UBI is the best answer I've heard to the problem of the "will nots," that is, those people who refuse to invest in their employability. The "can nots" however, should not be dismissed. A nation squanders their human capital at their own peril. If they can't reach the next rung on the ladder due to circumstance we need to be pulling them up.
That is why unskilled workers need to be enabled, that is, provided the ability to equip themselves. When you live hand to mouth, it's pretty hard to climb the ladder. The alternatives are inhumane, or squander human capital in favor of basic income.
Signed? No, ordered. Engineers don't do that kind of sh*t, management does. Should the engineers have had a spine? Should there have been whistleblowers? Yes, but rest assured, he's the loyal peon playing shield to his boss.
From what I understand the batteries that power electronics aren't dead per-se, but just outside the spec necessary to power the original device as intended. If you understand the characteristics of the battery I would expect you could still build around that to get something useful.
Pretty sure he did discard pending changes... Leaving yourself hanging in the wind for 3 months is the real problem. Yes he's steaming, yes he clicked on something that may (or not) be readily misinterpreted. But there's no one to blame for 3 months of potential loss made real but himself. Would he go on a tirade about how the HDD manufacturer should have made provisions for when his drive crashed? You always protect your deltas with the shortest reasonable interval. Stuff happens.
He may have made a mistake in attribution, and/or sabotaged himself by using terms like "biology." However, his assertion about the modus operandi of the typical male and the typical female--at least from his perspective coming from a western culture--isn't necessarily wrong, nor did he assert that all fit that mold.
Things get turned around and perverted because of the conclusions or at least the feared conclusions people draw from such ideas. Specifically, things like "superior," and "inferior." It's perversely ironic that in seeking to drive a cultural acceptance and promotion of diversity, we destroy the benefit and beauty of that diversity. It's the ageless fear that different is bad so let's blindly argue that there are not differences, no matter how irrational and inappropriate it is to do so. That's neither promoting nor leveraging diversity, that's filtering perceptions and irrationally expecting sameness from things that are not.
1) He stated that women were less likely to succeed or desire a career in tech as the environment lays, not that they couldn't or wouldn't. He explained ways he thought things could be done differently so that women could.
Everything following rolls downhill due to the misinterpretation of 1).
His principal argument was that girls are inn'ies and boys are out'ies. That on average girls are social oriented and guys thing oriented. What the scientific literature says about this I don't know. I can say that based upon my personal life experience, while politically dangerous to say, that's not an unreasonable idea to put forward.
Building upon this premise, he lays out how he feels Google is ill-serving women, fostering resentment among employees, and missing opportunities to promote and harness diversity. He also explained how corporate culture at Google is hostile to descent on this topic; something rather quickly proven once this memo went public. Even if, mis-informed or ill-worded, he certainly didn't deserve to be treated the way he was for trying to better the company for which he worked.
He saw a problem, wanted to start a dialog, to debate his ideas and figure out if there was a way to do things better. This isn't a right vs. left issue; and certainly not the way he saw it either. It's a "here's a goal, now what works and what doesn't" problem. A thing he did everyday as a software developer.
Setting up "minority/female only" employee development classes is going to be resented by those excluded. If you're socially oriented, female or otherwise, you'd probably better serve the company in a collaborative environment; he suggested pair programming as an example. If you're not, male or otherwise, that'll just annoy you and be counter-productive; the traditional environment would be a better fit.
Absolutely, I much prefer humans to turn the planes into lawn darts.
New commercial pilots do cargo. Experienced pilots do passenger long-haul. When the AI outperforms the newbies, I'd reckon it's fair game. Given that we've been doing autonomous flights w/carrier landings and mid-air refueling I'd say we're probably there.
Funny, I generally come at it the other direction. Humans can and do fail, due to bugs or intrusion. This is why I trust tested/proven, engineered hardware systems over biomass.
Last I knew you couldn't VR conference a barista or factory worker. I know Japan is experimenting with dinosaurs but, they probably won't translate well for many businesses.
...which gives you all sorts of great features that you'd normally associate with native apps, like push notifications, offline support, and app loading screens -- but on the web! Awesome.
