This would seem to be an argument for why it's a bad idea to create a bureaucracy that gets to make rules without being answerable to the public. Once you create a small entity with this much power, of course it's going to become a target for corruption.
Even just requiring Congressional approval for any FCC policy recommendations would go a long way towards solving the problem. I can at least write my Congress critter and vote them out if I don't like their performance. There's nothing I can do to hold the FCC accountable.
It's hard to get an accurate picture without knowing the exact nature of the failures. If it's the result of components from a bad supplier that has been identified and dropped or an issue limited to a single production line since rectified, then the estimates aren't going to match reality. It's possible that Microsoft knows that something like this is the case, but isn't going to issue a recall because they're cheap.
I wonder what these companies will do when they all have quotas and there still aren't as many women or other certain (i.e., non-Indian) minorities going into computers (or whatever field).
Yeah it's bad math. Whatever tax % they have of $0 is the same as 0% of whatever they get from a Foxconn plant in the state. Actually it's not really the same because they get to collect income tax from the workers and there's a small knock on effect because the workers spend their income on goods and services that generate additional business taxes and result in some sales tax for the state. While that sounds great and net positive, it would be dishonest as you allude not to mention any additional costs incurred to the state. For instance, if the workers are earning a mere pittance and the state is paying benefits to them it's really just a funnel for tax payer money into Foxconn. Road costs are at least partially covered by fuel taxes, so unless the employees and shipping contractors are all buying electric vehicles it's not a problem.
Really though I think it's just a consequence of the global economy working closer towards an equilibrium. America got to ride high from a post-war economy firing on all cylinders while much or Europe had to rebuild and many countries were just beginning to industrialize. Those same third world countries that saw an influx of jobs due to their cheap labor are starting to emerge from their rapid development and their growing middle class has reduced the supply of cheap labor so it's no longer strictly the best move to completely outsource all production overseas and ship products back.
Assuming that these jobs are taken up by people from Wisconsin, I think the state wins out in the long run. Look at the decimation of inner-city communities and towns in states like West Virginia where unemployment wiped out a large percentage of jobs and the people had no ability to leave for greener pastures. Drug use skyrocketed and people became utterly despondent. I think that one of the worst possible things a person can experience is a lack of purpose.
Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.
I don't know if it's reasonable (or intellectually honest) to conflate phrenology which was a pseudoscience with what's be put forward here. You're essentially implying that some (or much perhaps) of his sources is similarly bunk. It's a bit like the yahoos that like to bring up global cooling arguments (that were made by few people, and generally dismissed) during debates on climate change.
Also, some of the citations in his report point out the opposite, in that if you make conditions more equal, then the only thing remaining to differentiate people is biological inclinations or differences in their personalities (which itself has some biological component). Assume for the sake of argument that you could create a perfect society in which every child had the same opportunities at birth and, to take it a step further, that all vocations pay the exact same to remove any economic pressure from consideration in vocation. You'd have to argue that under such a system, that people would generally choose to do whatever interests them the most would you not?
Also, I've seen you post constantly in the threads covering this about all these scientists that disagree with his statements or all this research that he's missing that somehow disproves his ideas. However, I haven't seen you post one shred of this, despite many others who have discussed the studies in his report, or even posted others to support their view. I think that most of us here are more than willing to consider your point of view, but you actually have to post these decades of research. Perhaps you've done this already and can link to a post in one of the previous threads as I do admit I probably haven't read all of the posts, but I would like to think that one with some scientific backing would be moderated up.
I don't think that's quite right. The usual wisdom is not talking about the details of any legal cases while they are pending. You'd still want to talk to the media to at least inform them that you have a case (or whatever this is) and put out some other background information. For celebrities or athletes, they might have a publicist do a lot of this at their behest, but I don't think this guy being e-famous rates such a thing.
I don't really get the name. Reverse-discrimination implies (in a clumsily worded way) doing the opposite and not discriminating at all. Discrimination against majority groups isn't "reverse-discrimination", it's just discrimination.
You can't just measure power consumed. You also need to look at the work done for the amount of power consumed. If the Intel CPU consumes 40W less (we'll assume both companies measurements are spot on accurate for max draw) but takes twice as long to complete some task, then it's probably less efficient over the long run.
