I don't think anyone is staying away from the Emoji movie because of an evil leftist agenda. They're staying away because it sucks, and because streaming services like Netflix and Amazon can provide better entertainment at a lot better price.
The entire fucking memo. Why write it at all? And why play coy. We all know what Damore was arguing. We all know what he thinks of Google's diversity policy. All of a sudden a memo claiming to have detailed research about cognitive and behaviorial differences between men and women in technical fields isn't about claims of detailed research into cognitive and behavioral differences between men and women?
I love how your lot try to play both ends of this; that Google's hiring practices are irrational and "SJW", but at the same time that Damore somehow wasn't making that point at all. At least Damore has the fucking balls to stick by his views.
But he's not making an argument based on individuals, he's making what he believes to be a statistical analysis. No, he doesn't say Martha two cubicles down is unworthy of her position, he is saying that there are a percentage of Google's female employees who shouldn't have been hired for those positions. His concession that individual abilities may vary is simply his way of trying to couch his argument so he isn't calling out Martha specifically. After all, she may be that statistical outlier that is qualified!
If you're asserting a hiring diversity policy is leading to the employment of people in positions for which they are statistically less capable than their opposite gender counterparts, then you're asserting that there are coworkers of the other gender which do not deserve the positions they got. And please, don't try to deny it, because the entire memo was an attack on Google's diversity hiring policies. Clearly mr. Damore believes that unworthy people have been hired to meet HR diversity rules,
Thank you. And yet my first post on this thread has been labeled as -1 Troll. There are a lot of Libertarians who desperately want women to suck bad at things, it appears.
Whatever his intent, what he did was embarrass his employer, assert at least some portion of his female coworkers were unworthy, and got himself fired. If he wasn't aware that that was the end result of that memo, then I posit that Mr. Damore has some cognitive problems of his own.
In a company, statements made by employees must be also judged against a company's mission, against the effect on coworkers and perceptions of the company in the wider society. Clearly, whatever Mr. Damore's gifts may be, an ability to assess what writing the memo he did would do to his career prospects at Google wasn't among them.
Maybe Mr. Damore isn't quite the champion of the victimized male that people want to believe. But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD. In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
It's a fact that the average male could use physical force to rape the average woman.
Would you think it appropriate that that be placed in a company memo?
Not everything that is true (and there is still considerable debate in the psychological and neurological communities about precisely what the gender-based cogntiive and behavioral differences are, but let's give Mr. Damore the benefit of the doubt) should be vocalized. Part of getting along in societies, big or small, is learning what to say at times, and when to say it. When you're basically going to call out a portion of your coworkers as undeserving of their job (and let's be blunt, that is his argument, no matter how he tried to qualify it), well, you can hardly be surprised when people react pretty fucking poorly.
In the end, he still says his gender has the edge in technical fields. He can couch the claim all he wants, add all the qualifiers he can think of, but his ultiamte statement was "people with an XY chromosome are more likely to be good in technical fields than people with XX chromosomes." Couple that with the fact that Google does have diversity hiring quotas, he's heavily inferring that at least some of his female peers don't deserve the job they're in.
Google isn't a democracy, and just because people won't openly condemn a coworker doesn't mean he hasn't poisoned the well.
There isn't a Fortune 500 company, or indeed any company of over a couple of hundred employees that probably would keep this guy on now. If he didn't know he was going to get fired, or at the very least penalized for this memo (even if he never intended it to get to the wider audience it ended up in the hands of), well then maybe Mr. James Damore ain't so fucking bright himself.
If you were one of his female peers, how would you have felt about contining to work alongside Mr. Damore, knowing now that he likely felt you had got your job through what he viewed as prejudiced and unfair hiring practices?
The problem with someone like Mr. Damore is that their views, whether well researched or not, create toxic work environments, precisely the kind of environment that many organizations are trying to eliminate through increasing diversity. There's more to a job than just duties, there's also being able to get along with your peers, and not basically denigrate some portion of them as unworthy beneficiaries of unfair hiring practices.