Here we go again. Web devs trying to pretend they're making native apps. Folks, there are so many reasons why you would not want that. Native and web are two separate disciplines with two very different roles. You're screwdrivers not hammers. Quite trying to turn nails.
Never meant to pull myself out of the "geek" definition. Of course I am. I a software engineer by trade and a card carrying member of the anime club. I was merely making an observation with a nudge to action. Whether born from resentment or merely indelicacy, male geeks tend to swing misogynistic. It's a bit of a put off to girls and probably augments the former as a consequence. The only thing I'm excluding myself from is the lack of empathy for the female gender.
Not sure what to make of it. They appear to be a maker of obnoxiously expensive camera bodies and related for Hollywood. I'm still waiting to see why billionaire fools are dumping the huge sums they are into Magic Leap.
That's harassment. The right to speech is trumped by the right to not hear that speech.
Careful, that kind of sounds like censorship; a curbing of one's freedom of speech. It has a faint odor akin to this troll's actions toward the Jewish people and one media outlet.
Regardless, things are tangenting from the beginning of the thread... That is, "freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences." Let me illustrate it in very simple terms. Let's say one day you walk up to your boss at work. You decide to exercise your right to freely tell him what an awful person he is and call him out of his incestuous relationship with his mother. He then chooses to exercise his right to freely tell you that you're fired.
With freedom of speech comes an implicit responsibility for what you speak. When your words intersect with others, individual or corporate, a reaction should be expected. Otherwise why speak in the first place?
I guess your history books missed the period post Civil War through early 70's. I'm guessing they also tore out the pages just before the turn of the 17th century as well.
Slashdot Mirror
No. States rights; invasion of privacy; {...}; get off my lawn!
You mean it in humor, but I fear it as fact. 143 million of us just became higher risk.
UBI is the best answer I've heard to the problem of the "will nots," that is, those people who refuse to invest in their employability. The "can nots" however, should not be dismissed. A nation squanders their human capital at their own peril. If they can't reach the next rung on the ladder due to circumstance we need to be pulling them up.
It's also led to much higher quality automobiles.
That is why unskilled workers need to be enabled, that is, provided the ability to equip themselves. When you live hand to mouth, it's pretty hard to climb the ladder. The alternatives are inhumane, or squander human capital in favor of basic income.
The will nots, shall receive basic, or die. The can nots shall be enabled, receive basic, or die.
Signed? No, ordered. Engineers don't do that kind of sh*t, management does. Should the engineers have had a spine? Should there have been whistleblowers? Yes, but rest assured, he's the loyal peon playing shield to his boss.
From what I understand the batteries that power electronics aren't dead per-se, but just outside the spec necessary to power the original device as intended. If you understand the characteristics of the battery I would expect you could still build around that to get something useful.
Pretty sure he did discard pending changes... Leaving yourself hanging in the wind for 3 months is the real problem. Yes he's steaming, yes he clicked on something that may (or not) be readily misinterpreted. But there's no one to blame for 3 months of potential loss made real but himself. Would he go on a tirade about how the HDD manufacturer should have made provisions for when his drive crashed? You always protect your deltas with the shortest reasonable interval. Stuff happens.
He may have made a mistake in attribution, and/or sabotaged himself by using terms like "biology." However, his assertion about the modus operandi of the typical male and the typical female--at least from his perspective coming from a western culture--isn't necessarily wrong, nor did he assert that all fit that mold.
Things get turned around and perverted because of the conclusions or at least the feared conclusions people draw from such ideas. Specifically, things like "superior," and "inferior." It's perversely ironic that in seeking to drive a cultural acceptance and promotion of diversity, we destroy the benefit and beauty of that diversity. It's the ageless fear that different is bad so let's blindly argue that there are not differences, no matter how irrational and inappropriate it is to do so. That's neither promoting nor leveraging diversity, that's filtering perceptions and irrationally expecting sameness from things that are not.
1) He stated that women were less likely to succeed or desire a career in tech as the environment lays, not that they couldn't or wouldn't. He explained ways he thought things could be done differently so that women could.
