"What they cannot fix is the total loss of credibility."
I think this is particularly where the analogy to the Mule is apt.
Trump has damaged America's credibility, but honestly, we're largely trading on Trumps credibility right now, not "America's"; so when Trump goes, the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh and assume things go back to normal -- provided they do, a do so quickly the long term damage should be small -- the chaos will belong to "Trump" not so much to "America"; especially if America is seen struggling to contain Trump, which it is; and things go back to normal when he's gone.
America's credibility is only damaged to the extent that Trump was elected in the first place. But after that, to quote Mulaney... he's like a horse loose in a hospital.
I have a feeling that a lot of Trump's nonsense will be corrected once Trump is gone.
I think there is a potential for Trump to be like the Mule in the Foundation Trilogy; in the same way that he's extremely disruptive in the moment, but may ultimately have little effect on the course of history.
The Paris Accord, the Iran deal, the Wall,... if the rest of the planet just holds shit together until Trump is gone, the next president is reasonably likely to just put a lot of the pieces pretty much back where they were.
Not that I really expect trump to resign or anything, and we may have several more years of his chaotic nonsense, but he will ultimately have to go and unless America decides to double down and elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho for president... or maybe Ted Nugent, things will probably return to normal pretty quickly.
Touche... but most of the categories aren't really directly gameable. And the fact that I've been here for years and didn't know it existed tells you how important it is around here.:)
Exactly. Its 'light'. My karma is excellent, and has been forever. If its keeping score I don't know if I'm winning, and its not really rewarding me with points anywhere I can keep track of.
It has acheivements, and I have some, but i don't know how many there are, or how to get them, or compare them to someone else. And I don't care about them, and they might not even work anymore...:p
There's no leaderboards. There's no real competition. Compare it to stack or expert-sex-change or some of the various other forums out there; ive seen Q&A type threads where 90%+ of the thread is heated argument over who should get the "points", people asking for plus rep, people complaining that someone else just took their answer and added to it to whore points, they'll complain loudly and repeatedly that the original asker ghosted without assigning points, and then debate amongst themselves over which answer should get the points... etc... like what the fuck. those people have long since stopped showing up because they enjoy sharing answers to technical questions -- they're showing up because they want to 'win', they want the high score on some leaderboard, and the shiniest avatar / biggest purple gem glowing star / or whatever. I feel sorry for them, because they've been hacked by the site operators to spend hours of time providing content for free, and they aren't even really enjoying it for its own sake anymore... clearly... because they spend half their time raging about who got 'points'. They can't quit... or they'll drop off the scoreboard... and they've invested so much time into it. Etc... its demented.
"but it might satisfy some people's inner tinglings and make them want to seek out more 4s and 5s."
I guess so. But some people will get addicted to anything. Slashdot's system is extremely weak; and its clearly not designed or optimized to maximize site engagement, and so its pretty inoffensive. I've seen very few arguments about moderation... and whatever tiny niche here that is obsessed with getting +5s is pretty innocuous.
"But is this really a bad thing? If there's something I want to use, why not enjoy using it more?"
Because its not something you actually want to use that much. You've been conditioned to want to use it more than you objectively wanted to.
"The only issue I see is when people don't realize something has an addictive element to it"
Some things are inherently addictive; education and social support mechanisms are the only reasonable response.
Some things are designed to be addictive. Or that are inherently slightly addictive are honed until they are maximally addictive. A lot of social media, and free2play games are in this category, and this is evil. It's basically hacking people's brains.
There is nothing wrong with, say, making the user interface to Social media more intuitive, and more pleasant to use. There is nothing wrong with adding features that are genuinely useful.
But consider some of the tactics in play. If you don't login for a few days for example, you might get messages saying 'someone said something about you... login to find out what!' is that REALLY helpful... if i wanted to login i would have. If someone really said something so important that you had to reach beyond the platform to send me a an email just to let me know... why isn't what they said IN THE EMAIL ?? The answer because its NOT about being a feature to my benefit... its trying to lure me back; trying to trigger that craving.
