Yes, I would rather people be campaigning for Universal Basic Employment. That is, a system where everyone would always have access to a job that paid basic living expenses, a job built around each person's particular skill set.
Of course the CEO's of the world would never campaign for THAT, because it might threaten their cheap labor supply (who would then always have an alternative job to go to).
As someone who used to drive big rigs for my dad back in college, I can say that anyone who thinks an AI will be able to drive a modern tractor-trailer anytime soon has obviously never driven one. A tractor-trailer is about 100 times more difficult, complicated, and dangerous to drive than a regular car. And we don't even have AI's that can reliably drive cars yet. Shit, they've only just recently developed reliable automatic transmissions for those beasts.
You just show me a AI that can safely and consistently alley-dock a 62-ft trailer down some ancient one-lane road with a turn-in that the trailer can barely even clear, in a city filled with unpredictable traffic and 4-wheel drivers who HATE waiting on tractor-trailers and don't care about traffic laws.
In general, I am sympathetic to the goals (although not always the rhetoric) of "social justice warriors"-- social justice is, in fact, something we should strive for,
It's people like you who let the SJW cancer infect so many unrelated movements and organizations. You are generally sympathetic to some of the SJW ideals and fail to realize that the SJW movement is like a runaway disease that won't stop growing until it destroys any host it gets into. It has destroyed or is currently destroying academic freedom, the atheism movement, and many other moderately liberal movements. And it will taint and destroy academic science if you let it.
So if you don't want a near future of science conferences being interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists storming the stage, you had better rethink your "generally sympathetic" stance and draw a line now. "Social justice" has no place in empirical science.
You joke, but in the last two Star Wars films there hasn't been a single white male character who wasn't either grandfathered in (Han Solo and Luke Skywalker) or a villain.
Think of it this way: If Luke dies in the next Star Wars movie, there won't be a single white male left in the Star Wars universe who isn't a villain.
Hollywood makes movies not to "push agendas" but first and foremost to make money
Actually, of late, there are certain companies (most notably Disney) who seem to have adopted such a pro-SJW stance that they seem willing to actually lose money to advance that agenda. Maybe it's a personal thing for their CEO's/boards or maybe they think they're playing the long-game with millennials, but there are a number of recent examples where they seem willing to take a financial hit just to show their SJW cred.
A great example is with Disney's Marvel Comics division (the actual comic books, not the movie division). Marvel Comics has taken a HUGE financial hit from switching almost all of their main characters over to females and minorities in the last few years. Sales for some of their biggest titles have dropped to all-time lows (we're talking monthly sales of under 20,000 for titles that used to routinely sell in the 900,000+ range in their heydey). Yet they seem determined to stay this course, even going as far as chiding their own long-time fans for not getting onboard the SJW train. It's really a truly bizarre situation. Some have even speculated that Disney is intentionally trying to bankrupt the division as a tax write-off or something.
That captain probably won't even survive the pilot and most of the other white guys are hidden behind alien makeup. AFAICT, the only two human white guys in the cast are an Academy cadet and a science officer, and they've already announced that the science officer will be gay. Pretty sure that cadet's days are numbered too, or it will turn out that he's a villain, or an alien, or a transsexual, or gay.
Hey idiot, Star Trek already had a black captain who everyone *loved*. Does the name Benjamin Sisko ring a bell?
No one is threatened by a black captain, or a woman captain, or a Hindu lesbian captain, or whatever. The problem is that the casting of this particular series doesn't feel inclusive, it feels exclusive (intentionally excluding straight white human males). That's goes against the utopian Trek ideal of a society in which everyone plays a positive part.
Star Trek was always diverse and inclusive, which was great. What they didn't do before now was to feel exclusive of anyone who can't check off their proper SJW victimhood credentials. If they follow the Hollywood pattern of late, there won't be one straight white human male in the main cast (unless he's a villain).
It saddens me to think of a Star Trek universe where this lifelong fan is villainized just because I was born with white skin and a dick. Excluding people ain't Trek.
That would be the second thing I would do at every public university, right after banning all federal funding or federally-guaranteed financial aid at any university found to be punishing or persecuting students for exercising their rights of free speech, association, or for their political viewpoints. Too many administrators and Marxist professors at universities today think they have the right to tell students what books they can read and what ideas they're permitted to have or to voice. That doesn't create a learning environment. It creates an indoctrination camp.
For a "live and let live" group, there sure seem to be a lot of videos of them lately rioting to prevent even moderate conservatives from speaking. I guess I'm just not seeing the chill attitude in smashing windows and beating the shit out of anyone who disagrees with you.