If you're really worried about power consumption, it's probably best to undrevolt and use less aggressive turbo settings. When looking at their Ryzen desktop parts there is considerable efficiency improvements and power savings when running the chips closer to 3 GHz. Look at the Epyc processors which have twice as many cores, but the same 180W TDP.
I'm not particularly worried. Usually you only really need to worry when both sides are getting in on it as then you know its a real screw-job. I'll make sure to keep an eye out for arguments about the safety of terrorists. Then we'll know we're in trouble.
It's a great song and I can understand why it tops so many lists, but if I'm going to be honest with you, I'd probably say I enjoy Kashmir, Dazed and Confused*, or a few of their other songs more than Stairway to Heaven.
*Yes I'm aware this could technically be construed as someone else's song, but I still like their version of it.
It's Google's money though, so they can do with it what they want. Companies invest far more money than that in things that don't pan out all the time, so I'm not sure why this should be given any special consideration.
If it were taxpayer money I think you'd have more cause for argument.
To some degree you'd want a game that is balanced at both 30 and 300 APM (actions per minute for those unfamiliar with the term) because it's going to be played at both of those levels. Sure a 300 APM player is going to beat someone who has 30 APM assuming they're not just spamming nonsense actions that don't do anything, but that's okay. A tennis player who can serve ten times faster than another will probably win as well.
What you'd want to do is look at how the effectiveness of a unit (or rather a control group, or even better multiple groups) scales with increases in APM and where there are spikes and valleys. For example, you don't need to have incredible APM to pull off siege tank strategies and I suspect that once you hit a certain amount, adding another 100 APM doesn't net drastically better results. It's okay for stuff like that to exist but ideally is also has some counters that can be executed that don't require drastically more APM or you end up with some very stale matches for players in that range or a rush to develop strategies to end the game (or severely disadvantage the opponent) before it reaches the siege tank push timing.
If they AI can't find any good approaches, it probably means that a unit needs to be tuned downward or for something else that's underperforming to be given a buff in the form of making it a counter to a unit that's overly strong.
Assuming you could create some AIs that are really, really good at an RTS like SC2, I wonder if you could get them to work backwards to create (or just adjust existing) games that are more balanced as one of the major complaints about any RTS game is its balance.
Those so called evil socialist countries don't have America's terribly unhealthy population. Compare the U.S. against any of those so called evil socialist countries people would want to live in (i.e. Sweden, not Venezuela) and they typically have lower rates of obesity, tobacco, alcohol, and hard drug consumption. Saddle them with an equal number of your average 'Murican and their system would hopelessly buckle much like the knees of the obese Walmart shopper under the added burden of a sixth 40-count box of twinkies.
You could maybe argue that if the U.S. had some form of free healthcare it might not get to that point, but a lot of those same people are the kind of nutters that think the government put fluoride in the water to control people's minds and wouldn't go to some free government clinic for checkups. That and it would probably take away from their time of complaining to each other about evil socialized medicine and the government trying to take away their Medicaid.
You can't guarantee everyone some kind of minimum speed. Some people like to live way out in the sticks to get away from everyone else. That's fine, that's their decision, but as a consequence of that, they might not have as many options for high speed internet, but if they really want it they can pay their own hard earned money for someone to run the cable and supply service.
You could argue that ensuring access to food is far more important than making sure people have high speed internet, but I don't think you'd be in favor of using gobs of taxpayer money to subsidize building a grocery store out in the boonies next to Bob's secluded cabin so he doesn't need to drive twenty miles to buy hot pockets.
I have some relatives that live out in the country, about 10 miles from the nearest town that doesn't even have a bar or a church anymore, and they're perfectly fine with the 5 Mbps internet connection they can get because it's enough for Netflix and it meant they could cancel their dish subscription, so even though they pay more for that than I do for a connection that's an order of magnitude faster they're perfectly happy with it. I wouldn't be, so that means I probably shouldn't live out in the middle of nowhere.
If you wanted to improve broadband speeds in the U.S. the best solution would be to make it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to various cable companies or other entities and to allow for cities to form their own municipal providers or networks if they want to.