Now I think Google management probably could have handled this better, either by putting a letter to file and either moving him out of the department he was in, or at least demanding some sort of an apology or explanation. But the fact was that he pulled the pin on a metaphorical grenade, and if he was unaware of the events that would follow, then I suggest that Mr. Damore may have his own set of cognitive and behavior issues.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
I don't know at this stage how anyone could think the Russians didn't try to meddle with the election. The Russians have also attempted to muck about with recent European elections as well. The Russians are not the West's friends, and seeking division and chaos among the Western powers is critical, seeing as economically they are a midget, and even militarily they could not hope to meet the power of NATO. They have nukes, cheap oil and hackers.
When the FCC decides that mobile data speeds are all the bandwidth anyone needs, they're basically saying large parts of the United States are fine with the same level of bandwidth to be found in large portions of India.
Translation: I have no real clue how either climatology or economics work, but if I use the words "problem", "mathematical" and "model" enough times, somehow that wins the argument for me.
The real problem here, sir, is you don't have the vaguest idea what the fuck you're talking about. If you have some alternative explanation as to where the energy increased CO2 concentrations will inevitably trap in the lower atmosphere are going, then by all means provide it. But this rambling word salad only demonstrates your ignorance.
In some areas better food production, in other ways much worse. While in the medium term you could see more precipitation in the American Midwest, in the long term it will mean higher precipitation in winter and much less in summer, with much higher temperatures. In other words, one of North America's major bread baskets will become less conducive to agriculture. So yes, while they may be growing wheat in the Northwest Territories, for the US it could, in a hundred years mean less food security and more reliance on imports. Rinse and repeat for several grain-growing regions around the world. And understand that the patterns of civilization are still largely based on climactic conditions that came into place at the end of the last glacial period, so we're talking about billions of people living in regions that may, in a century, be far less capable of sustaining those populations.
Oh, and let's talk about the collapse of fisheries because the other really bad side effect of higher concentrations of CO2 is significant alterations of pH levels in the oceans, meaning more dead zones and large algal blooms which are going to choke out a lot of ocean life.
I'd say we can't really handle getting warmer any better than we can handle getting colder. In either case, there are a whole lot of people who are going to find food costs rising, and while the developed world may be able to absorb those higher costs, more marginal populations may have a harder time. The other thing to factor in is that people just don't sit on their chunk of land now being turned into an inhospitable desert where they can't grow crops or raise livestock, or where rising sea levels and more powerful storm systems wipe out their crops. They get up and move, so you'll see more large scale migrations, so if you think Syria's disintegration is bad, wait fifty years.
Trying to extol some modest benefits to climate change without mentioning the significant economic and social costs seems at best naive, and at worst disingenuous to me.
You're either a liar or an fucking moron . CO2's absorption properties and the consequences of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been known for over a century. And your "20 year claim" is nothing more than cherry picked nonsense that is, on the face of it false. So I'm leaning towards lying troll, but low IQ moron is also possible.
You're not a scientist. You're a victim of the Salem Hypothesis.
If you have some special knowledge of climatology, then perhaps, just perhaps, you can pontificate, otherwise, you're just another fucking engineer (and a software engineer at that, so some might not even consider you an engineer in any meaningful sense) on a topic for which you have no fucking qualifications whatsoever. What you're trying to do is assert a fallacious appeal to authority, asserting because you had training in "computer science" that that makes you a scientist, and further that that allows you to lecture on the nature of a specific science.
Well yes, during epochs like when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. But the issue here isn't that the Earth has been hotter, the issue is that it has never been so hot and supported human civilization. You understand the patterns of where civilizations have developed over the last 10,000 is intrinsically tied to post-glacial climate, and now that we're seriously fucking that up, there are going to be significant impacts on the descendants of those civilizations. In other words, pretty much everyone alive today, and over the next century.
Slashdot Mirror
The lesson: Buy land adjacent to bodies of water at your own risk.
