The rise of the smart phone ruined Gnome more than identity politics. If Gnome had done nothing but chase identity politics, at least the interface wouldn't have changed drastically. Instead, some hipster douchebags got control of the interface and starting chasing after Apple and smart phone designs. The hipster douchebag is the disease. Identity politics and stupid new interfaces were the symptoms.
Since you deleted and did not offer any reaction to the main salient point
I've responded to all your bullshit.
You're just fuelled by your own hate and are repeatedly pressing what you see as hotbutton triggers trying to get a reaction.
No, that's just your strawman and you're projecting. It's not about hate, it's about being against discrimination. This memo was not against women, it was against quotas, a blindness to gender preferences and science, and an intolerance to differing political thought. It was about meritocracy and treating people as individuals, along with a nudge that some accommodations for women in the workplace could be made for mutual benefit. But you don't want to have that discussion, and go right to "punch a Nazi".
You see, the point is that challenging intolerance does not make you intolerant
Your kind defines your own version of "intolerance", call people a Nazi if they don't agree, and then use that to justify threats or act of violence. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Maduro, etc. All you authoritarians are the same -- if you don't get your way, resort to violence.
The primary two refundable tax credits, which are capped at 1.5 and 1.35 billion, are based on percentages of payroll within Wisconsin and expenditures to Wisconsin Vendors:
It's not clear to me that capital expenditures have to go to Wisconsin vendors. For example, if they bought $10 million in concrete from outside the state to be used within the state, by my reading that's still a capital expenditure within the state, and they would receive a tax credit.
The preppers worry me, because I've seen them agitate for civil war. I think there's a psychology to dedicating your life to being ready for an event and then dealing with the realization that the event may never come.
This is not "breaking even" because they did not pay any money out to begin with. If Foxconn pays even one dollar in taxes, then Wisconsin has more revenue than it would otherwise.
Nope. I checked the PDF linked in the summary. Foxconn will be receiving a refundable tax credit, which means the state is forecasted to write them a check for hundreds of millions for several years, in addition to any infrastructure expenses the state will occur.
Don't believe me? Check the PDF yourself, which outlines the estimated payments in Table 1 on page 13. Table 4, on page 17, shows the break-even analysis, which compares the net of state payments and increased taxes.
I've offered concrete evidence that the science of AGW is not "settled" as you originally claimed by quoting the first IPCC report, which clearly laid out what was considered "certain", what was considered "confident", and what was less certain and awaiting more research.
Even as late as 1990, decades after AGW science was supposedly "settled", the report acknowledged the warming for the past 100 years was within the realm of natural variability, and it would take more time, more observations, and more science to verify the signal of AGW.
We've discussed why your quotations were irrelevant.
We've discussed why your broad claim, followed by retreating to a narrow claim to back the broad claim, was bullshit. Since this conversation is clearly going in circles, I will no longer reply.
The question is whether diversity hires happen, not your presumed master detective ability to discern the technical capability of people you ideologically disagree with.
You actually have no idea whether or not I'm making a broad statement. Which is why you're strenuously avoiding discussing the evidence for this theory.
Funny, because I'm the one that managed to quote extensively from the Executive Summary of the first IPCC report.
And by the way, someone telling you that you are wrong is not trying to "silence you".
You can't even quote right. I said, "sweep away all dissent, debate, critique, or controversy with a broad brush". In others words, handwave away or summarily dismiss valid critique with this "the science is settled" bullshit.
You continue to be incorrect about the nature of scientific debate.
And you continue to be narrow minded and engaging in binary thinking over a broad topic. There are many issues of scientific debate surrounding climate science. What you're trying to do is sweep away all dissent, debate, critique, or controversy with a broad brush, while paradoxically using a very narrow claim to do so.
That you think that there has been some inconsistency in my position is your misconception.
There is no misconception. You said, "The scientific debate has been over for decades, essentially since Keeling" on the broad topic of AGW. It was a false statement. The first IPCC report even explicitly stated that the warming for the past 100 years was within the realm of natural variability. That was in 1990, decades after Keeling.
I've been quite specific about which claims are considered settled.