And 'gamification' with achievements and scores or for example 'reputation'... creates feedback loops in lots of people where they want to 'finish' or 'have the most' or something, and then they stop doing other activities to spend more time 'playing this game'. But this game really isn't that fun, and its been designed not to be as fun as possible while you play it, but to be as addictive as possible so you never stop playing it even after you realize its shit you still keep doing it... because that's what addiction IS. And it only exists precisely to be addictive so it can keep your eyeballs.
Obviously, filesystem volume capacity due to RAID organization sits on top of total underlying physicl drive capacity. But that makes no difference here.
"Oh wow -- for once in your life, there's something you aren't entitled to! How does it feel?"
Is that what we've been striving for? Here i thought it was to be inclusive and more diverse; to give everyone the same opportunities white straight men have historically enjoyed. Was I wrong?
Because apparently you consider it progress, even a victory, if we just make life shit for straight white men too.
Here's an article from a couple years ago, but over a decade after 9/11 recommending that Washington work with Saudi to (and i quote) "diminish support for terrorism". Al queda is viewed as favorable / somewhat favorable by as much as 20% of the population there.
Yeah the HGST drives are looking very good. The seagate drives (the first 2, might work out to the better investment though; due to being 2.5 to 3 times the size).
(ie If you have 1000 seagate 12TB drives (12000TB), and need to replace 10 per year (1% failure rate), that might still work out better than having 3000 HGST 4TB drives (the same 12000TB), where you need to replace 0.5% year because that's 15 of them.
I'm guessing that 10 12TB costs probably costs around twice as much as a 15 of the 4TB drives, but the power, and space, and enclosure cost savings of the higher density still might put the seagates ahead.
" It is actually fun to watch Trump supporters try and explain that one away, it's like watching a severely constipated person holding their breath and pushing really hard while seriously contemplating digging it out with a stick."
It should be like that, and would be if they actually tried to explain. But in practice, they don't try, and it's usually something-somethig-Hillary or some like blather.
And this is why you shouldn't be put in charge of security implementations.
A warrant could be issued or a law could be passed requiring telegram to store copies of all messages that pass onto its servers. Then if law enforcement were able to obtain at a future date one of the endpoints with the chat still running, they would be able to read all the messages between them, even if they'd been deleted on both endpoints.
Or a future development could come to pass revealing a flaw in the implementation, and all those stored messages could be decrypted. Or a future development in technology or mathematics could come to pass making it possible to brute force the encryption.
Then there is the whole meta-information level. If the secret chat is inititated directly between two devices, and the messages are passed directly between the devices, then telegram doesn't know, and can't log or report on that meta data. Sometimes it is enough to know who is sending messages to whom and when those messages are sent.
Ah, well if you want to be literal, then no manufacturers have any skin in the game either, because corporations don't have skin, and don't breathe.
But we're not being literal, the idiom 'skin the game' simply means to have a stake in the outcome. Whether it is your physical body at risk, or money, or political capital, or social reputation... whatever its all 'skin in the game'.
If that were the case, then directing the ISPs to block it's servers and prevent it from functioning in Russia and Iran would be pretty counter productive. If they were trying to trick you, they'd ban it, but make damned sure it remained really easy to get and that it still worked.
I mean, unless Telegram is hacked by the NSA and the CIA in cooperation with the FSB is getting Russia to block the app their trick American's into thinking it's secure... so that the FBI can spy on them.
And this process of trying to lure us over to telegram is an easier solution than simply breaking into whatsapp and instagram - where people already are; owned and operated by the local company facebook already directly under their jurisdiction.
Why not? It cuts your power bill; x however many workstations you have. That's just free cost savings, for some that can add up. Globally, any improvement adds up.
You get a some more time on the batteries and diesel backup generator when the power goes out too.
Maybe they aren't not the most important features, but they rank far more important to me than almost* everything in the Windows 10 update... "Nearby Sharing" ??? WTF... pass.
* - Shutting up pointless windows defender notifications is a plus.
"I distinctly remember that Telegram's encryption sucks."
If it sucked, it would pretty weird for both Russia and Iran to ban and block it.
Telegram operates in a simpler less secure mode by default, and when you want true end-to-end encryption you need to explicitly start a 'private chat'.
