!"
Anyway, with Musk, tbh, I think his cult following is kinda hilarious, but he seems to be trying to use it to try and get big shit done and doesn't seem to be hurting people in the process, so I don't really have a problem with it. The world needs brash people who set stupidly ambitious goals and only achieves 10% of them every bit as much as they need play-it-safe types who set eminently reasonable goals and achieves 90% of them.
Is Tyson someone I should be taking business advice from?
I'm not aware of him being anything but a public science personality and generally kinda cool guy, so maybe I missed that he is considered an authority on business, finance and economics?
The parent of the post you are responding to was just some ideological warrior trying to stir the pot. I'm as liberal as they come, and the only time I panic about private entities doing something is when they harm other people or behave unethically. Maybe not vilifying the private sector makes me a bad liberal, but I can easily name a number of private entities that spend big on basic research when a payday might never come, and so, too, should literally anyone who is familiar with tech.
It's because most Slashdotters are jealous morons who begrudge anyone else's success.
Seriously, look at any story about someone being successful at something and many of the responses are "well, it was obvious - ANYONE could have done it!"
They never ask the obvious follow-up: if it were obvious, if it were something anyone could have done, why didn't THEY do it and reap the rewards?
These are the same people who come up with an idea and then engage in mental masturbation about how awesome it is and how it's the most amazing thing and then never do a goddamn thing about it, but they act like that's exactly the same thing as coming up with (or borrowing) an idea and executing on it.
Ideas are easy. Everyone knows an "idea guy." But actually making shit happen is harder - extremely hard, in some cases, and takes dedication and time.
Iraq war cost us over $2T directly (and who can say how much indirectly) to give us nothing but an even worse international reputation and create a number of enemies, so I'd say this is a bargain.
Really, If raising the tax on cigarettes gets people to vote, then honestly, I'm all for it. That would mean there would be more turn out in local elections etc., and that would absolutely be a good thing.
As to what the job of government is, I'd say "addressing public health problems" is certainly a reasonable thing for the government to be involved in. Smoking is a pretty huge public health issue and smoking related issues winds up costing taxpayers vast sums of money. I don't think it's the government's job to "keep people from smoking" but I absolutely think that the government can do some things to address public health issues, things that wouldn't get done otherwise.
Things like warning labels (do you think tobacco businesses would have done that themselves?), restricting how and where tobacco can be advertised (again, lots of luck thinking they'd have voluntarily restricted themselves), and funding research into the damage tobacco does (hahaha, yeah, these are the same companies that had doctors recommending various brands) have done FAR more to curb smoking than age restrictions on purchase. Tax increases have also had an impact, though not nearly as much. And there are a number of other little things - laws prohibiting smoking in various public venues etc. and so on, have all combined to reduce smoking.
Nah, I got your point, I just think it's wrong. I think you're angry (holy shit are you angry) because your brain doesn't do one of the things that primate brains are good at doing, which is handle social cues and contexts.
Engage your rational brain for a second and ask yourself this: if the rules are "constantly changing" and "oblique" and "impenetrable" then how does most everyone else seem to know what they are? Do you think we all get a memo?
The answer is, we do not. Just the part of our brain that handles social cues and contexts seems to work better in ours than it does in yours. Instead of recognizing that fact and either developing or compensating for it, you instead choose to get angry. Which is totally your right, but please don't expect to be taken seriously when you start screeching and demanding that everyone else change just because you can't keep up.
I agree that social pressure is the way to reduce this particular problem. However, the article is about government trying to address the issue by using the tools of government, and my comment was aimed at the stupidity of that governmental approach when they have other approaches they could take that would be more effective, and how because they weren't taking the more effective governmental approach over the less effective governmental approach, they were obviously pandering and playing to the monied interests.
As to a tax on the poor - I don't see a pack of cigarettes costing $10 or $15 or $20 due to taxes as all that much more of a burden on the poor than if cigarettes cost $5 a pack. If one is in such dire straits that a $5 or $10 increase on a non-essential item is going to break them, then maybe they should stop purchasing said non-essential item.
I get that it's an addiction - it's one that I had, as I said. It's also one that was DAMN hard for me to break, and took a dozen tries over the course of my addiction. However, what it didn't do was cause me to go homeless, cause me to commit crimes in order to get a fix (even when I was flat broke), cause me to make stupid choices like "cigarettes vs. food" or "cigarettes vs. paying a utility bill", and frankly, given that we don't see a massive increase in crimes related to people stealing, turning tricks, or whatever else in order to get their nicotine fix in areas where smokes cost $15 a pack or more, I don't think most other people do any of those things, too.