No, that was only after I called out your, "The scientific debate has been over for decades, essentially since Keeling." You had to vastly narrow your scope to avoid the uncertainties documented by the first IPCC report. Climate science is not a black and white issue.
To a first approximation, these terms are synonymous.
It's the details that matter, as I laid out in my extensive reply which quoted from the IPCC.
If you disagree, do be specific about which part of the chain of evidence you take issue with
I've already told you I disagree with your simplistic, "the science is settled". Ignoring the entirety of my quotes from the first IPCC, which shows that the science of AGW is not settled, turns you into the denier.
Geez... let's try answering this seriously, no really!
So you want to continue your passive-aggressive, serious, not serious, bullshit games? Ok, I'll play along and take you seriously, because there are SJW idiots that make just as ridiculous arguments that do take it seriously -- perhaps even you.
however, believing something to be profound because it sounds profound is not a sign of high intelligence
It's a reasonable warning written in poetic fashion, regardless of who wrote it or under what circumstances.
I've taken the liberty of fixing that for you.
You've taken the liberty of strawmanning, because you lack the intellectual integrity to engage in honest debate.
prejudice is naturally present in everyone
Indeed, but quotas are not the answer. Prejudice comes in many forms, by the way, not just the pigeon holes of race or sex. But a monoculture of political thought doesn't bother the identity-politics pushers. Not only do they not take "affirmative action" to correct it, they actively seek to enforce it.
QED. Personally I have not read any Marx, apart from Harpo.
You personally do not have to have read Marxist ideology for it to exist or for you to be following it. Engage that neocortex.
An interesting fact: contrary to the views of the far right in the US, the Allies were not the fascists during WW2 and the Nazis were not the oppressed, surprisingly it was the other way around.
An interesting fact: if you run around endorsing and/or committing thug violence while tarring any dissenters to your ideology with a nasty label for the "other" to justify your violence, you just might be a fascist.
I dunno, maybe you're so far up your own ass that you think people should notice minor title changes, and tell the difference between real illogical SJWs and pretend SJWs? If it was an attempt at sarcasm, it needed bigger cues.
The West Coast is certainly the worst, especially any company that's big enough to get into the public eye. If your company has hired a VP of Diversity, you know your company is in trouble.
Breitbart has some interviews with ex-Googlers up.
But we've seen these kinds of stories at a regular pace for several years now. Donglegate. GitHub's meritocracy clusterfuck. Intel's $300 million "diversity" push. Code of Conduct identity-politics pushing. The "progressive" agenda pushing coming out of and being forced on social media companies. Etc.
The IPCC does absolutely say that the overwhelming majority of CO2-induced climate change is due to human influence, and this fact has not been scientifically controversial for several decades.
You're narrowing your claim from the very big topic AGW to "CO2-induced climate change". The question isn't just about "CO2-induced climate change", it's about overall climate change, and how much of climate change is due to human activity, and what the climate will be in the future based on human activity.
The first IPCC, in the Executive Summary, made "certain" statements that there was a natural greenhouse effect and human activities were enhancing it via greenhouse gases. It then made statements "with confidence" that includes: "Carbon dioxide has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect in the past, and is likely to remain so in the future".
It then goes on to make predictions involving possible scenarios. It includes the caveat, "There are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, due to our incomplete understanding of [..]"
The Executive Summary also includes the statement: "The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability, alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more."
All this talk about "settled science" is bullshit.
What's his 'dissenting view'? That women make bad engineers - so stop trying to hire them
That's not what he said. He said expecting and trying to achieve a 50/50 split when there are statistically inherent differences is unreasonable, in particular via discriminatory hiring practices. He also offered suggestions on some practices that may encourage women as engineers, such as pair coding.
Perhaps his 'point' is about groupthink and has nothing to do with women in engineering - but then why focus on that and then make an argument full of disclaimers?
He's stated in interviews that the genesis of his document came out of a "diversity summit" in which he felt very uncomfortable with what was being said. He also said that, contrary to ordinary practice, this summit was not recorded and seemed secretive.
Here's a nicely argued rebuttal from an ex-Googler:
Fucking hilarious. His very first point is that, "Despite speaking very authoritatively, the author does not appear to understand gender." and follows that up with, "I'm not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect,[1] and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I'll leave that to someone else."