The default mechanism cloud stores the messages, which lets you have messages sync'd to multiple devices etc, lets you send messages when the other person is offline.
The 'secret chat' mechanism is end-to-end single device to single device, and it only works when the other party is online (so the messages aren't stored and forwarded by telegram, but directly sent between devices. And if you logout the key for the chat is deleted, so the messages are gone if you log back in. It also has gimmicks like expiring self destruct messages etc. (Naturally, the recipient can do the usual stuff to keep a self-destructing message... but it does mean if law enforcement or something gets your phone old messages will be gone.
So it sounds like the default isn't really much better than skype or whatever, but the private chat mechanism appears to be getting a ringing endorsement from both Russia and Iran now.
But how do you propose fixing it? You can't even figure out who has been disadvantaged just by looking in their pants.
Actually, if it affects 51% of women and 49% of men, it's a systemic bias against women, by definition.
Or maybe its the fire & rescue situation all over again. If a job requirement is to be able to carry an unconscious person of average weight out of a burning building. Then it is inherent in the requirements to favor physically stronger candidates. But that's not bias against women, per se.
Though the former seems like a larger issue.
Why? Because it's easy to check what's in people's pants and calculate their average pay? While its much harder to rate which candidates are overpaid because they aggressively negotiated vs which are underpaid because they didn't? What if you solve the latter issue, which I postulate is the real issue, then the former issue resolves itself because it was just more visible proxy view of the real issue.
Frankly, I'm in support of equal pay for equal work, and think that rewarding aggressive negotiators misses the mark in every possible way. The best people (male or female) are not getting paid according to their real merit or value. But I don't see a solution forthcoming. By kicking up 'women's' compensation by any means necessary while ignoring the men who are underpaid because they aren't strong negotiators is a terrible "solution". Now instead of one irrelevant attribute (aggressive negotiation) contributing to over-compensation you have two. (XX chromosomes)
Perhaps jobs should be more like real-estate where both parties engage an agent to act as the go-between. Make that the standard mechanism for negotiating salary and benefits. It would eliminate the negotiation deficiency in some people and by extension eliminate that gender bias.
Oh no... you'll retort... this is worse. Now your compensation will be based on how good of an agent you can afford to hire -- richer people will have better agents... and men on average are richer than women right now so the bias will continue. And even worse, you'll say, you've created this field of job-agents -- and its dominated by aggressively negotiating men -- how are we going to get more women into this lucrative field!!
Or... each job could be given a job code; and each job code is assigned a salary. If you get hired into job X, it pays Y. No negotiation required. All it requires is an efficient government central planning ministry. That's not problem right? Centrally planned economies are proven to work, right? Wait... what's this? Not every job with the same job code is really completely identical after all, and strong negotiators are getting all the plums. Well fuck...
In this example, we have a hiring process that was established around male behavioral norms, in an era when this made sense because only men were in the workplace. As women were introduced, no one thought to re-examine the process to decide if was applicable to them as well. In some jobs, skill at negotiation is a key job requirement and it actually makes sense to pay those who are more aggressive and better at it more money. But in many jobs it's not, yet the process is still applied.
This affects men too. Given a job where negotiation is not a required or relevant skill we see men who are better at negotiation being paid more then men who were not.
Is that fair? Is this also a problem that society needs to fix?
Is this really a systemic bias against women after all? since it affects a lot of men too, while some women who are aggressive negotiators are doing fine.
Should we be looking for 'equal pay for women' or should be we looking for 'equal pay regardless of how well you negotiate' ?
I wonder how much work is being done on that. You'd think vat growing leather might actually be easier. Since it doesn't have to taste good. And it doesn't even have to feel or look exactly like leather either to be an acceptable substitute. And it could theoretically even be taken beyond leather, grown in specific shapes, colors, or patterns that don't appear naturally, or be made even more durable etc...
Vat meat is a challenge because we don't *really* want to eat vat-meat it has a bit of a stigma for being unnatural, and if we do eat it we want it to be indistinguishable from real chicken, and real steak, and we want the same flavor and texture and taste. It has a high bar to being accepted as desirable food.