To wring your hands over it being a "tax on the poor" is absurd. It's not heroin, it's not crack, it's not even alcohol - it isn't mind altering in the same way those drugs are and it doesn't cause the same insane lapses in judgement that those drugs do. It also doesn't run the risk of killing you during detox the way other drugs do. Worst case scenario is you turn into a raging asshole with a short temper while having a nicotine fit, which goes away in a matter of minutes (although the desire to smoke can last longer).
I agree that a power imbalance is a huge problem, 100% of the time - that is wholly and completely unacceptable, period.
The issue with even peers is, like I said, unless you know the other person reasonably well, you don't know what their experience has been when stuff like that has come up for work and without that knowledge, you're potentially putting them in a very uncomfortable situation.
I've been asked out on the first day at a job, which says to me that the person doing the asking had zero idea of what appropriate workplace behavior is, and probably didn't really grok that whole "human interaction" thing very well. At a bar, sure, ask someone out after barely getting to know them, since that's kind of the point of a bar for many people, but a job? That's a hard no.
I started smoking at the age of 12 (and quit at 32), and I never, ever, not even once, had a problem getting cigarettes when I was underage, and I hardly think it's any more difficult for underage people to do the same nowadays.
I'd say put all age restrictions on things - literally everything that is currently legal but with an age restriction - at the same age as the normal age of military service.
If you really want to discourage smoking, ban it from anywhere but a private residence and tax the hell out of it. Make the fine for smoking anywhere but in a private residence double per offense, starting at $50, and if the person smoking is underage, make the parent or legal guardian responsible for the fine. Make the tax for tobacco something like $25 for a pack of cigarettes. Make the fines for selling age restricted products to an underaged person draconian - first offense $5000, second offense you lose your license to sell ANYTHING age restricted, period. Tobacco isn't a necessity, it isn't an essential - tax it as the (stupid, harmful) luxury it is.
Mind you, I don't agree with the notion of doing the above, and I'm not on an anti-smoking crusade, but if the powers that be were actually serious about the public health elements of smoking they'd do more than this weak-tea pandering bullshit. They don't actually want to do anything to really break the back of big tobacco because of $$$, so they just do idiotic things like raise the age for legal purchase which plays well to some people, but is basically ignored.
If people are telling you "fuck off, creep!" when you compliment their shoes, and doing so regularly, then maybe the problem IS you.
Really, though, the situation you described had nothing to do with what I wrote, so I have no idea why you bring it up. I intentionally said commenting inappropriately. If someone turns into a raging asshole because someone commented innocently and non-creepily on their shoes, that's on them.
That some people may respond badly to completely non-creepy compliments does not make it AOK to suggest that women are at fault for "dressing sexy" and being told how they should dress because men are, according to the person I responded to, really not responsible for their behavior when they see an attractive woman and it's kind of the woman's fault.
I never said I expect you (or anyone) to comply with "oblique sexist societal rules" - I said, and I think I said it pretty fucking clearly, that I expect people to restrain themselves and behave appropriately in a given situation. Note that I said PEOPLE. As in, no particular gender.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of the pills is to allow someone who is depressed to be able to function well enough to be able to benefit from counseling aimed at helping them cope.
People with severe depression often aren't able to function at a level where they can "face the pain and become a fully functional human being" without a chemical assist at the beginning.
Pills alone aren't the answer. Then you're just someone who has had a lifetime of behavior and patterns built around being depresses, and it isn't much different from actually BEING depressed. Pills and therapy - and you have to work at the therapy - can be life changing.
I agree and disagree.
Having useful stuff to do - that's important. I think that when a person feels like what they're doing - whatever it is - matters, they will find some fulfillment.
Having artificial responsibilities tied to a job? Not so much.
I find no value in responsibilities tied to work that may or may not be meaningful in any real way. I find zero value in responsibilities tied to an arbitrary job for an arbitrary entity - they are pointless constraints on my time, energy and freedom.
I do find value in responsibilities voluntarily tied to people or persons, where my unique self is of specific value to the people or persons I'm responsible to.
What do we do when people have no "work" responsibility? We hopefully teach people to care about other people, rather than just economic gain.