Is that because you have Alzheimer's or because you've been smoking the reefer to prevent it? I mean I guess this could be good news for you on that count, but it would also mean you'd have to give up getting high. At least unless you develop any of the other conditions that allow for a medical card. I personally recommend general anxiety (about your glaucoma) that's giving you migraines.
I think part of the problem is that Apple has a lot of teams in a lot of different disciplines. An open floor plan is utterly terrible for programmers and other engineers. I don't mind having an open space where groups can meet for scrums or other occasional meetings, but for the rest of the time I want to be in an office or some other enclosed area where I can concentrate.
However, I don't doubt that there are other disciplines where putting everyone in a separate office for the entire day is good. I would imagine that various types of creative teams work best when they can be together and easily interact as a group in most scenarios. I'm not certain of this, but I suspect that people who function like this may not realize that engineers just want to be left alone so that they can function and if they get to make choices about how the workplace should be organized they make choices for how they like to operate.
I think that they're damaged just by the accusation.
Assume for the sake of argument that Monsanto is completely innocent of any wrongdoing or impropriety for which they're being accused of in this specific case. It's essentially impossible to prove that you didn't do something (which is why the burden of proof must lie with the claimant) but there will always be some number of people that will only view a lack of evidence of guilt as proof of a wider-ranging cover up.
Once they've made up their mind, it's practically impossible to change. Even if Monsanto started donating a lot of money to environmental causes, it would still be viewed suspiciously. People will twist the explanation to fit their beliefs, i.e., this is just Monsanto trying to mislead people into believing they're good.
I'm inclined to believe that Monsanto had no need to be dishonest because almost all of the studies related to glyphosate haven't found a link to increased rates of cancer. I recall there was one study that did find a positive link, but it was quite controversial. It may have also been retracted by the journal that published it over claims of impropriety or serious methodological errors by the research team that conducted the study. Additionally, I previously watched a video that was skeptical of the claims made by the IARC report and the creators came to the conclusion that the language used by authors of the report was disingenuous and that they had misrepresented some of the studies referenced in that report. I haven't read all of the papers myself, so it's possible I'm being led astray, but it was from a skeptic channel that does a lot of videos on various topics so I'll give them a bit of trust.
So what you're saying is that all of the hippies that are showing up to things the March Against Monsanto should actually invest in the company instead because it has a better chance of actually allowing them to attain their goals?
I'd pay good money just to see a video of someone suggesting this to such a crowd and their reaction to said proposal.
The problem is that no matter how good of a defense you have, someone will find a way through it. Eventually satellites will become cheap enough and cameras good enough to capture candid shots from space. High walls and personal anti-aircraft guns already sounds like some kind of crazed libertarian fantasy land, and I can't imagine anti-satellite missiles being added to the mix makes it any more reasonable.
Besides, once the information is out there there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Even assuming there were, the kind of technology that could theoretically allow you to do just that would give authoritarian governments the kind of control over information that not even Orwell could have imagined. That's far more terrifying then the rest of the world being able to see me naked.
I think it would be far better for humanity to get over their puritanical penchants (which in some cases they're just pretending to have so they can feel morally superior) and accept that people like to fuck. People on nude beaches don't seem to give much care to the other naked people around them, and for what it's worth I think it would do a lot of good for people to see that most people don't look like air-brushed models which has led to a lot of people having issues with body image.
I don't think anyone is saying that stealing wallets should be legal either and I'd suspect anyone making that argument to be trolling. But at the same time making something illegal doesn't prevent people from doing it.
On the flip side, if there are nude photos of just about everyone (at some point in their life) online then perhaps no one will care and there won't be any appeal in it. Either that or there will just be so much of it that the odds of ever finding someone you know is rapidly diminished. Everybody post dick pics and muff shots in solidarity!
Just like the fact that so many people line up to express outrage and hysteria over every single Slashdot story about climate change is the best proof that it's overblown fear mongering? Or just like the disdain towards people who post inane crap about 9/11 being an inside job, vaccines causing autism, etc. are just proof that there really is something being covered up.
You're using circular reasoning and assuming that your beliefs are correct and then using disagreement to validate those beliefs. I think you can see from the examples above why this is a bad approach. That is unless you deny climate change and are a conspiracy theory nutter.