But vat leather -- we already readily accept all kinds of synthetic and hybrid textiles... plastics, vinyls, nylons, polyester, polyurethane, blends of plastics like alcantara, and blends of plastic and leather -- so-called bonded leathers, etc. If we could vat grow leather that competed with top-grain leather that would be quite the revolution, and likely readily accepted in the furniture/upholstery and clothing/fashion industries; not to mention the accessories -- from leather bound books, wallets, phone cases, laptop bags, etc, etc...
"Hopefully most of all current jobs can be automated so we can find new things for people to do."
That only works if somehow they are also things robots can't also do better and cheaper.
If you develop AI/automation that generically approaches or exceeds median human capability, then it doesn't really matter what 'new jobs' you invent, because robots will do them cheaper and better than most people can.
Most people won't be able to find work at that point; it doesn't matter how many jobs there are. Either they'll be jobs they aren't able to do, or they'll be jobs the robots can do cheaper and more efficiently.
Think about it.
Heres another example. Most of the world's land mammal mass is in cattle, bred for slaughter. billions of them. Suppose we come up with vat-meat-substitute that is cheaper, needs less space, and tastes as good. What happens to the cattle?
Are we going to find a new use for the population? Sure a small number will survive, perhaps let wild, others in small organic farms for wealthy people to 'eat the real thing'. But the rest? There's nothing for them to do, we can't retrain them to help operate the vat-meat plants, they can't write novels... we'd pretty much wipe them out relative to their current number.
Humans are no different. If we come up with something that can outperform what the majority can do, the people displaced will not be able to find new work... without a fundamental change in how we think about work and wealth distribution there will be a revolution, war, and massive loss of life.
I have no objection to the notion that 120 years shall be taken an imprecise value.
I have substantial objection to the notion that it should be taken as a very specific imprecision, that being '2 significant digits in the decimal system'.
It matters because it brings into question how much deviation from 120 is 'allowed' before 120 becomes 'wrong'.
Frankly, I'm willing to allow it quite a bit more variance than 2 sig digits decimal would allow for.
Of course, I'm also in the camp that think 120 has nothing to do with the longevity of man, and that it instead is prophecy for the flood.
Your 'by defnition' argument depends on the interpretation of leading and trailing zeroes -- which depends on there being leading or trailing zeroes in the numerical system. That's not possible when the passage predates the use of zero as placeholders.
Indeed, in hebrew texts the passage is written using the word 100 and the word 20. Hebrew also has symbols for each numeral up to 20, as well as for each of the first several hundreds. So in hebrew it could be written in 2 numerals {hebrew character 100, hebrew character 20}, with no 'trailing zeroes'. But that doesn't really matter, because genesis predates the system of hebrew numerals too.
Babylonians and Sumerians had separate names for 60 numerals; 120 would have been written as 60 & 60; indeed the origin of 120 could simply have been twice the maximum numeral at the time. And a reasonable error bound might well be +/- 60 for something like that.
To state with any sort of authority that 120 shall be interpreted as the decimal representation of 2 leading information carrying decimal digits followed by a trailing placeholder zero, with therefore "two significant digits" is totally idiotic.
So no, this is not a debate between theists and atheists.
You ascribe more to what is in the bible verse says than what is actually there.
Its your decision to claim the bible only gave 2 significant digits. And that decision raises a lot of issues, given the timing. Genesis predates the decimal system, predates the decimal point, predates the invention and use of zero as a placeholder. The notion of '2 significant' digits doesn't even make sense when numbers aren't represented by 'digits'.
Second, its pretty controversial to even claim that the passage is about the lifespan. It's largely believed that passage prophecies the coming flood 120 years later. As in 120 years from now, mankind will be wiped out in the flood.
Slashdot Mirror
"What they cannot fix is the total loss of credibility."
I think this is particularly where the analogy to the Mule is apt.
Trump has damaged America's credibility, but honestly, we're largely trading on Trumps credibility right now, not "America's"; so when Trump goes, the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh and assume things go back to normal -- provided they do, a do so quickly the long term damage should be small -- the chaos will belong to "Trump" not so much to "America"; especially if America is seen struggling to contain Trump, which it is; and things go back to normal when he's gone.