If that were actually the intent, then lottery tickets and casinos would likewise require people to prove they can afford to lose that money.
They don't, and this rule is just another way that the haves are trying to remove the ability of the have nots to better their lot in life. If one thinks otherwise, one hasn't been paying attention.
Based on the comments here every time gender imbalance in tech comes up, I guess it must be because men in general just aren't biologically, emotionally, and intellectually suited to being veterinarians nowadays. Only someone with a radical SJW agenda would say that we should try and get more men in veterinary medicine.
We do. They just need to be good. By good, I mean:
- Relevant tech skills and the demonstrated ability to keep current
- A "years of experience" appropriate understanding of architecture, team operations, the non-code parts of writing good code
- Age appropriate interpersonal skills or better (communication, empathy, that kind of thing)
- The ability to demonstrate clearly how they will generate more value than it costs to bring them onboard
- Make me feel confident that it's a good fit and it looks like it'll work out for 2-3 years
That's it. A pretty low bar, I think.
With the fit part, lest anyone think that's a hidden gotcha - I'm over 45 myself and I actually prefer older people because basically, by the time someone's 45 or so, they are who they are and are generally comfortable enough in their own skin to show that at an interview. I'm biased against hiring people in their 20's because they're still figuring out their shit and while I don't have a problem with that on a personal level, I'd really rather not have them do that on my dime.
Speaking of intellectual honesty, you should try some.
Nobody is "pro-illegal" first and foremost - that's pretty dishonest to use that term, about as dishonest as "pro-abortion" is. Secondly, you're lumping the entire group of people who have different views into one mass when it's a hell of a lot more complex than that. Thirdly, you're then mocking that entire group using intentionally infantilizing and simplistic language. Finally you're blaming those people you have treated as a monolith and infantilized as entirely responsible for the tone of the discussion.
So, if you actually want to have an intellectually honest conversation you're off to a very bad start.
Here, let me help:
The only people I feel are xenophobic are people who say or cheer for people who make xenophobic remarks. I believe that It's perfectly possible to have a problem with immigration (whether legal or illegal) without being xenophobic.
I'm opposed to illegal immigration. I feel that it is an incredibly dangerous thing to do just to get here, and then when here, people are forced to live half-lives for fear of being caught. I think this leads to a situation where those here illegally are able to be exploited and ultimately that exploitation causes huge problems in many areas.
However, I do not think that deporting people is the solution. I would much rather we overhaul our immigration and guest worker policies to make it easier for people to use legal means to come here than illegal means. I think the effort would be worth it and everyone would benefit. I think we should do a sort of amnesty for people who are here illegally so that they can contribute more fully and be better protected from exploitation that hurts EVERYONE, not just them.
Some people will say that amnesty isn't "fair" to the people who came here through sanctioned means, but I think that it is. People who came here legally are able to go to the police if they are threatened, are able to partake in civic life, are able to live without having to constantly fear deportation - they are free. People who came here illegally pay a different price, and I think it balances out.
With regards to this administration - I think some may be xenophobic, as certainly the president has said some xenophobic stuff and many of his supporters cheered him on. My gut tells me it's more craven pandering to get votes than outright malevolence. I think the bigger problem with this administration in regards to immigration is that they're looking for quick fixes - they want to be seen as doing something/having some wins - and as a result they're advocating short-sighted policy initiatives that won't solve the existing problem and are causing even more problems down the line.
But sure, if you want, you can say that the entire sum of my argument boils down to 'OAMG the administration hatez the dreamers!!!111!!one!!'
Specify in your cover letter that you have to give samples because the back-end stuff, where you were able to follow best practices, is owned by your company and your front end code wound up going through a process that pretty much turned it into garbage. Give them links to the stuff you worked on that is live, but also the samples, and you'll be on your way.
If you're any good - I mean, literally, if you have a pulse and don't scream and hurl feces during your interview and demonstrate that you know at least how to slap at the keyboard and make something that works - you'll find a job.
I don't hate people who smoke - I hate people who smoke and are assholes about it. Smoke yourself silly when I don't have to smell it, fine by me. Smoke when it affects me, or make a mess that I have to deal with - no, that's not acceptable.
BTW, I also grew up when smoking was cool and smoked for decades and quit as well - climb off your fucking cross.
A baggie will still let you swipe, no problem, and doesn't cost $30.
I use 'em on my kindle, phone and tablet when I want to use them and soak in the tub or float in the pool.