I don't think anyone is staying away from the Emoji movie because of an evil leftist agenda. They're staying away because it sucks, and because streaming services like Netflix and Amazon can provide better entertainment at a lot better price.
The entire fucking memo. Why write it at all? And why play coy. We all know what Damore was arguing. We all know what he thinks of Google's diversity policy. All of a sudden a memo claiming to have detailed research about cognitive and behaviorial differences between men and women in technical fields isn't about claims of detailed research into cognitive and behavioral differences between men and women?
I love how your lot try to play both ends of this; that Google's hiring practices are irrational and "SJW", but at the same time that Damore somehow wasn't making that point at all. At least Damore has the fucking balls to stick by his views.
But he's not making an argument based on individuals, he's making what he believes to be a statistical analysis. No, he doesn't say Martha two cubicles down is unworthy of her position, he is saying that there are a percentage of Google's female employees who shouldn't have been hired for those positions. His concession that individual abilities may vary is simply his way of trying to couch his argument so he isn't calling out Martha specifically. After all, she may be that statistical outlier that is qualified!
If you're asserting a hiring diversity policy is leading to the employment of people in positions for which they are statistically less capable than their opposite gender counterparts, then you're asserting that there are coworkers of the other gender which do not deserve the positions they got. And please, don't try to deny it, because the entire memo was an attack on Google's diversity hiring policies. Clearly mr. Damore believes that unworthy people have been hired to meet HR diversity rules,
Thank you. And yet my first post on this thread has been labeled as -1 Troll. There are a lot of Libertarians who desperately want women to suck bad at things, it appears.
Whatever his intent, what he did was embarrass his employer, assert at least some portion of his female coworkers were unworthy, and got himself fired. If he wasn't aware that that was the end result of that memo, then I posit that Mr. Damore has some cognitive problems of his own.
In a company, statements made by employees must be also judged against a company's mission, against the effect on coworkers and perceptions of the company in the wider society. Clearly, whatever Mr. Damore's gifts may be, an ability to assess what writing the memo he did would do to his career prospects at Google wasn't among them.
No, he does not have a PhD in biology. He apparently abandoned that before completion.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Maybe Mr. Damore isn't quite the champion of the victimized male that people want to believe. But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD. In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
It's a fact that the average male could use physical force to rape the average woman.
Would you think it appropriate that that be placed in a company memo?
Not everything that is true (and there is still considerable debate in the psychological and neurological communities about precisely what the gender-based cogntiive and behavioral differences are, but let's give Mr. Damore the benefit of the doubt) should be vocalized. Part of getting along in societies, big or small, is learning what to say at times, and when to say it. When you're basically going to call out a portion of your coworkers as undeserving of their job (and let's be blunt, that is his argument, no matter how he tried to qualify it), well, you can hardly be surprised when people react pretty fucking poorly.
In the end, he still says his gender has the edge in technical fields. He can couch the claim all he wants, add all the qualifiers he can think of, but his ultiamte statement was "people with an XY chromosome are more likely to be good in technical fields than people with XX chromosomes." Couple that with the fact that Google does have diversity hiring quotas, he's heavily inferring that at least some of his female peers don't deserve the job they're in.
Google isn't a democracy, and just because people won't openly condemn a coworker doesn't mean he hasn't poisoned the well.
There isn't a Fortune 500 company, or indeed any company of over a couple of hundred employees that probably would keep this guy on now. If he didn't know he was going to get fired, or at the very least penalized for this memo (even if he never intended it to get to the wider audience it ended up in the hands of), well then maybe Mr. James Damore ain't so fucking bright himself.
If you were one of his female peers, how would you have felt about contining to work alongside Mr. Damore, knowing now that he likely felt you had got your job through what he viewed as prejudiced and unfair hiring practices?
The problem with someone like Mr. Damore is that their views, whether well researched or not, create toxic work environments, precisely the kind of environment that many organizations are trying to eliminate through increasing diversity. There's more to a job than just duties, there's also being able to get along with your peers, and not basically denigrate some portion of them as unworthy beneficiaries of unfair hiring practices.