This clown acts like an authority in making categorical statements, and then proceeds to completely contradict any supposed authority he had. The original memo had many references backing up his claims, which Gizmodo removed when they republished the document.
Is the quote batshit insane? No, it's a reasonable warning written in poetic fashion, so you're just engaging in ad hominem.
It is however fair to say that the alt-right
The "alt-right" is an overused boogeyman phrase. The origin of "alt-right" came out of Richard Spencer's movement for white nationalism. It has since been generically applied to anybody that goes against the "progressive" left.
seek to destroy existing morals through the apparent paradox generating mental judo that can be boiled down to "by not accepting my intolerance you are intolerant."
Discrimination in the form of quotas, "diversity" hiring practices, and dogmatic political positions is not "tolerance". The "progressive" (in actuality, authoritarian, racist, and sexist) left then goes through mental judo that any opposition to this Marxist ideology is "intolerance".
The correct response is to recognise this for what it is, then punch the fuckers in the face, thus also neatly answering the question "is it right to punch a Nazi?"
Arguing about the differences in averages between men and women is an irrelevant side issue, especially at a company that prides itself on hiring people who are above average.
You're 100% wrong. Because Google hires the elite, statistically, men are going to win out in that category because there will be a much greater number of men than women at the high end. Not only do men statistically prefer coding jobs over women, there's also the longer distribution tails for intelligence, and psychological factors that drive men to work harder over having a more balanced life.
I've stuck with Mozilla for all these years because of the plugins. But don't stop at browsers! I just switched my search engine from Google to DuckDuckGo.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I misread your original post.
The rise of the smart phone ruined Gnome more than identity politics. If Gnome had done nothing but chase identity politics, at least the interface wouldn't have changed drastically. Instead, some hipster douchebags got control of the interface and starting chasing after Apple and smart phone designs. The hipster douchebag is the disease. Identity politics and stupid new interfaces were the symptoms.
Since you deleted and did not offer any reaction to the main salient point
I've responded to all your bullshit.
You're just fuelled by your own hate and are repeatedly pressing what you see as hotbutton triggers trying to get a reaction.
No, that's just your strawman and you're projecting. It's not about hate, it's about being against discrimination. This memo was not against women, it was against quotas, a blindness to gender preferences and science, and an intolerance to differing political thought. It was about meritocracy and treating people as individuals, along with a nudge that some accommodations for women in the workplace could be made for mutual benefit. But you don't want to have that discussion, and go right to "punch a Nazi".
You see, the point is that challenging intolerance does not make you intolerant
Your kind defines your own version of "intolerance", call people a Nazi if they don't agree, and then use that to justify threats or act of violence. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Maduro, etc. All you authoritarians are the same -- if you don't get your way, resort to violence.
The primary two refundable tax credits, which are capped at 1.5 and 1.35 billion, are based on percentages of payroll within Wisconsin and expenditures to Wisconsin Vendors:
It's not clear to me that capital expenditures have to go to Wisconsin vendors. For example, if they bought $10 million in concrete from outside the state to be used within the state, by my reading that's still a capital expenditure within the state, and they would receive a tax credit.
The preppers worry me, because I've seen them agitate for civil war. I think there's a psychology to dedicating your life to being ready for an event and then dealing with the realization that the event may never come.
This is not "breaking even" because they did not pay any money out to begin with. If Foxconn pays even one dollar in taxes, then Wisconsin has more revenue than it would otherwise.
Nope. I checked the PDF linked in the summary. Foxconn will be receiving a refundable tax credit, which means the state is forecasted to write them a check for hundreds of millions for several years, in addition to any infrastructure expenses the state will occur.
Don't believe me? Check the PDF yourself, which outlines the estimated payments in Table 1 on page 13. Table 4, on page 17, shows the break-even analysis, which compares the net of state payments and increased taxes.
You have not offered valid critique.
I've offered concrete evidence that the science of AGW is not "settled" as you originally claimed by quoting the first IPCC report, which clearly laid out what was considered "certain", what was considered "confident", and what was less certain and awaiting more research.