Or a Paperwhite and a $.02 ziplock baggie...
Bzzt, wrong answer.
A friend of mine does public health work, specifically around cancer and outcomes, with a number of hospitals directly and with data from a great many more.
One of the interesting things they've found is that outcomes are greatly influenced by one's socio-economic status even when people are able to get the same treatment. Why?
Because having cancer - actually dealing with it, getting treatment for it - is complicated. Keeping on top of myriad appointments, following through on issues with insurance, basically just working with the system, is hard for people who a) have a fundamental distrust of a system that hasn't worked well for them and b) don't know enough about this particular system to navigate through it. Patients from poorer backgrounds were less likely to advocate for themselves than patients from more affluent backgrounds, and would ultimately lead to an increased mortality or worse outcomes for people in the less affluent group.
In one hospital, they addressed the problem by getting volunteers who had been through the process (either as a survivor or partner of someone who had cancer) to help them navigate through this complex process and let the patient focus instead on getting well. Lo and behold, outcomes improved - not to the same level (there were factors outside of treatment that impacted survival - such as stress), but substantially.
To say that the difference is purely biological is frankly uninformed. Sorry, chum, but when you're dealing with science that is heavily human involved, politics in fact are important considerations. And, based on the improvements in outcomes (and resultant policy changes to try and provide more assistance), I'd say in this case that politics has HELPED rather than hindered.
"Politics" is EXTREMELY relevant to medical outcome, and the fact that you were voted 5 for your comment just makes it it clear that there are a great number of people who have no idea what they're talking about, to the detriment of others.
Assuming you're in the US...
You're an old white guy who is completely ignorant about how "classes" work, as you claim that you cannot be a member of a "victim class" by definition.
Do you have a gender? If so, congratulations, you are part of a protected class: you cannot be discriminated against because of your gender.
Do you have a race/ethnicity? If so, congratulations, you are part of a protected class: you cannot be discriminated against because of your race/ethnicity.
And in the US, people 40+ years old are a protected class when it comes to employment discrimination. Since you claim to be "old" one assumes you're past 40, so you're by definition part of one of the one protected classes that actually doesn't protect everyone Congratulations!
Yes, I get that you were aiming for funny, except I see that particular bit of misinformation (that only minorities are in protected classes) so often here, I figured I'd mention the actual facts.
When I was little, I told my brother that Cheerios were just dried up cat assholes, so that he wouldn't eat them all.
Weirdly, when I sent that anecdote in to them for possible use in a cute little "how far will kids go for Cheerios" campaign, all I got was a request to never contact them again.
Because short near-sighted bald guys with beer bellies are a dime a dozen and aren't sexy to most people. Do you understand what the words "sex" and "symbol" mean, when put together like that?
Personally, I find the article stupid - "fat lady has problem finding something glamorous to wear" isn't a fucking headline, it's every 30 seconds in any store that sells clothes in America.
The system absolutely does have ways to deal with it. The "good" solution would have been them either not having a puritanical shit-fit over someone's kinks that they got squeamish about OR, if they had any verifiable evidence or signs of abuse, to take that info to the authorities ASAP, fire Garfield with no explanation - they don't have to give one - and then shut the fuck up in public about it, offering only "no comment" to any questions.
Instead, they did the least helpful possible thing. They fired the guy with claims that his private behavior would harm their organization despite having zero evidence that he had behaved unprofessionally at any time, because they got squeamish about his kinks. They then tried to litigate this in the court of public opinion, and started making vague statements that maybe he was abusive based on their biased thinking that individuals with autism can't possibly provide full consent in a relationship. On top of that, they're opening themselves and their organization up to massive legal repercussions since they are making these claims in their capacity as leaders of the organization. And finally and worst, they muddied the waters sufficiently that it's going to be even harder to get any justice (if any is needed) for the individual they are claiming to want to protect.
The fact that they weren't able to respond with anything remotely approaching emotional maturity to this situation says to me that they are wholly unqualified to be in any position of responsibility until they grow up. They will be lucky to come out of this without their careers being turned into smoldering craters. and their abysmal handling of this has almost certainly caused far more harm to the organization than Garfield's private life would have.