Bad developers aren't going to be liked no matter who they are. Bad developers who were specifically hired because of diversity policies are going to be despised more because it's possible that had they not been hired due to some characteristic that has nothing to do with ability a better developer may have been hired instead. There's no guarantee that one would have, but that's not how people tend to think.
Furthermore, affirmative action policies only further serve to feed notions of racism, because when you try to meet a quota system that requires you to hire candidates in excess of their availability, then you need to do one of the following: 1) Hire candidates from the target demographic with lower skill levels than candidates not of that demographic. 2) Pay higher salaries for quota system candidates in order to lure the most capable away from other offers. 3) Accept lower skill levels across the board and turn away highly skilled applicants who are not in the target demographic.
The first is going to result in a perception that a demographic is less skilled, the second will result in a perception of inequality based on demographic lines assuming anyone finds out about the pay difference, and the third is just a poor business decision. Never mind that it's not a great feeling if your peers are more skillful than you are because you were hired for characteristics beyond your control and not for your ability. If you have a corporate policy that mandates some kind of quota system or preference towards one, people are going to tend to assume that the people favored in that process are not as good. This sucks even more for the demographic candidates who are highly skilled, because natural human tendency is going to lead people to judge them as being less capable or undeserving.
All that aside, one would expect female developers to be anecdotally singled out more often due to out-group bias and because in smaller companies, minority individuals stand out more for good and bad. In the case of the first pick any group in any context and if you are a member of it you're less likely to notice poor behavior of people who you identify as being in the same group as you and more likely to identify and remember the poor behavior of the people who you identify as being outside of that group. In the second case, exceptions just stand out more and if you only have a few examples of some mental category you've constructed, you're more likely to draw on those limited observations for future reference and the small number of data points makes it more difficult to have the same broader picture as you would with groups from which there are numerous examples.
Putting it down to sexism in every instance is just a failure to understand the underlying causes and is just going to piss off everyone else who you invariably lump into the sexism category as part of your brains natural tendency to categorize and generalize.
Slashdot Mirror
This would seem to be an argument for why it's a bad idea to create a bureaucracy that gets to make rules without being answerable to the public. Once you create a small entity with this much power, of course it's going to become a target for corruption.
Even just requiring Congressional approval for any FCC policy recommendations would go a long way towards solving the problem. I can at least write my Congress critter and vote them out if I don't like their performance. There's nothing I can do to hold the FCC accountable.
It's hard to get an accurate picture without knowing the exact nature of the failures. If it's the result of components from a bad supplier that has been identified and dropped or an issue limited to a single production line since rectified, then the estimates aren't going to match reality. It's possible that Microsoft knows that something like this is the case, but isn't going to issue a recall because they're cheap.
I wonder what these companies will do when they all have quotas and there still aren't as many women or other certain (i.e., non-Indian) minorities going into computers (or whatever field).
Yeah it's bad math. Whatever tax % they have of $0 is the same as 0% of whatever they get from a Foxconn plant in the state. Actually it's not really the same because they get to collect income tax from the workers and there's a small knock on effect because the workers spend their income on goods and services that generate additional business taxes and result in some sales tax for the state. While that sounds great and net positive, it would be dishonest as you allude not to mention any additional costs incurred to the state. For instance, if the workers are earning a mere pittance and the state is paying benefits to them it's really just a funnel for tax payer money into Foxconn. Road costs are at least partially covered by fuel taxes, so unless the employees and shipping contractors are all buying electric vehicles it's not a problem.
Really though I think it's just a consequence of the global economy working closer towards an equilibrium. America got to ride high from a post-war economy firing on all cylinders while much or Europe had to rebuild and many countries were just beginning to industrialize. Those same third world countries that saw an influx of jobs due to their cheap labor are starting to emerge from their rapid development and their growing middle class has reduced the supply of cheap labor so it's no longer strictly the best move to completely outsource all production overseas and ship products back.
Assuming that these jobs are taken up by people from Wisconsin, I think the state wins out in the long run. Look at the decimation of inner-city communities and towns in states like West Virginia where unemployment wiped out a large percentage of jobs and the people had no ability to leave for greener pastures. Drug use skyrocketed and people became utterly despondent. I think that one of the worst possible things a person can experience is a lack of purpose.
