Maybe we can push more ICOs. Lets also repackage these ICOs into derivatives and roll them into every security that is being sold. Then gamble on futures using hedge funds with borrowed money.
On one hand I don't want to see discrimination of any kind, so turning people down is a big no-no. On other hand, when dealing with advertising, it is understandable when businesses want to target most profitable clients.
For example, is it discrimination when health insurance choose not to advertise with cancer survivors (on average such people make more claims)?
Noone for example allows distressed minorites ( or anyone else) a mechanism to create new laws that forbid authoritarian Gub'mnt behavior.
Republic, at least in principle, creates laws that limit power of government over everyone, and that includes minorities. For example, Civil Rights movement and MLK activism was only possible because there are laws that limit what government could do. At the time, US government, if it was possible, would very likely permanently jailed MLK and anyone participating in the movement. They did try to, but it was declared unconstitutional. So minority benefited from society-wide freedom.
A though experiment. SJW advocate for hate speech laws. Do you think if such law existed during Civil Rights Movement, there is even a small chance it would not be used against civil rights activists?
You are not using the same definition of concept.
When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
Most doubleplusgood!
Agressive is agressive. direct confrontation is not the only definition of aggression. Backstabbing works for that.
Aggressive has multiple definitions. If your definition includes indirect social manipulation in addition to one on one direct confrontation, then women are as aggressive as men. However, such view lacks nuance.
You do realize that muddying and stretching definition leads to loss of meaning, not equality? For example, if I redefine equality to include slavery, that results in loss of meaning and not increase in equality (using traditional definition).
I had a discussion with our diversity counselor about this very subject. She was promoting "cherishing" other cultures. My question was "Should we cherish all cultures?
Actuall that diversity counselor remembers it differently.
"This trolling twerp tried to play a pointless rhetorical gambit with me, but got frustrated when I ignored their disingenuous needling."
When anyone with a unique job title (e.g. diversity counselor, CEO, managing partner) asks "Any questions?" you shouldn't interpret it as "Challenge my views, I welcome all criticisms". Doing so is highly detrimental to your career. These people don't get into these positions by being trail blazers or truth seekers, they get there with raw ambition, manipulation, and lack of scruples. You should always remember that.
An authoritarian state diminishes individual freedoms by definition. It is true, for example, that Soviet Russia, is/was much more progressive than the West in gender equality. In part due to Communist Ideology, in part due to massive casualties in WW2, women worked and had technical careers, including STEM, in USSR long before it was possible in USA.
However, given a choice of oppressive and more egalitarian and liberal and less egalitarian society most people would chose liberal society, even if that lands them in oppressive category.
That is, more freedoms for everyone is still seen by individuals as universally better than the alternative.
SJW when taken to a logical conclusion would change society in a way that would make SJW impossible
Indeed, even unnecessary
Hope I did not misinterpret
It is foolish to think that a logical conclusion of SJW movement is an egalitarian society free of repression where everyone would conclude SJW is no longer necessary. SJW is at its core is anti-liberal and counter-factual to the point of being anti-science (e.g. scientists are all old white guys). So unless your idea of egalitarian society is to see everyone equally living in oppressive and dogmatic society, society without freedom of speech, without freedom from sex or race based discrimination, without presumption of innocence, without regard for freedom of scientific inquiry, then by all means continue supporting SJW.
SJW are a clear case where means don't justify the end. More so, the eventual outcome is not going to be the expected/advertised outcome.
You simply can't get to egalitarianism with divisive identity-based tribalism, retaliatory discrimination, and diminished freedoms for everyone!
When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing.
You misunderstood my point. What I said is that SJW couldn't exist without certain set of values in the society, and SJWs are against some of these values.
That is, SJW when taken to a logical conclusion would change society in a way that would make SJW impossible.
Anyone stirring social unrest in China risks getting government-paid one way ticket to a reeducation camp. So there aren't any SJWs in China.