America's credibility is only damaged to the extent that Trump was elected in the first place. But after that, to quote Mulaney... he's like a horse loose in a hospital.
I have a feeling that a lot of Trump's nonsense will be corrected once Trump is gone.
I think there is a potential for Trump to be like the Mule in the Foundation Trilogy; in the same way that he's extremely disruptive in the moment, but may ultimately have little effect on the course of history.
The Paris Accord, the Iran deal, the Wall, ... if the rest of the planet just holds shit together until Trump is gone, the next president is reasonably likely to just put a lot of the pieces pretty much back where they were.
Not that I really expect trump to resign or anything, and we may have several more years of his chaotic nonsense, but he will ultimately have to go and unless America decides to double down and elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho for president... or maybe Ted Nugent, things will probably return to normal pretty quickly.
Touche... but most of the categories aren't really directly gameable. And the fact that I've been here for years and didn't know it existed tells you how important it is around here. :)
Exactly. Its 'light'. My karma is excellent, and has been forever. If its keeping score I don't know if I'm winning, and its not really rewarding me with points anywhere I can keep track of.
It has acheivements, and I have some, but i don't know how many there are, or how to get them, or compare them to someone else. And I don't care about them, and they might not even work anymore... :p
There's no leaderboards. There's no real competition. Compare it to stack or expert-sex-change or some of the various other forums out there; ive seen Q&A type threads where 90%+ of the thread is heated argument over who should get the "points", people asking for plus rep, people complaining that someone else just took their answer and added to it to whore points, they'll complain loudly and repeatedly that the original asker ghosted without assigning points, and then debate amongst themselves over which answer should get the points... etc... like what the fuck. those people have long since stopped showing up because they enjoy sharing answers to technical questions -- they're showing up because they want to 'win', they want the high score on some leaderboard, and the shiniest avatar / biggest purple gem glowing star / or whatever. I feel sorry for them, because they've been hacked by the site operators to spend hours of time providing content for free, and they aren't even really enjoying it for its own sake anymore... clearly... because they spend half their time raging about who got 'points'. They can't quit... or they'll drop off the scoreboard... and they've invested so much time into it. Etc... its demented.
"but it might satisfy some people's inner tinglings and make them want to seek out more 4s and 5s."
I guess so. But some people will get addicted to anything. Slashdot's system is extremely weak; and its clearly not designed or optimized to maximize site engagement, and so its pretty inoffensive. I've seen very few arguments about moderation... and whatever tiny niche here that is obsessed with getting +5s is pretty innocuous.
"But is this really a bad thing? If there's something I want to use, why not enjoy using it more?"
Because its not something you actually want to use that much. You've been conditioned to want to use it more than you objectively wanted to.
"The only issue I see is when people don't realize something has an addictive element to it"
Some things are inherently addictive; education and social support mechanisms are the only reasonable response.
Some things are designed to be addictive. Or that are inherently slightly addictive are honed until they are maximally addictive. A lot of social media, and free2play games are in this category, and this is evil. It's basically hacking people's brains.
There is nothing wrong with, say, making the user interface to Social media more intuitive, and more pleasant to use. There is nothing wrong with adding features that are genuinely useful.
But consider some of the tactics in play. If you don't login for a few days for example, you might get messages saying 'someone said something about you... login to find out what!' is that REALLY helpful... if i wanted to login i would have. If someone really said something so important that you had to reach beyond the platform to send me a an email just to let me know... why isn't what they said IN THE EMAIL ?? The answer because its NOT about being a feature to my benefit... its trying to lure me back; trying to trigger that craving.
And 'gamification' with achievements and scores or for example 'reputation' ... creates feedback loops in lots of people where they want to 'finish' or 'have the most' or something, and then they stop doing other activities to spend more time 'playing this game'. But this game really isn't that fun, and its been designed not to be as fun as possible while you play it, but to be as addictive as possible so you never stop playing it even after you realize its shit you still keep doing it... because that's what addiction IS. And it only exists precisely to be addictive so it can keep your eyeballs.
what the fuck are you gibbering on about?
