Choosing in the affirmative is a ranking. I had several choices in the last Presidential election, and you may infer from my vote that all but one did nmot gain myu approval.
I believe, sadly, that election science would be gamed to ensure the election of candidates favored by those who are unsure they could prevail in a FPTP election. Most of the multiple-choice (I don't care if that's not the proper terminology) methods seem intended to make sense of chaotic or coalition-based governments. Ours doesn't work like that for a variety of reasons.
And if my own experience is a guide, the current effort to discredit the Electoral College method is virtually entirely inspired by the failed candidate's supporters. They neglect the nature of our Republic. You may not like the outcome, but the process worked as intended.
Discussing this with an eye to, and focus on, the outcome and the successful candidate is important. He 'gamed' the system, if you would like it better by that definition, by focusing on the votes he *could* win. A previous candidate, caught admitting that he could not win as many as 48% of the votes under any circumstances, was excoriated for saying so out loud. And it was the truth. Our system seems to be struggling not because it is inherently flawed, but because our nation is in a state of turmoil unmatched. How this is resolved remains to be seen.
Is there any reason to believe that available candidates represent the best and brightest? If so, they would be either happily (I hope) challenged at their current opportunity, if not of course they are on the market.
And changes have interesting effects. C programmers are not so widely needed according to some of the recruiters I know, and lots of C jockeys who learned the basics of other languages or environments were let go rather than be kept on doing minimal work. This is not new, but the pace is picking up a bit, and the industry has no steep demand curve for the foreseeable future.
Not good. Lots of displacement. Changes. The Cloud is going to cause a lot of problems. I know a few sysadmins who have figured out virtualization (what we called The Cloud once) is reducing the need for their services, either changing them into 'virtual' SAs with new skills and mindsets needed, or just displacing them as the hardware stacks shrink and shrink.
My work is plainly in the sights of the automators and robotics teams. The real question will be what happens when they can automate 80% of what I do. the last 20% is going to be tough to defend, unless they measure it as impact v incidents. Then it will become the 80% of impact they cannot quite automate. Yet.
"next to every product and service the first thing you will see is a five-star rating. "
And I click through to read the reviews - starting with the worst.
If bad reviews show a trend, I'm alerted to possible problems if I fall into the bucket of 'happened to me'. After that, scanning the best reviews I look for the shallow stuff and ignore it.
Similarly with political candidates, I'm not as interested at first in their supporters, but their detractors. Common themes by their enemies often illuminate some trait or belief that alarms me, but often it shows that I agree with the candidate, and their detractors I do not.
It's pretty common to dismiss our choices of candidates as 'beauty contests', but truly we have no good idea what they will do in office. Every elected official tends to change to suit the office. The ones that have not often raise the ire of both the opposition (ZOMG they are DOING WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD!!!!) and their supporters (But they aren't doing THIS); you cannot please everyone all the time.
And now we see a President pretty muich doing precisely what he said he would. Some are alarmed, outraged, aghast that he is following through, both because they oppose his policies and because they genuinely did not expect him to do so. Others not so much, they actually voted to have those things done.
We shall see what the outcomes are, but this political era is a new, uncharted one. Some things we have not seen for decades.
Since I'm working on adopting a child right now I can tell you that $1500-$2500 is a low estimate for initial expenses. This will cost me $25,000 before I'm done. And the expenses of raising a child beyond that.
But I'm not in Tennessee, nor am I adopting a child the result of anything other than a failed family.
"Since our political process demands that we be sorted into two groups"
No, but it is certainly simpler for the method we use. And behold, while we have a party nominee elected, he is not really a member of that party. He usurped the nomination process, and there is some fairly weak but useful evidence that he could have won if he had not, but been a third-party candidate - he did, after all, receive little support from that party.
But 'demands' is hopefully your shorthand for 'encourages'.
And a two-party system, with its drawbacks, can be better than coalition governance. In our system in the US this would result, I believe, in gridlock - as any coalition abandoned the majority or switched sides, in response to an issue, the majority would be at risk, and chaos on a regular basis. Yes, this does sound a lot like caucusing.
" If you want your politicians to represent your priorities, call them."
No. Vote them out. And their replacements, until they 'get the message'. Yes, this means voting for a candidate other than the one your preferred political party presents.
We can't seem to agree to provide needed drugs worldwide where they can treat or prevent diseases. How are we going to change ourselves to share this technology?
Self-motivated to labor and toil for your benefit. Not too intelligent.
Oh, wait, let me fix that for myself. Leave them the hell alone. trying to improve women is the wrong thing, wrong way. Try improving yourself, fellow men.
Then you will either find the woman you choose is somehow so much better, or that she is so much more desirable.
"bill making children of artificial insemination illegitimate"
And husbands could, no, wait for it, WILL merely adopt these children. Nullification. That was easy.