Even as late as 1990, decades after AGW science was supposedly "settled", the report acknowledged the warming for the past 100 years was within the realm of natural variability, and it would take more time, more observations, and more science to verify the signal of AGW.
We've discussed why your quotations were irrelevant.
We've discussed why your broad claim, followed by retreating to a narrow claim to back the broad claim, was bullshit. Since this conversation is clearly going in circles, I will no longer reply.
The question is whether diversity hires happen, not your presumed master detective ability to discern the technical capability of people you ideologically disagree with.
You actually have no idea whether or not I'm making a broad statement. Which is why you're strenuously avoiding discussing the evidence for this theory.
Funny, because I'm the one that managed to quote extensively from the Executive Summary of the first IPCC report.
And by the way, someone telling you that you are wrong is not trying to "silence you".
You can't even quote right. I said, "sweep away all dissent, debate, critique, or controversy with a broad brush". In others words, handwave away or summarily dismiss valid critique with this "the science is settled" bullshit.
You continue to be incorrect about the nature of scientific debate.
And you continue to be narrow minded and engaging in binary thinking over a broad topic. There are many issues of scientific debate surrounding climate science. What you're trying to do is sweep away all dissent, debate, critique, or controversy with a broad brush, while paradoxically using a very narrow claim to do so.
What you describe never happens.
Uh huh. And nobody ever got hired because of a friend or relative. Everybody is hired exactly on merit, and quota systems never change that standard.
Got any other fairy tales you would like to tell?
That you think that there has been some inconsistency in my position is your misconception.
There is no misconception. You said, "The scientific debate has been over for decades, essentially since Keeling" on the broad topic of AGW. It was a false statement. The first IPCC report even explicitly stated that the warming for the past 100 years was within the realm of natural variability. That was in 1990, decades after Keeling.
I've been quite specific about which claims are considered settled.
No, that was only after I called out your, "The scientific debate has been over for decades, essentially since Keeling." You had to vastly narrow your scope to avoid the uncertainties documented by the first IPCC report. Climate science is not a black and white issue.
To a first approximation, these terms are synonymous.
It's the details that matter, as I laid out in my extensive reply which quoted from the IPCC.
If you disagree, do be specific about which part of the chain of evidence you take issue with
I've already told you I disagree with your simplistic, "the science is settled". Ignoring the entirety of my quotes from the first IPCC, which shows that the science of AGW is not settled, turns you into the denier.
Geez... let's try answering this seriously, no really!
So you want to continue your passive-aggressive, serious, not serious, bullshit games? Ok, I'll play along and take you seriously, because there are SJW idiots that make just as ridiculous arguments that do take it seriously -- perhaps even you.
however, believing something to be profound because it sounds profound is not a sign of high intelligence
It's a reasonable warning written in poetic fashion, regardless of who wrote it or under what circumstances.
I've taken the liberty of fixing that for you.
You've taken the liberty of strawmanning, because you lack the intellectual integrity to engage in honest debate.
prejudice is naturally present in everyone
Indeed, but quotas are not the answer. Prejudice comes in many forms, by the way, not just the pigeon holes of race or sex. But a monoculture of political thought doesn't bother the identity-politics pushers. Not only do they not take "affirmative action" to correct it, they actively seek to enforce it.
QED. Personally I have not read any Marx, apart from Harpo.
You personally do not have to have read Marxist ideology for it to exist or for you to be following it. Engage that neocortex.
An interesting fact: contrary to the views of the far right in the US, the Allies were not the fascists during WW2 and the Nazis were not the oppressed, surprisingly it was the other way around.
An interesting fact: if you run around endorsing and/or committing thug violence while tarring any dissenters to your ideology with a nasty label for the "other" to justify your violence, you just might be a fascist.
I dunno, maybe you're so far up your own ass that you think people should notice minor title changes, and tell the difference between real illogical SJWs and pretend SJWs? If it was an attempt at sarcasm, it needed bigger cues.
The West Coast is certainly the worst, especially any company that's big enough to get into the public eye. If your company has hired a VP of Diversity, you know your company is in trouble.
Breitbart has some interviews with ex-Googlers up.