Obviously, filesystem volume capacity due to RAID organization sits on top of total underlying physicl drive capacity. But that makes no difference here.
"Oh wow -- for once in your life, there's something you aren't entitled to! How does it feel?"
Is that what we've been striving for? Here i thought it was to be inclusive and more diverse; to give everyone the same opportunities white straight men have historically enjoyed. Was I wrong?
Because apparently you consider it progress, even a victory, if we just make life shit for straight white men too.
"The ban is on countries that are currently exporting terrorism."
So Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from is no longer exporting terrorism?
http://www.washingtoninstitute...
Here's an article from a couple years ago, but over a decade after 9/11 recommending that Washington work with Saudi to (and i quote) "diminish support for terrorism". Al queda is viewed as favorable / somewhat favorable by as much as 20% of the population there.
Yeah the HGST drives are looking very good. The seagate drives (the first 2, might work out to the better investment though; due to being 2.5 to 3 times the size).
(ie If you have 1000 seagate 12TB drives (12000TB), and need to replace 10 per year (1% failure rate), that might still work out better than having 3000 HGST 4TB drives (the same 12000TB), where you need to replace 0.5% year because that's 15 of them.
I'm guessing that 10 12TB costs probably costs around twice as much as a 15 of the 4TB drives, but the power, and space, and enclosure cost savings of the higher density still might put the seagates ahead.
Depends on
" It is actually fun to watch Trump supporters try and explain that one away, it's like watching a severely constipated person holding their breath and pushing really hard while seriously contemplating digging it out with a stick."
It should be like that, and would be if they actually tried to explain.
But in practice, they don't try, and it's usually something-somethig-Hillary or some like blather.
It is a perfectly straight line within the coordinate system / topological space being considered.
"Answer: It wouldn't."
And this is why you shouldn't be put in charge of security implementations.
A warrant could be issued or a law could be passed requiring telegram to store copies of all messages that pass onto its servers. Then if law enforcement were able to obtain at a future date one of the endpoints with the chat still running, they would be able to read all the messages between them, even if they'd been deleted on both endpoints.
Or a future development could come to pass revealing a flaw in the implementation, and all those stored messages could be decrypted. Or a future development in technology or mathematics could come to pass making it possible to brute force the encryption.
Then there is the whole meta-information level. If the secret chat is inititated directly between two devices, and the messages are passed directly between the devices, then telegram doesn't know, and can't log or report on that meta data. Sometimes it is enough to know who is sending messages to whom and when those messages are sent.
Ah, well if you want to be literal, then no manufacturers have any skin in the game either, because corporations don't have skin, and don't breathe.
But we're not being literal, the idiom 'skin the game' simply means to have a stake in the outcome. Whether it is your physical body at risk, or money, or political capital, or social reputation... whatever its all 'skin in the game'.
with no skin in the game.
Who are you accusing of not having any skin the game? People who actually breathe air? They don't have any 'skin' in the game?
If that were the case, then directing the ISPs to block it's servers and prevent it from functioning in Russia and Iran would be pretty counter productive. If they were trying to trick you, they'd ban it, but make damned sure it remained really easy to get and that it still worked.
I mean, unless Telegram is hacked by the NSA and the CIA in cooperation with the FSB is getting Russia to block the app their trick American's into thinking it's secure... so that the FBI can spy on them.
And this process of trying to lure us over to telegram is an easier solution than simply breaking into whatsapp and instagram - where people already are; owned and operated by the local company facebook already directly under their jurisdiction.
Why not? It cuts your power bill; x however many workstations you have. That's just free cost savings, for some that can add up. Globally, any improvement adds up.
You get a some more time on the batteries and diesel backup generator when the power goes out too.
Maybe they aren't not the most important features, but they rank far more important to me than almost* everything in the Windows 10 update... "Nearby Sharing" ??? WTF... pass.
* - Shutting up pointless windows defender notifications is a plus.
"I distinctly remember that Telegram's encryption sucks."
If it sucked, it would pretty weird for both Russia and Iran to ban and block it.