Apart from being a misrepresentation of the science, it ignores the fact that the situation improves when they have an equal opportunity.
I don't know if it's reasonable (or intellectually honest) to conflate phrenology which was a pseudoscience with what's be put forward here. You're essentially implying that some (or much perhaps) of his sources is similarly bunk. It's a bit like the yahoos that like to bring up global cooling arguments (that were made by few people, and generally dismissed) during debates on climate change.
Also, some of the citations in his report point out the opposite, in that if you make conditions more equal, then the only thing remaining to differentiate people is biological inclinations or differences in their personalities (which itself has some biological component). Assume for the sake of argument that you could create a perfect society in which every child had the same opportunities at birth and, to take it a step further, that all vocations pay the exact same to remove any economic pressure from consideration in vocation. You'd have to argue that under such a system, that people would generally choose to do whatever interests them the most would you not?
Also, I've seen you post constantly in the threads covering this about all these scientists that disagree with his statements or all this research that he's missing that somehow disproves his ideas. However, I haven't seen you post one shred of this, despite many others who have discussed the studies in his report, or even posted others to support their view. I think that most of us here are more than willing to consider your point of view, but you actually have to post these decades of research. Perhaps you've done this already and can link to a post in one of the previous threads as I do admit I probably haven't read all of the posts, but I would like to think that one with some scientific backing would be moderated up.
I don't think that's quite right. The usual wisdom is not talking about the details of any legal cases while they are pending. You'd still want to talk to the media to at least inform them that you have a case (or whatever this is) and put out some other background information. For celebrities or athletes, they might have a publicist do a lot of this at their behest, but I don't think this guy being e-famous rates such a thing.
I don't really get the name. Reverse-discrimination implies (in a clumsily worded way) doing the opposite and not discriminating at all. Discrimination against majority groups isn't "reverse-discrimination", it's just discrimination.
I think we've missed an opportunity for a much better headline: "Meatpistol killed by meatheads".
Also, for some reason Meatpistol sounds like a good name for a metal album, or maybe even the band.
You can't just measure power consumed. You also need to look at the work done for the amount of power consumed. If the Intel CPU consumes 40W less (we'll assume both companies measurements are spot on accurate for max draw) but takes twice as long to complete some task, then it's probably less efficient over the long run.
If you're really worried about power consumption, it's probably best to undrevolt and use less aggressive turbo settings. When looking at their Ryzen desktop parts there is considerable efficiency improvements and power savings when running the chips closer to 3 GHz. Look at the Epyc processors which have twice as many cores, but the same 180W TDP.
I'm not particularly worried. Usually you only really need to worry when both sides are getting in on it as then you know its a real screw-job. I'll make sure to keep an eye out for arguments about the safety of terrorists. Then we'll know we're in trouble.
It's a great song and I can understand why it tops so many lists, but if I'm going to be honest with you, I'd probably say I enjoy Kashmir, Dazed and Confused*, or a few of their other songs more than Stairway to Heaven.
*Yes I'm aware this could technically be construed as someone else's song, but I still like their version of it.
It's Google's money though, so they can do with it what they want. Companies invest far more money than that in things that don't pan out all the time, so I'm not sure why this should be given any special consideration.
If it were taxpayer money I think you'd have more cause for argument.
To some degree you'd want a game that is balanced at both 30 and 300 APM (actions per minute for those unfamiliar with the term) because it's going to be played at both of those levels. Sure a 300 APM player is going to beat someone who has 30 APM assuming they're not just spamming nonsense actions that don't do anything, but that's okay. A tennis player who can serve ten times faster than another will probably win as well.
What you'd want to do is look at how the effectiveness of a unit (or rather a control group, or even better multiple groups) scales with increases in APM and where there are spikes and valleys. For example, you don't need to have incredible APM to pull off siege tank strategies and I suspect that once you hit a certain amount, adding another 100 APM doesn't net drastically better results. It's okay for stuff like that to exist but ideally is also has some counters that can be executed that don't require drastically more APM or you end up with some very stale matches for players in that range or a rush to develop strategies to end the game (or severely disadvantage the opponent) before it reaches the siege tank push timing.
If they AI can't find any good approaches, it probably means that a unit needs to be tuned downward or for something else that's underperforming to be given a buff in the form of making it a counter to a unit that's overly strong.