Everything following rolls downhill due to the misinterpretation of 1).
His principal argument was that girls are inn'ies and boys are out'ies. That on average girls are social oriented and guys thing oriented. What the scientific literature says about this I don't know. I can say that based upon my personal life experience, while politically dangerous to say, that's not an unreasonable idea to put forward.
Building upon this premise, he lays out how he feels Google is ill-serving women, fostering resentment among employees, and missing opportunities to promote and harness diversity. He also explained how corporate culture at Google is hostile to descent on this topic; something rather quickly proven once this memo went public. Even if, mis-informed or ill-worded, he certainly didn't deserve to be treated the way he was for trying to better the company for which he worked. He saw a problem, wanted to start a dialog, to debate his ideas and figure out if there was a way to do things better. This isn't a right vs. left issue; and certainly not the way he saw it either. It's a "here's a goal, now what works and what doesn't" problem. A thing he did everyday as a software developer.
Setting up "minority/female only" employee development classes is going to be resented by those excluded. If you're socially oriented, female or otherwise, you'd probably better serve the company in a collaborative environment; he suggested pair programming as an example. If you're not, male or otherwise, that'll just annoy you and be counter-productive; the traditional environment would be a better fit.
Absolutely, I much prefer humans to turn the planes into lawn darts.
New commercial pilots do cargo. Experienced pilots do passenger long-haul. When the AI outperforms the newbies, I'd reckon it's fair game. Given that we've been doing autonomous flights w/carrier landings and mid-air refueling I'd say we're probably there.
Which should probably be good motivation to oust them sooner rather than later.
Funny, I generally come at it the other direction. Humans can and do fail, due to bugs or intrusion. This is why I trust tested/proven, engineered hardware systems over biomass.
Last I knew you couldn't VR conference a barista or factory worker. I know Japan is experimenting with dinosaurs but, they probably won't translate well for many businesses.
They're far less problematic when you're not creating a "hard" vacuum as is the case with Hyperloops.
Since it's still online, my confidence in it being a marketing game is very high.
...which gives you all sorts of great features that you'd normally associate with native apps, like push notifications, offline support, and app loading screens -- but on the web! Awesome.
Here we go again. Web devs trying to pretend they're making native apps. Folks, there are so many reasons why you would not want that. Native and web are two separate disciplines with two very different roles. You're screwdrivers not hammers. Quite trying to turn nails.
Never meant to pull myself out of the "geek" definition. Of course I am. I a software engineer by trade and a card carrying member of the anime club. I was merely making an observation with a nudge to action. Whether born from resentment or merely indelicacy, male geeks tend to swing misogynistic. It's a bit of a put off to girls and probably augments the former as a consequence. The only thing I'm excluding myself from is the lack of empathy for the female gender.
Not sure what to make of it. They appear to be a maker of obnoxiously expensive camera bodies and related for Hollywood. I'm still waiting to see why billionaire fools are dumping the huge sums they are into Magic Leap.
That's harassment. The right to speech is trumped by the right to not hear that speech.
Careful, that kind of sounds like censorship; a curbing of one's freedom of speech. It has a faint odor akin to this troll's actions toward the Jewish people and one media outlet.
Regardless, things are tangenting from the beginning of the thread... That is, "freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences." Let me illustrate it in very simple terms. Let's say one day you walk up to your boss at work. You decide to exercise your right to freely tell him what an awful person he is and call him out of his incestuous relationship with his mother. He then chooses to exercise his right to freely tell you that you're fired.
With freedom of speech comes an implicit responsibility for what you speak. When your words intersect with others, individual or corporate, a reaction should be expected. Otherwise why speak in the first place?
I guess your history books missed the period post Civil War through early 70's. I'm guessing they also tore out the pages just before the turn of the 17th century as well.
I guess this conviction was a mistake? And, these kinds of people should be protected? What an unfortunate world you want to live in.
So you'd be perfectly cool with someone freely speaking about how you're a pedophile and posting your home address?
Brandenburg v. Ohio