Telegram operates in a simpler less secure mode by default, and when you want true end-to-end encryption you need to explicitly start a 'private chat'.
The default mechanism cloud stores the messages, which lets you have messages sync'd to multiple devices etc, lets you send messages when the other person is offline.
The 'secret chat' mechanism is end-to-end single device to single device, and it only works when the other party is online (so the messages aren't stored and forwarded by telegram, but directly sent between devices. And if you logout the key for the chat is deleted, so the messages are gone if you log back in. It also has gimmicks like expiring self destruct messages etc. (Naturally, the recipient can do the usual stuff to keep a self-destructing message... but it does mean if law enforcement or something gets your phone old messages will be gone.
So it sounds like the default isn't really much better than skype or whatever, but the private chat mechanism appears to be getting a ringing endorsement from both Russia and Iran now.
"It's not fair, and seems worthwhile to fix."
But how do you propose fixing it? You can't even figure out who has been disadvantaged just by looking in their pants.
Actually, if it affects 51% of women and 49% of men, it's a systemic bias against women, by definition.
Or maybe its the fire & rescue situation all over again. If a job requirement is to be able to carry an unconscious person of average weight out of a burning building. Then it is inherent in the requirements to favor physically stronger candidates. But that's not bias against women, per se.
Though the former seems like a larger issue.
Why? Because it's easy to check what's in people's pants and calculate their average pay? While its much harder to rate which candidates are overpaid because they aggressively negotiated vs which are underpaid because they didn't? What if you solve the latter issue, which I postulate is the real issue, then the former issue resolves itself because it was just more visible proxy view of the real issue.
Frankly, I'm in support of equal pay for equal work, and think that rewarding aggressive negotiators misses the mark in every possible way. The best people (male or female) are not getting paid according to their real merit or value. But I don't see a solution forthcoming. By kicking up 'women's' compensation by any means necessary while ignoring the men who are underpaid because they aren't strong negotiators is a terrible "solution". Now instead of one irrelevant attribute (aggressive negotiation) contributing to over-compensation you have two. (XX chromosomes)
Perhaps jobs should be more like real-estate where both parties engage an agent to act as the go-between. Make that the standard mechanism for negotiating salary and benefits. It would eliminate the negotiation deficiency in some people and by extension eliminate that gender bias.
Oh no... you'll retort... this is worse. Now your compensation will be based on how good of an agent you can afford to hire -- richer people will have better agents... and men on average are richer than women right now so the bias will continue. And even worse, you'll say, you've created this field of job-agents -- and its dominated by aggressively negotiating men -- how are we going to get more women into this lucrative field!!
Or... each job could be given a job code; and each job code is assigned a salary. If you get hired into job X, it pays Y. No negotiation required. All it requires is an efficient government central planning ministry. That's not problem right? Centrally planned economies are proven to work, right? Wait... what's this? Not every job with the same job code is really completely identical after all, and strong negotiators are getting all the plums. Well fuck...
In this example, we have a hiring process that was established around male behavioral norms, in an era when this made sense because only men were in the workplace. As women were introduced, no one thought to re-examine the process to decide if was applicable to them as well. In some jobs, skill at negotiation is a key job requirement and it actually makes sense to pay those who are more aggressive and better at it more money. But in many jobs it's not, yet the process is still applied.
This affects men too. Given a job where negotiation is not a required or relevant skill we see men who are better at negotiation being paid more then men who were not.
Is that fair? Is this also a problem that society needs to fix?
Is this really a systemic bias against women after all? since it affects a lot of men too, while some women who are aggressive negotiators are doing fine.
Should we be looking for 'equal pay for women' or should be we looking for 'equal pay regardless of how well you negotiate' ?
" satire accounts, which are permitted under the company's rules. "
Really? I thought they had a real name policy that would have prevented 'satire accounts' using other peoples names.
Is that not the case?
I wonder how much work is being done on that. You'd think vat growing leather might actually be easier. Since it doesn't have to taste good. And it doesn't even have to feel or look exactly like leather either to be an acceptable substitute. And it could theoretically even be taken beyond leather, grown in specific shapes, colors, or patterns that don't appear naturally, or be made even more durable etc...