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist. Ironically, SJWs are against Freedom of Speed (preferring freedom from being offended), are very illiberal, and actively advocate for discrimination and diminishing of rights of majority.
This, in 6 words, is why we need Net Neutrality, in case anyone is still asking why.
I am sorry, premium access to./ is not included in your subscription channel. Contents of this website will be uploaded via pigeon carriers. Please....
Or make AI illegal and execute anyone who works with it. I'd support a tyrannical world government that promised that.
Look what happened to natives that stagnated at some sustainable level of technology. Nations that mastered next level showed up, killed a whole bunch, and took their land. AI is just like that.
Stop posting these Reddit-level stories that are designed to get people riled up
Unfortunately, engagement optimization algorithms figured out that trolling people with clickbait is the optimal strategy for increasing engagement as measured by participation.
Algorithmically, showing you this mindless drivel intentionally designed to upset you, would show the most ads. So this will continue happening until we improve algorithms.
It's almost as if employees are being offered pay and benefits that are directly proportional to the value they bring to the company. Huh. Whoulda thunk
This is because sexism and racism! We all know the only reason top employees earn more and given more perks is because of entrenched patriarchy and white privilege (Never mind that many of top earners in tech are Chinese and Inidan). Down with the white hetero males!
Actual waiters will still exist as they deliver a human factor that computers can not do.
Sure, in high-end dining they do. For the most casual dining they are the people hanging at the back who delay your food and stand in the way of you getting a check and moving on with your day. Plus you don't need to tip automated servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we can push more ICOs. Lets also repackage these ICOs into derivatives and roll them into every security that is being sold. Then gamble on futures using hedge funds with borrowed money.
What could possibly go wrong?
It boggles my mind that such verdict is possible. How come jury nullification didn't happen in this case?
On one hand I don't want to see discrimination of any kind, so turning people down is a big no-no. On other hand, when dealing with advertising, it is understandable when businesses want to target most profitable clients.
For example, is it discrimination when health insurance choose not to advertise with cancer survivors (on average such people make more claims)?
Noone for example allows distressed minorites ( or anyone else) a mechanism to create new laws that forbid authoritarian Gub'mnt behavior.
Republic, at least in principle, creates laws that limit power of government over everyone, and that includes minorities. For example, Civil Rights movement and MLK activism was only possible because there are laws that limit what government could do. At the time, US government, if it was possible, would very likely permanently jailed MLK and anyone participating in the movement. They did try to, but it was declared unconstitutional. So minority benefited from society-wide freedom.
A though experiment. SJW advocate for hate speech laws. Do you think if such law existed during Civil Rights Movement, there is even a small chance it would not be used against civil rights activists?
You are not using the same definition of concept. When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
Most doubleplusgood!
Agressive is agressive. direct confrontation is not the only definition of aggression. Backstabbing works for that.
Aggressive has multiple definitions. If your definition includes indirect social manipulation in addition to one on one direct confrontation, then women are as aggressive as men. However, such view lacks nuance.
You do realize that muddying and stretching definition leads to loss of meaning, not equality? For example, if I redefine equality to include slavery, that results in loss of meaning and not increase in equality (using traditional definition).
I had a discussion with our diversity counselor about this very subject. She was promoting "cherishing" other cultures. My question was "Should we cherish all cultures?
Actuall that diversity counselor remembers it differently.
"This trolling twerp tried to play a pointless rhetorical gambit with me, but got frustrated when I ignored their disingenuous needling."
When anyone with a unique job title (e.g. diversity counselor, CEO, managing partner) asks "Any questions?" you shouldn't interpret it as "Challenge my views, I welcome all criticisms". Doing so is highly detrimental to your career. These people don't get into these positions by being trail blazers or truth seekers, they get there with raw ambition, manipulation, and lack of scruples. You should always remember that.
An authoritarian state diminishes individual freedoms by definition. It is true, for example, that Soviet Russia, is/was much more progressive than the West in gender equality. In part due to Communist Ideology, in part due to massive casualties in WW2, women worked and had technical careers, including STEM, in USSR long before it was possible in USA.