5) Don't worry about a business plan. You can think about questions like "How do we make money?" later. Right now, just focus on more important priorities like establishing a cool company culture and getting a huge pool table for the breakroom.
6) Open floor plans. Cause that's supposed to help, somehow.
Fuck it, having worked briefly with farmers when I was younger, I'll play devil's advocate here:
1) Farmers know damned well that companies like John Deere sell their hardware at cost (or even a loss), with the intention of making their money in servicing the vehicles.
2) Farmers will howl like dogs if John Deere says "Okay, we'll sell you models that you can fix yourself. But they'll cost twice as much to buy."
And if you hadn't yet deduced it from the previous two points:
3) Farmers are a notorious bunch of whiny cheapskates who live to complain about EVERYTHING and will go to any length (legal or otherwise) to save a penny. Seriously, asking a farmer about his farm is like asking an old person about their health--expect to hear nothing but complaints, how much they're suffering, how they need this and that, woe is me, etc. And they will do ANYTHING to make even an extra dime, including hiring illegals, buying seed they know damned well is illegal, cutting corners on sanitation requirements, trying to cheat their workers and work them off the clock, lying to the government about their crop yields to get higher insurance or fallow payouts, etc., etc., etc.
In other words, farmers want their cake and to eat it too. They want all the latest developments in the technology, and they want it to be repairable by third parties--but they also want it to still be as cheap as it is now (at the price that's based on a maintenance subsidy).
And that's me playing devil's advocate for today and risking the karma hit from those of you who've never had to deal with farmers before.
John Deere should respond. "Dear farmers: We can sell it to you cheap or we can sell it to you repairable. Pick any one."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I would rather people be campaigning for Universal Basic Employment. That is, a system where everyone would always have access to a job that paid basic living expenses, a job built around each person's particular skill set.
Of course the CEO's of the world would never campaign for THAT, because it might threaten their cheap labor supply (who would then always have an alternative job to go to).
As someone who used to drive big rigs for my dad back in college, I can say that anyone who thinks an AI will be able to drive a modern tractor-trailer anytime soon has obviously never driven one. A tractor-trailer is about 100 times more difficult, complicated, and dangerous to drive than a regular car. And we don't even have AI's that can reliably drive cars yet. Shit, they've only just recently developed reliable automatic transmissions for those beasts.
You just show me a AI that can safely and consistently alley-dock a 62-ft trailer down some ancient one-lane road with a turn-in that the trailer can barely even clear, in a city filled with unpredictable traffic and 4-wheel drivers who HATE waiting on tractor-trailers and don't care about traffic laws.
In general, I am sympathetic to the goals (although not always the rhetoric) of "social justice warriors"-- social justice is, in fact, something we should strive for,
It's people like you who let the SJW cancer infect so many unrelated movements and organizations. You are generally sympathetic to some of the SJW ideals and fail to realize that the SJW movement is like a runaway disease that won't stop growing until it destroys any host it gets into. It has destroyed or is currently destroying academic freedom, the atheism movement, and many other moderately liberal movements. And it will taint and destroy academic science if you let it.
So if you don't want a near future of science conferences being interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists storming the stage, you had better rethink your "generally sympathetic" stance and draw a line now. "Social justice" has no place in empirical science.
Me make gas
Me use coke
Me standard of living soon be joke
You joke, but in the last two Star Wars films there hasn't been a single white male character who wasn't either grandfathered in (Han Solo and Luke Skywalker) or a villain.
Think of it this way: If Luke dies in the next Star Wars movie, there won't be a single white male left in the Star Wars universe who isn't a villain.
Hollywood makes movies not to "push agendas" but first and foremost to make money
Actually, of late, there are certain companies (most notably Disney) who seem to have adopted such a pro-SJW stance that they seem willing to actually lose money to advance that agenda. Maybe it's a personal thing for their CEO's/boards or maybe they think they're playing the long-game with millennials, but there are a number of recent examples where they seem willing to take a financial hit just to show their SJW cred.
A great example is with Disney's Marvel Comics division (the actual comic books, not the movie division). Marvel Comics has taken a HUGE financial hit from switching almost all of their main characters over to females and minorities in the last few years. Sales for some of their biggest titles have dropped to all-time lows (we're talking monthly sales of under 20,000 for titles that used to routinely sell in the 900,000+ range in their heydey). Yet they seem determined to stay this course, even going as far as chiding their own long-time fans for not getting onboard the SJW train. It's really a truly bizarre situation. Some have even speculated that Disney is intentionally trying to bankrupt the division as a tax write-off or something.