Assuming you could create some AIs that are really, really good at an RTS like SC2, I wonder if you could get them to work backwards to create (or just adjust existing) games that are more balanced as one of the major complaints about any RTS game is its balance.
Those so called evil socialist countries don't have America's terribly unhealthy population. Compare the U.S. against any of those so called evil socialist countries people would want to live in (i.e. Sweden, not Venezuela) and they typically have lower rates of obesity, tobacco, alcohol, and hard drug consumption. Saddle them with an equal number of your average 'Murican and their system would hopelessly buckle much like the knees of the obese Walmart shopper under the added burden of a sixth 40-count box of twinkies.
You could maybe argue that if the U.S. had some form of free healthcare it might not get to that point, but a lot of those same people are the kind of nutters that think the government put fluoride in the water to control people's minds and wouldn't go to some free government clinic for checkups. That and it would probably take away from their time of complaining to each other about evil socialized medicine and the government trying to take away their Medicaid.
You can't guarantee everyone some kind of minimum speed. Some people like to live way out in the sticks to get away from everyone else. That's fine, that's their decision, but as a consequence of that, they might not have as many options for high speed internet, but if they really want it they can pay their own hard earned money for someone to run the cable and supply service.
You could argue that ensuring access to food is far more important than making sure people have high speed internet, but I don't think you'd be in favor of using gobs of taxpayer money to subsidize building a grocery store out in the boonies next to Bob's secluded cabin so he doesn't need to drive twenty miles to buy hot pockets.
I have some relatives that live out in the country, about 10 miles from the nearest town that doesn't even have a bar or a church anymore, and they're perfectly fine with the 5 Mbps internet connection they can get because it's enough for Netflix and it meant they could cancel their dish subscription, so even though they pay more for that than I do for a connection that's an order of magnitude faster they're perfectly happy with it. I wouldn't be, so that means I probably shouldn't live out in the middle of nowhere.
If you wanted to improve broadband speeds in the U.S. the best solution would be to make it illegal for states or cities to sell monopoly rights to various cable companies or other entities and to allow for cities to form their own municipal providers or networks if they want to.
Is that because you have Alzheimer's or because you've been smoking the reefer to prevent it? I mean I guess this could be good news for you on that count, but it would also mean you'd have to give up getting high. At least unless you develop any of the other conditions that allow for a medical card. I personally recommend general anxiety (about your glaucoma) that's giving you migraines.
I think part of the problem is that Apple has a lot of teams in a lot of different disciplines. An open floor plan is utterly terrible for programmers and other engineers. I don't mind having an open space where groups can meet for scrums or other occasional meetings, but for the rest of the time I want to be in an office or some other enclosed area where I can concentrate.
However, I don't doubt that there are other disciplines where putting everyone in a separate office for the entire day is good. I would imagine that various types of creative teams work best when they can be together and easily interact as a group in most scenarios. I'm not certain of this, but I suspect that people who function like this may not realize that engineers just want to be left alone so that they can function and if they get to make choices about how the workplace should be organized they make choices for how they like to operate.
I think that they're damaged just by the accusation.
Assume for the sake of argument that Monsanto is completely innocent of any wrongdoing or impropriety for which they're being accused of in this specific case. It's essentially impossible to prove that you didn't do something (which is why the burden of proof must lie with the claimant) but there will always be some number of people that will only view a lack of evidence of guilt as proof of a wider-ranging cover up.
Once they've made up their mind, it's practically impossible to change. Even if Monsanto started donating a lot of money to environmental causes, it would still be viewed suspiciously. People will twist the explanation to fit their beliefs, i.e., this is just Monsanto trying to mislead people into believing they're good.
I'm inclined to believe that Monsanto had no need to be dishonest because almost all of the studies related to glyphosate haven't found a link to increased rates of cancer. I recall there was one study that did find a positive link, but it was quite controversial. It may have also been retracted by the journal that published it over claims of impropriety or serious methodological errors by the research team that conducted the study. Additionally, I previously watched a video that was skeptical of the claims made by the IARC report and the creators came to the conclusion that the language used by authors of the report was disingenuous and that they had misrepresented some of the studies referenced in that report. I haven't read all of the papers myself, so it's possible I'm being led astray, but it was from a skeptic channel that does a lot of videos on various topics so I'll give them a bit of trust.