However, given a choice of oppressive and more egalitarian and liberal and less egalitarian society most people would chose liberal society, even if that lands them in oppressive category.
That is, more freedoms for everyone is still seen by individuals as universally better than the alternative.
Direct confrontation is easier to handle than backstabbing manipulation.
This statement mostly true for men and mostly false for women.
SJW when taken to a logical conclusion would change society in a way that would make SJW impossible
Indeed, even unnecessary
Hope I did not misinterpret
It is foolish to think that a logical conclusion of SJW movement is an egalitarian society free of repression where everyone would conclude SJW is no longer necessary. SJW is at its core is anti-liberal and counter-factual to the point of being anti-science (e.g. scientists are all old white guys). So unless your idea of egalitarian society is to see everyone equally living in oppressive and dogmatic society, society without freedom of speech, without freedom from sex or race based discrimination, without presumption of innocence, without regard for freedom of scientific inquiry, then by all means continue supporting SJW.
SJW are a clear case where means don't justify the end. More so, the eventual outcome is not going to be the expected/advertised outcome.
You simply can't get to egalitarianism with divisive identity-based tribalism, retaliatory discrimination, and diminished freedoms for everyone!
You are not using the same definition of concept.
When people say "women are not aggressive", they refer to agreeableness metric. Or put in other way, how likely are they to initiate direct confrontation. This does not mean not competitive, or not ambitious.
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing.
You misunderstood my point. What I said is that SJW couldn't exist without certain set of values in the society, and SJWs are against some of these values.
That is, SJW when taken to a logical conclusion would change society in a way that would make SJW impossible.
Anyone stirring social unrest in China risks getting government-paid one way ticket to a reeducation camp. So there aren't any SJWs in China.
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist. Ironically, SJWs are against Freedom of Speed (preferring freedom from being offended), are very illiberal, and actively advocate for discrimination and diminishing of rights of majority.
ISPs will treat websites like channels
This, in 6 words, is why we need Net Neutrality, in case anyone is still asking why.
I am sorry, premium access to ./ is not included in your subscription channel. Contents of this website will be uploaded via pigeon carriers. Please....
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Or make AI illegal and execute anyone who works with it. I'd support a tyrannical world government that promised that.
Look what happened to natives that stagnated at some sustainable level of technology. Nations that mastered next level showed up, killed a whole bunch, and took their land. AI is just like that.
Stop posting these Reddit-level stories that are designed to get people riled up
Unfortunately, engagement optimization algorithms figured out that trolling people with clickbait is the optimal strategy for increasing engagement as measured by participation.
Algorithmically, showing you this mindless drivel intentionally designed to upset you, would show the most ads. So this will continue happening until we improve algorithms.
This is racism! All right-thinking people know that everyone born a blank slate and good at everything and race is just a social construct.
Who wrote this fucking article.
Probably Jeff Bezos trying to squeeze extra out of his warehouse workers.
It's almost as if employees are being offered pay and benefits that are directly proportional to the value they bring to the company. Huh. Whoulda thunk
This is because sexism and racism! We all know the only reason top employees earn more and given more perks is because of entrenched patriarchy and white privilege (Never mind that many of top earners in tech are Chinese and Inidan). Down with the white hetero males!
Turn right at the Burger King, Woopers just $1.99, turn left at Best Buy...
Because waiters are paid mostly out of tips.
Actual waiters will still exist as they deliver a human factor that computers can not do.
Sure, in high-end dining they do. For the most casual dining they are the people hanging at the back who delay your food and stand in the way of you getting a check and moving on with your day. Plus you don't need to tip automated servers.
Watson is also about to decimate radiologists.
Skip all that and go directly to ICO scams. The same end result.
What type of magical "automation" is coming that is going to massively replace jobs?
IBM Watson, Waymo just to name few.
Obviously, money doesn't grow on trees. It is printed by central banks.