That captain probably won't even survive the pilot and most of the other white guys are hidden behind alien makeup. AFAICT, the only two human white guys in the cast are an Academy cadet and a science officer, and they've already announced that the science officer will be gay. Pretty sure that cadet's days are numbered too, or it will turn out that he's a villain, or an alien, or a transsexual, or gay.
Sad day.
Exactly what are you numerical requirements for you not feel excluded?
Enough to make the cast feel natural, not like they were assembled based on an SJW victimhood checklist.
Real diversity isn't simply shifting the stereotypes.
Hey idiot, Star Trek already had a black captain who everyone *loved*. Does the name Benjamin Sisko ring a bell?
No one is threatened by a black captain, or a woman captain, or a Hindu lesbian captain, or whatever. The problem is that the casting of this particular series doesn't feel inclusive, it feels exclusive (intentionally excluding straight white human males). That's goes against the utopian Trek ideal of a society in which everyone plays a positive part.
The Trek series before now have always felt inclusive. This one feels exclusive. Big difference.
Star Trek was always diverse and inclusive, which was great. What they didn't do before now was to feel exclusive of anyone who can't check off their proper SJW victimhood credentials. If they follow the Hollywood pattern of late, there won't be one straight white human male in the main cast (unless he's a villain).
It saddens me to think of a Star Trek universe where this lifelong fan is villainized just because I was born with white skin and a dick. Excluding people ain't Trek.
They're on a five-year mission to discover even one straight human white male who isn't either a villain or an incompetent idiot.
Here's a hint, crew: Don't look on any planet affiliated with Disney.
We should be fine as long as the advertisers never realize that no one has any actual money.
Don't be silly. The party's gonna last forever, see? President Coolidge said so!
Dumb as fuck.
Their job is to look pretty and let me plug all the important stuff into them.
I wasn't joking on that part. It's an obvious PR stunt.
"Give us the moneys or we show the movie critics how awful it is!" warned the pirates.
In other news, this is the lamest publicity stunt ever.
In Soviet USA, contractor got contract on *you*.
That would be the second thing I would do at every public university, right after banning all federal funding or federally-guaranteed financial aid at any university found to be punishing or persecuting students for exercising their rights of free speech, association, or for their political viewpoints. Too many administrators and Marxist professors at universities today think they have the right to tell students what books they can read and what ideas they're permitted to have or to voice. That doesn't create a learning environment. It creates an indoctrination camp.
For a "live and let live" group, there sure seem to be a lot of videos of them lately rioting to prevent even moderate conservatives from speaking. I guess I'm just not seeing the chill attitude in smashing windows and beating the shit out of anyone who disagrees with you.
5) Don't worry about a business plan. You can think about questions like "How do we make money?" later. Right now, just focus on more important priorities like establishing a cool company culture and getting a huge pool table for the breakroom.
6) Open floor plans. Cause that's supposed to help, somehow.
7) "Millennial Brand Recognition," or some shit.
At least this time I won't have to find someone to buy my leftover Flooz.
Because bribes.
Fuck it, having worked briefly with farmers when I was younger, I'll play devil's advocate here:
1) Farmers know damned well that companies like John Deere sell their hardware at cost (or even a loss), with the intention of making their money in servicing the vehicles.
2) Farmers will howl like dogs if John Deere says "Okay, we'll sell you models that you can fix yourself. But they'll cost twice as much to buy."
And if you hadn't yet deduced it from the previous two points:
3) Farmers are a notorious bunch of whiny cheapskates who live to complain about EVERYTHING and will go to any length (legal or otherwise) to save a penny. Seriously, asking a farmer about his farm is like asking an old person about their health--expect to hear nothing but complaints, how much they're suffering, how they need this and that, woe is me, etc. And they will do ANYTHING to make even an extra dime, including hiring illegals, buying seed they know damned well is illegal, cutting corners on sanitation requirements, trying to cheat their workers and work them off the clock, lying to the government about their crop yields to get higher insurance or fallow payouts, etc., etc., etc.
In other words, farmers want their cake and to eat it too. They want all the latest developments in the technology, and they want it to be repairable by third parties--but they also want it to still be as cheap as it is now (at the price that's based on a maintenance subsidy).
And that's me playing devil's advocate for today and risking the karma hit from those of you who've never had to deal with farmers before.
John Deere should respond. "Dear farmers: We can sell it to you cheap or we can sell it to you repairable. Pick any one."