Somehow, when a non-Leftist proposes stupid legislation, it's a criminal, offensive, morally bankrupt act. But when a Leftist proposes something equally stupid, they get a pass for caring, being correct, and generally nice people, no matter how much money and freedom THEY take in the name of whatever cause du jour they are forcing.
Eh. the tide has turned. I shouldn't be doing this.
Genomics and genetic manipulation will not result in any sort of equality.
Initially the rich will have access, and control, and well, become richer and richer if they have their way. Inequality persists.
Then the technology will become 'democratized', IE cheaper, and the less rich will take advantage of it.
Finally, the much less rich will find this technology is 'given' to them to 'solve problems', mostly to do with productivity, healthcare costs, and anything annoying the regulators believe ought to be fixed.
Along the way, much black-market stuff will happen. Gender selection will be popular. Cosmetics of course.
Equality? No, that will never be a goal nor result of this genetic manipulation.
Considering the cost of s single mile of subway in Manhattan, or the cost of a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Fransicso, bridges in Iowa are probably cheap per mile, foot, or pound.
And considering that Iowa is where much food for Manhattan, LA, and San Francisco comes from, roads and bridges there should be of some interest to urban Americans.
THIS is why we should either look to Washington to continue to pay for maintenance and improvement of the Interstate highway system, and feeders, or stop collecting tax money for that and let the states do the jobs.
And I'm in favor of federal funding - just do it. Our new President understands facilities maintenance and renovation as necessary and profitable.
And then you both create a market for replacement batteries and decouple the life cycle/sales cycle from battery life. Which for me is too close to 2 years. And so the leases/purchase deals are 2 years.
There are good reasons to upgrade your phone on a 2 year cycle, but cost is not one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Sharp Practice.
It was right there, what am I supposed to do, look away?
Get off my screen.
Choosing in the affirmative is a ranking. I had several choices in the last Presidential election, and you may infer from my vote that all but one did nmot gain myu approval.
I believe, sadly, that election science would be gamed to ensure the election of candidates favored by those who are unsure they could prevail in a FPTP election. Most of the multiple-choice (I don't care if that's not the proper terminology) methods seem intended to make sense of chaotic or coalition-based governments. Ours doesn't work like that for a variety of reasons.
And if my own experience is a guide, the current effort to discredit the Electoral College method is virtually entirely inspired by the failed candidate's supporters. They neglect the nature of our Republic. You may not like the outcome, but the process worked as intended.
Discussing this with an eye to, and focus on, the outcome and the successful candidate is important. He 'gamed' the system, if you would like it better by that definition, by focusing on the votes he *could* win. A previous candidate, caught admitting that he could not win as many as 48% of the votes under any circumstances, was excoriated for saying so out loud. And it was the truth. Our system seems to be struggling not because it is inherently flawed, but because our nation is in a state of turmoil unmatched. How this is resolved remains to be seen.
It is *always* a good candidate's market.
It is sometimes an *average* candidate's market.
It is rarely a *poor* candidate's market.
The recruiters are being kind, or perhaps avoiding the truth.
Is there any reason to believe that available candidates represent the best and brightest? If so, they would be either happily (I hope) challenged at their current opportunity, if not of course they are on the market.
And changes have interesting effects. C programmers are not so widely needed according to some of the recruiters I know, and lots of C jockeys who learned the basics of other languages or environments were let go rather than be kept on doing minimal work. This is not new, but the pace is picking up a bit, and the industry has no steep demand curve for the foreseeable future.
Not good. Lots of displacement. Changes. The Cloud is going to cause a lot of problems. I know a few sysadmins who have figured out virtualization (what we called The Cloud once) is reducing the need for their services, either changing them into 'virtual' SAs with new skills and mindsets needed, or just displacing them as the hardware stacks shrink and shrink.
My work is plainly in the sights of the automators and robotics teams. The real question will be what happens when they can automate 80% of what I do. the last 20% is going to be tough to defend, unless they measure it as impact v incidents. Then it will become the 80% of impact they cannot quite automate. Yet.
My retirement plan is self-employment.
"next to every product and service the first thing you will see is a five-star rating. "
And I click through to read the reviews - starting with the worst.
If bad reviews show a trend, I'm alerted to possible problems if I fall into the bucket of 'happened to me'. After that, scanning the best reviews I look for the shallow stuff and ignore it.
Similarly with political candidates, I'm not as interested at first in their supporters, but their detractors. Common themes by their enemies often illuminate some trait or belief that alarms me, but often it shows that I agree with the candidate, and their detractors I do not.
It's pretty common to dismiss our choices of candidates as 'beauty contests', but truly we have no good idea what they will do in office. Every elected official tends to change to suit the office. The ones that have not often raise the ire of both the opposition (ZOMG they are DOING WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD!!!!) and their supporters (But they aren't doing THIS); you cannot please everyone all the time.