I'm as socially liberal as they come, and I'm a huge fan of codes of conduct for projects in an industry where it's very clear that codes of conduct are needed. That said, I am able to understand when someone's private behavior is irrelevant to their professional behavior. In this case the situation was caused by, I'm sure, well meaning idiots who have demonstrated they don't have the emotional maturity to be in leadership positions in an organization, and just keep on proving that over and over as this thing goes on. From what I've read, other than some kind of hand gesture thing, there was zero public behavior on Garfield's part in any context related to Drupal that was also related to his private life.
For several years I was a mandated reporter and will always err on the side of reporting signs or claims of abuse so that they can be investigated. If they believed that there was abuse and they didn't go to police, then they are proving that they don't give a fuck about the person they are claiming to want to protect, and only trying (badly) to cover their asses. I don't personally care for Garfield's kinks, but that's none of my business unless and until he makes it my business, which, as far as I can tell, he hasn't.
I give him credit for at least *trying* to do things that are ultra-long shots at best.
People come up with long-shot ideas *all* *the* *time* yet they are never willing to put in effort, or risk their reputation or finances to do them. Can't say that about Musk - he knows that if he fails there will be people gleefully tearing at his corpse cackling "TOLDYASO TOLDYASO." Those same people will, of course, consistently move the goal posts when he succeeds at something, sniffing disdainfully, "It wasn't that hard!"
Anyway, with Musk, tbh, I think his cult following is kinda hilarious, but he seems to be trying to use it to try and get big shit done and doesn't seem to be hurting people in the process, so I don't really have a problem with it. The world needs brash people who set stupidly ambitious goals and only achieves 10% of them every bit as much as they need play-it-safe types who set eminently reasonable goals and achieves 90% of them.
Is Tyson someone I should be taking business advice from?
I'm not aware of him being anything but a public science personality and generally kinda cool guy, so maybe I missed that he is considered an authority on business, finance and economics?
The parent of the post you are responding to was just some ideological warrior trying to stir the pot. I'm as liberal as they come, and the only time I panic about private entities doing something is when they harm other people or behave unethically. Maybe not vilifying the private sector makes me a bad liberal, but I can easily name a number of private entities that spend big on basic research when a payday might never come, and so, too, should literally anyone who is familiar with tech.
It's because most Slashdotters are jealous morons who begrudge anyone else's success.
Seriously, look at any story about someone being successful at something and many of the responses are "well, it was obvious - ANYONE could have done it!"
They never ask the obvious follow-up: if it were obvious, if it were something anyone could have done, why didn't THEY do it and reap the rewards?
These are the same people who come up with an idea and then engage in mental masturbation about how awesome it is and how it's the most amazing thing and then never do a goddamn thing about it, but they act like that's exactly the same thing as coming up with (or borrowing) an idea and executing on it.
Ideas are easy. Everyone knows an "idea guy." But actually making shit happen is harder - extremely hard, in some cases, and takes dedication and time.
Iraq war cost us over $2T directly (and who can say how much indirectly) to give us nothing but an even worse international reputation and create a number of enemies, so I'd say this is a bargain.
Really, If raising the tax on cigarettes gets people to vote, then honestly, I'm all for it. That would mean there would be more turn out in local elections etc., and that would absolutely be a good thing.
As to what the job of government is, I'd say "addressing public health problems" is certainly a reasonable thing for the government to be involved in. Smoking is a pretty huge public health issue and smoking related issues winds up costing taxpayers vast sums of money. I don't think it's the government's job to "keep people from smoking" but I absolutely think that the government can do some things to address public health issues, things that wouldn't get done otherwise.
Things like warning labels (do you think tobacco businesses would have done that themselves?), restricting how and where tobacco can be advertised (again, lots of luck thinking they'd have voluntarily restricted themselves), and funding research into the damage tobacco does (hahaha, yeah, these are the same companies that had doctors recommending various brands) have done FAR more to curb smoking than age restrictions on purchase. Tax increases have also had an impact, though not nearly as much. And there are a number of other little things - laws prohibiting smoking in various public venues etc. and so on, have all combined to reduce smoking.
Nah, I got your point, I just think it's wrong. I think you're angry (holy shit are you angry) because your brain doesn't do one of the things that primate brains are good at doing, which is handle social cues and contexts.
Engage your rational brain for a second and ask yourself this: if the rules are "constantly changing" and "oblique" and "impenetrable" then how does most everyone else seem to know what they are? Do you think we all get a memo?
The answer is, we do not. Just the part of our brain that handles social cues and contexts seems to work better in ours than it does in yours. Instead of recognizing that fact and either developing or compensating for it, you instead choose to get angry. Which is totally your right, but please don't expect to be taken seriously when you start screeching and demanding that everyone else change just because you can't keep up.