So what you're saying is that all of the hippies that are showing up to things the March Against Monsanto should actually invest in the company instead because it has a better chance of actually allowing them to attain their goals?
I'd pay good money just to see a video of someone suggesting this to such a crowd and their reaction to said proposal.
The problem is that no matter how good of a defense you have, someone will find a way through it. Eventually satellites will become cheap enough and cameras good enough to capture candid shots from space. High walls and personal anti-aircraft guns already sounds like some kind of crazed libertarian fantasy land, and I can't imagine anti-satellite missiles being added to the mix makes it any more reasonable.
Besides, once the information is out there there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Even assuming there were, the kind of technology that could theoretically allow you to do just that would give authoritarian governments the kind of control over information that not even Orwell could have imagined. That's far more terrifying then the rest of the world being able to see me naked.
I think it would be far better for humanity to get over their puritanical penchants (which in some cases they're just pretending to have so they can feel morally superior) and accept that people like to fuck. People on nude beaches don't seem to give much care to the other naked people around them, and for what it's worth I think it would do a lot of good for people to see that most people don't look like air-brushed models which has led to a lot of people having issues with body image.
I don't think anyone is saying that stealing wallets should be legal either and I'd suspect anyone making that argument to be trolling. But at the same time making something illegal doesn't prevent people from doing it.
On the flip side, if there are nude photos of just about everyone (at some point in their life) online then perhaps no one will care and there won't be any appeal in it. Either that or there will just be so much of it that the odds of ever finding someone you know is rapidly diminished. Everybody post dick pics and muff shots in solidarity!
Just like the fact that so many people line up to express outrage and hysteria over every single Slashdot story about climate change is the best proof that it's overblown fear mongering? Or just like the disdain towards people who post inane crap about 9/11 being an inside job, vaccines causing autism, etc. are just proof that there really is something being covered up.
You're using circular reasoning and assuming that your beliefs are correct and then using disagreement to validate those beliefs. I think you can see from the examples above why this is a bad approach. That is unless you deny climate change and are a conspiracy theory nutter.
Bad developers aren't going to be liked no matter who they are. Bad developers who were specifically hired because of diversity policies are going to be despised more because it's possible that had they not been hired due to some characteristic that has nothing to do with ability a better developer may have been hired instead. There's no guarantee that one would have, but that's not how people tend to think.
Furthermore, affirmative action policies only further serve to feed notions of racism, because when you try to meet a quota system that requires you to hire candidates in excess of their availability, then you need to do one of the following: 1) Hire candidates from the target demographic with lower skill levels than candidates not of that demographic. 2) Pay higher salaries for quota system candidates in order to lure the most capable away from other offers. 3) Accept lower skill levels across the board and turn away highly skilled applicants who are not in the target demographic.
The first is going to result in a perception that a demographic is less skilled, the second will result in a perception of inequality based on demographic lines assuming anyone finds out about the pay difference, and the third is just a poor business decision. Never mind that it's not a great feeling if your peers are more skillful than you are because you were hired for characteristics beyond your control and not for your ability. If you have a corporate policy that mandates some kind of quota system or preference towards one, people are going to tend to assume that the people favored in that process are not as good. This sucks even more for the demographic candidates who are highly skilled, because natural human tendency is going to lead people to judge them as being less capable or undeserving.
All that aside, one would expect female developers to be anecdotally singled out more often due to out-group bias and because in smaller companies, minority individuals stand out more for good and bad. In the case of the first pick any group in any context and if you are a member of it you're less likely to notice poor behavior of people who you identify as being in the same group as you and more likely to identify and remember the poor behavior of the people who you identify as being outside of that group. In the second case, exceptions just stand out more and if you only have a few examples of some mental category you've constructed, you're more likely to draw on those limited observations for future reference and the small number of data points makes it more difficult to have the same broader picture as you would with groups from which there are numerous examples.
Putting it down to sexism in every instance is just a failure to understand the underlying causes and is just going to piss off everyone else who you invariably lump into the sexism category as part of your brains natural tendency to categorize and generalize.