Now I think Google management probably could have handled this better, either by putting a letter to file and either moving him out of the department he was in, or at least demanding some sort of an apology or explanation. But the fact was that he pulled the pin on a metaphorical grenade, and if he was unaware of the events that would follow, then I suggest that Mr. Damore may have his own set of cognitive and behavior issues.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
Or not...
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-...
Jesus Christ, why not just bring up Pizzagate while your at it?
I don't know at this stage how anyone could think the Russians didn't try to meddle with the election. The Russians have also attempted to muck about with recent European elections as well. The Russians are not the West's friends, and seeking division and chaos among the Western powers is critical, seeing as economically they are a midget, and even militarily they could not hope to meet the power of NATO. They have nukes, cheap oil and hackers.
When the FCC decides that mobile data speeds are all the bandwidth anyone needs, they're basically saying large parts of the United States are fine with the same level of bandwidth to be found in large portions of India.
Bullshit. Provide your citation.
Translation: I have no real clue how either climatology or economics work, but if I use the words "problem", "mathematical" and "model" enough times, somehow that wins the argument for me.
The real problem here, sir, is you don't have the vaguest idea what the fuck you're talking about. If you have some alternative explanation as to where the energy increased CO2 concentrations will inevitably trap in the lower atmosphere are going, then by all means provide it. But this rambling word salad only demonstrates your ignorance.
In some areas better food production, in other ways much worse. While in the medium term you could see more precipitation in the American Midwest, in the long term it will mean higher precipitation in winter and much less in summer, with much higher temperatures. In other words, one of North America's major bread baskets will become less conducive to agriculture. So yes, while they may be growing wheat in the Northwest Territories, for the US it could, in a hundred years mean less food security and more reliance on imports. Rinse and repeat for several grain-growing regions around the world. And understand that the patterns of civilization are still largely based on climactic conditions that came into place at the end of the last glacial period, so we're talking about billions of people living in regions that may, in a century, be far less capable of sustaining those populations.
Oh, and let's talk about the collapse of fisheries because the other really bad side effect of higher concentrations of CO2 is significant alterations of pH levels in the oceans, meaning more dead zones and large algal blooms which are going to choke out a lot of ocean life.
I'd say we can't really handle getting warmer any better than we can handle getting colder. In either case, there are a whole lot of people who are going to find food costs rising, and while the developed world may be able to absorb those higher costs, more marginal populations may have a harder time. The other thing to factor in is that people just don't sit on their chunk of land now being turned into an inhospitable desert where they can't grow crops or raise livestock, or where rising sea levels and more powerful storm systems wipe out their crops. They get up and move, so you'll see more large scale migrations, so if you think Syria's disintegration is bad, wait fifty years.
Trying to extol some modest benefits to climate change without mentioning the significant economic and social costs seems at best naive, and at worst disingenuous to me.
You're either a liar or an fucking moron . CO2's absorption properties and the consequences of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been known for over a century. And your "20 year claim" is nothing more than cherry picked nonsense that is, on the face of it false. So I'm leaning towards lying troll, but low IQ moron is also possible.
You're not a scientist. You're a victim of the Salem Hypothesis.
If you have some special knowledge of climatology, then perhaps, just perhaps, you can pontificate, otherwise, you're just another fucking engineer (and a software engineer at that, so some might not even consider you an engineer in any meaningful sense) on a topic for which you have no fucking qualifications whatsoever. What you're trying to do is assert a fallacious appeal to authority, asserting because you had training in "computer science" that that makes you a scientist, and further that that allows you to lecture on the nature of a specific science.
Well yes, during epochs like when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. But the issue here isn't that the Earth has been hotter, the issue is that it has never been so hot and supported human civilization. You understand the patterns of where civilizations have developed over the last 10,000 is intrinsically tied to post-glacial climate, and now that we're seriously fucking that up, there are going to be significant impacts on the descendants of those civilizations. In other words, pretty much everyone alive today, and over the next century.
None of this answers the question. How many South Koreans are willing to sacrifice to take on North Korea?