Vat meat is a challenge because we don't *really* want to eat vat-meat it has a bit of a stigma for being unnatural, and if we do eat it we want it to be indistinguishable from real chicken, and real steak, and we want the same flavor and texture and taste. It has a high bar to being accepted as desirable food.
But vat leather -- we already readily accept all kinds of synthetic and hybrid textiles ... plastics, vinyls, nylons, polyester, polyurethane, blends of plastics like alcantara, and blends of plastic and leather -- so-called bonded leathers, etc. If we could vat grow leather that competed with top-grain leather that would be quite the revolution, and likely readily accepted in the furniture/upholstery and clothing/fashion industries; not to mention the accessories -- from leather bound books, wallets, phone cases, laptop bags, etc, etc...
"Hopefully most of all current jobs can be automated so we can find new things for people to do."
That only works if somehow they are also things robots can't also do better and cheaper.
If you develop AI/automation that generically approaches or exceeds median human capability, then it doesn't really matter what 'new jobs' you invent, because robots will do them cheaper and better than most people can.
Most people won't be able to find work at that point; it doesn't matter how many jobs there are. Either they'll be jobs they aren't able to do, or they'll be jobs the robots can do cheaper and more efficiently.
Think about it.
Heres another example. Most of the world's land mammal mass is in cattle, bred for slaughter. billions of them. Suppose we come up with vat-meat-substitute that is cheaper, needs less space, and tastes as good. What happens to the cattle?
Are we going to find a new use for the population? Sure a small number will survive, perhaps let wild, others in small organic farms for wealthy people to 'eat the real thing'. But the rest? There's nothing for them to do, we can't retrain them to help operate the vat-meat plants, they can't write novels... we'd pretty much wipe them out relative to their current number.
Humans are no different. If we come up with something that can outperform what the majority can do, the people displaced will not be able to find new work... without a fundamental change in how we think about work and wealth distribution there will be a revolution, war, and massive loss of life.
Again, you are conflating 2 separate issues.
I have no objection to the notion that 120 years shall be taken an imprecise value.
I have substantial objection to the notion that it should be taken as a very specific imprecision, that being '2 significant digits in the decimal system'.
It matters because it brings into question how much deviation from 120 is 'allowed' before 120 becomes 'wrong'.
Frankly, I'm willing to allow it quite a bit more variance than 2 sig digits decimal would allow for.
Of course, I'm also in the camp that think 120 has nothing to do with the longevity of man, and that it instead is prophecy for the flood.
No. Significant digits require *digits*.
Your 'by defnition' argument depends on the interpretation of leading and trailing zeroes -- which depends on there being leading or trailing zeroes in the numerical system. That's not possible when the passage predates the use of zero as placeholders.
Indeed, in hebrew texts the passage is written using the word 100 and the word 20. Hebrew also has symbols for each numeral up to 20, as well as for each of the first several hundreds. So in hebrew it could be written in 2 numerals {hebrew character 100, hebrew character 20}, with no 'trailing zeroes'. But that doesn't really matter, because genesis predates the system of hebrew numerals too.
Babylonians and Sumerians had separate names for 60 numerals; 120 would have been written as 60 & 60; indeed the origin of 120 could simply have been twice the maximum numeral at the time. And a reasonable error bound might well be +/- 60 for something like that.
To state with any sort of authority that 120 shall be interpreted as the decimal representation of 2 leading information carrying decimal digits followed by a trailing placeholder zero, with therefore "two significant digits" is totally idiotic.
So no, this is not a debate between theists and atheists.
You ascribe more to what is in the bible verse says than what is actually there.
Its your decision to claim the bible only gave 2 significant digits. And that decision raises a lot of issues, given the timing. Genesis predates the decimal system, predates the decimal point, predates the invention and use of zero as a placeholder. The notion of '2 significant' digits doesn't even make sense when numbers aren't represented by 'digits'.
Second, its pretty controversial to even claim that the passage is about the lifespan. It's largely believed that passage prophecies the coming flood 120 years later. As in 120 years from now, mankind will be wiped out in the flood.