And now we see a President pretty muich doing precisely what he said he would. Some are alarmed, outraged, aghast that he is following through, both because they oppose his policies and because they genuinely did not expect him to do so. Others not so much, they actually voted to have those things done.
We shall see what the outcomes are, but this political era is a new, uncharted one. Some things we have not seen for decades.
Since I'm working on adopting a child right now I can tell you that $1500-$2500 is a low estimate for initial expenses. This will cost me $25,000 before I'm done. And the expenses of raising a child beyond that.
But I'm not in Tennessee, nor am I adopting a child the result of anything other than a failed family.
"Since our political process demands that we be sorted into two groups"
No, but it is certainly simpler for the method we use. And behold, while we have a party nominee elected, he is not really a member of that party. He usurped the nomination process, and there is some fairly weak but useful evidence that he could have won if he had not, but been a third-party candidate - he did, after all, receive little support from that party.
But 'demands' is hopefully your shorthand for 'encourages'.
And a two-party system, with its drawbacks, can be better than coalition governance. In our system in the US this would result, I believe, in gridlock - as any coalition abandoned the majority or switched sides, in response to an issue, the majority would be at risk, and chaos on a regular basis. Yes, this does sound a lot like caucusing.
" If you want your politicians to represent your priorities, call them."
No. Vote them out. And their replacements, until they 'get the message'. Yes, this means voting for a candidate other than the one your preferred political party presents.
See what I did there?
so long as it targets only everyone else
FTFY
Precisely. For all the ethical justifications for abortion, I know very few people who would support their mother making that decision for them.
We can't seem to agree to provide needed drugs worldwide where they can treat or prevent diseases. How are we going to change ourselves to share this technology?
No, we won't.
And a tail that regrows. And other cute traits.
They export males already. Sending back a sustaining income to their parents is the only real goal, and grandchildren help immensely.
This is one reason why immigration is so damned important.
"with all of the usual attendant horrors of there being more blond people in the world, oh noes!"
Hair dyes have already solved/caused this 'problem'. Simpler, somewhat less dangerous, readily accessible to most economic strata.
Hair color ceased to be an attractor for me a long, long time ago.
Self-motivated to labor and toil for your benefit. Not too intelligent.
Oh, wait, let me fix that for myself. Leave them the hell alone. trying to improve women is the wrong thing, wrong way. Try improving yourself, fellow men.
Then you will either find the woman you choose is somehow so much better, or that she is so much more desirable.
"The best way to handle it is to only allow modifications that are available to everyone."
Ok, you give yours away first. Thanks, bye.
And you think bosses even consider the bioethicist points of view?
That's almost as funny as the implicit claim that research funding is ethically constrained.
"bill making children of artificial insemination illegitimate"
And husbands could, no, wait for it, WILL merely adopt these children. Nullification. That was easy.
Somehow, when a non-Leftist proposes stupid legislation, it's a criminal, offensive, morally bankrupt act. But when a Leftist proposes something equally stupid, they get a pass for caring, being correct, and generally nice people, no matter how much money and freedom THEY take in the name of whatever cause du jour they are forcing.
Eh. the tide has turned. I shouldn't be doing this.
Genomics and genetic manipulation will not result in any sort of equality.
Initially the rich will have access, and control, and well, become richer and richer if they have their way. Inequality persists.
Then the technology will become 'democratized', IE cheaper, and the less rich will take advantage of it.
Finally, the much less rich will find this technology is 'given' to them to 'solve problems', mostly to do with productivity, healthcare costs, and anything annoying the regulators believe ought to be fixed.
Along the way, much black-market stuff will happen. Gender selection will be popular. Cosmetics of course.
Equality? No, that will never be a goal nor result of this genetic manipulation.
Just a different direction.
Then Iowa would be shipping beef to Manhattan.
Mod parent funny, please. If it's actually *not* a joke, please let the sad AC off the hook at least.
A common complaint against rural America.
Considering the cost of s single mile of subway in Manhattan, or the cost of a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Fransicso, bridges in Iowa are probably cheap per mile, foot, or pound.
And considering that Iowa is where much food for Manhattan, LA, and San Francisco comes from, roads and bridges there should be of some interest to urban Americans.
THIS is why we should either look to Washington to continue to pay for maintenance and improvement of the Interstate highway system, and feeders, or stop collecting tax money for that and let the states do the jobs.
And I'm in favor of federal funding - just do it. Our new President understands facilities maintenance and renovation as necessary and profitable.
And then you both create a market for replacement batteries and decouple the life cycle/sales cycle from battery life. Which for me is too close to 2 years. And so the leases/purchase deals are 2 years.
There are good reasons to upgrade your phone on a 2 year cycle, but cost is not one of them.