I agree that social pressure is the way to reduce this particular problem. However, the article is about government trying to address the issue by using the tools of government, and my comment was aimed at the stupidity of that governmental approach when they have other approaches they could take that would be more effective, and how because they weren't taking the more effective governmental approach over the less effective governmental approach, they were obviously pandering and playing to the monied interests.
As to a tax on the poor - I don't see a pack of cigarettes costing $10 or $15 or $20 due to taxes as all that much more of a burden on the poor than if cigarettes cost $5 a pack. If one is in such dire straits that a $5 or $10 increase on a non-essential item is going to break them, then maybe they should stop purchasing said non-essential item.
I get that it's an addiction - it's one that I had, as I said. It's also one that was DAMN hard for me to break, and took a dozen tries over the course of my addiction. However, what it didn't do was cause me to go homeless, cause me to commit crimes in order to get a fix (even when I was flat broke), cause me to make stupid choices like "cigarettes vs. food" or "cigarettes vs. paying a utility bill", and frankly, given that we don't see a massive increase in crimes related to people stealing, turning tricks, or whatever else in order to get their nicotine fix in areas where smokes cost $15 a pack or more, I don't think most other people do any of those things, too.
To wring your hands over it being a "tax on the poor" is absurd. It's not heroin, it's not crack, it's not even alcohol - it isn't mind altering in the same way those drugs are and it doesn't cause the same insane lapses in judgement that those drugs do. It also doesn't run the risk of killing you during detox the way other drugs do. Worst case scenario is you turn into a raging asshole with a short temper while having a nicotine fit, which goes away in a matter of minutes (although the desire to smoke can last longer).
I agree that a power imbalance is a huge problem, 100% of the time - that is wholly and completely unacceptable, period.
The issue with even peers is, like I said, unless you know the other person reasonably well, you don't know what their experience has been when stuff like that has come up for work and without that knowledge, you're potentially putting them in a very uncomfortable situation.
I've been asked out on the first day at a job, which says to me that the person doing the asking had zero idea of what appropriate workplace behavior is, and probably didn't really grok that whole "human interaction" thing very well. At a bar, sure, ask someone out after barely getting to know them, since that's kind of the point of a bar for many people, but a job? That's a hard no.
I started smoking at the age of 12 (and quit at 32), and I never, ever, not even once, had a problem getting cigarettes when I was underage, and I hardly think it's any more difficult for underage people to do the same nowadays.
I'd say put all age restrictions on things - literally everything that is currently legal but with an age restriction - at the same age as the normal age of military service.
If you really want to discourage smoking, ban it from anywhere but a private residence and tax the hell out of it. Make the fine for smoking anywhere but in a private residence double per offense, starting at $50, and if the person smoking is underage, make the parent or legal guardian responsible for the fine. Make the tax for tobacco something like $25 for a pack of cigarettes. Make the fines for selling age restricted products to an underaged person draconian - first offense $5000, second offense you lose your license to sell ANYTHING age restricted, period. Tobacco isn't a necessity, it isn't an essential - tax it as the (stupid, harmful) luxury it is.
Mind you, I don't agree with the notion of doing the above, and I'm not on an anti-smoking crusade, but if the powers that be were actually serious about the public health elements of smoking they'd do more than this weak-tea pandering bullshit. They don't actually want to do anything to really break the back of big tobacco because of $$$, so they just do idiotic things like raise the age for legal purchase which plays well to some people, but is basically ignored.
If people are telling you "fuck off, creep!" when you compliment their shoes, and doing so regularly, then maybe the problem IS you.
Really, though, the situation you described had nothing to do with what I wrote, so I have no idea why you bring it up. I intentionally said commenting inappropriately. If someone turns into a raging asshole because someone commented innocently and non-creepily on their shoes, that's on them.
That some people may respond badly to completely non-creepy compliments does not make it AOK to suggest that women are at fault for "dressing sexy" and being told how they should dress because men are, according to the person I responded to, really not responsible for their behavior when they see an attractive woman and it's kind of the woman's fault.
I never said I expect you (or anyone) to comply with "oblique sexist societal rules" - I said, and I think I said it pretty fucking clearly, that I expect people to restrain themselves and behave appropriately in a given situation. Note that I said PEOPLE. As in, no particular gender.