But we've seen these kinds of stories at a regular pace for several years now. Donglegate. GitHub's meritocracy clusterfuck. Intel's $300 million "diversity" push. Code of Conduct identity-politics pushing. The "progressive" agenda pushing coming out of and being forced on social media companies. Etc.
The IPCC does absolutely say that the overwhelming majority of CO2-induced climate change is due to human influence, and this fact has not been scientifically controversial for several decades.
You're narrowing your claim from the very big topic AGW to "CO2-induced climate change". The question isn't just about "CO2-induced climate change", it's about overall climate change, and how much of climate change is due to human activity, and what the climate will be in the future based on human activity.
The first IPCC, in the Executive Summary, made "certain" statements that there was a natural greenhouse effect and human activities were enhancing it via greenhouse gases. It then made statements "with confidence" that includes: "Carbon dioxide has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect in the past, and is likely to remain so in the future".
It then goes on to make predictions involving possible scenarios. It includes the caveat, "There are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, due to our incomplete understanding of [..]"
The Executive Summary also includes the statement: "The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability, alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more."
All this talk about "settled science" is bullshit.
What's his 'dissenting view'? That women make bad engineers - so stop trying to hire them
That's not what he said. He said expecting and trying to achieve a 50/50 split when there are statistically inherent differences is unreasonable, in particular via discriminatory hiring practices. He also offered suggestions on some practices that may encourage women as engineers, such as pair coding.
Perhaps his 'point' is about groupthink and has nothing to do with women in engineering - but then why focus on that and then make an argument full of disclaimers?
He's stated in interviews that the genesis of his document came out of a "diversity summit" in which he felt very uncomfortable with what was being said. He also said that, contrary to ordinary practice, this summit was not recorded and seemed secretive.
Here's a nicely argued rebuttal from an ex-Googler:
Fucking hilarious. His very first point is that, "Despite speaking very authoritatively, the author does not appear to understand gender." and follows that up with, "I'm not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect,[1] and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I'll leave that to someone else."
This clown acts like an authority in making categorical statements, and then proceeds to completely contradict any supposed authority he had. The original memo had many references backing up his claims, which Gizmodo removed when they republished the document.
Nietzsche was absolutely batshit insane, though
Is the quote batshit insane? No, it's a reasonable warning written in poetic fashion, so you're just engaging in ad hominem.
It is however fair to say that the alt-right
The "alt-right" is an overused boogeyman phrase. The origin of "alt-right" came out of Richard Spencer's movement for white nationalism. It has since been generically applied to anybody that goes against the "progressive" left.
seek to destroy existing morals through the apparent paradox generating mental judo that can be boiled down to "by not accepting my intolerance you are intolerant."
Discrimination in the form of quotas, "diversity" hiring practices, and dogmatic political positions is not "tolerance". The "progressive" (in actuality, authoritarian, racist, and sexist) left then goes through mental judo that any opposition to this Marxist ideology is "intolerance".
The correct response is to recognise this for what it is, then punch the fuckers in the face, thus also neatly answering the question "is it right to punch a Nazi?"
Thanks for demonstrating your fascism.
I browse at 3 or above to get the best arguments, which keeps the top-level view manageable, but I always browse at -1 when looking at the replies.
The scientific debate has been over for decades, essentially since Keeling.
That's nonsense. Even the IPCC reports, which have their own biases, don't make idiotic statements like that.
The best part about debating deniers is that they have no idea what they're even saying. That's also the worst part.
Maybe you should look in a mirror.
Arguing about the differences in averages between men and women is an irrelevant side issue, especially at a company that prides itself on hiring people who are above average.
You're 100% wrong. Because Google hires the elite, statistically, men are going to win out in that category because there will be a much greater number of men than women at the high end. Not only do men statistically prefer coding jobs over women, there's also the longer distribution tails for intelligence, and psychological factors that drive men to work harder over having a more balanced life.
I have to assume that this document didn't come out of a vacuum and that there is more to this story.
Of course. Tech is being rotted out by SJWs.
I've stuck with Mozilla for all these years because of the plugins. But don't stop at browsers! I just switched my search engine from Google to DuckDuckGo.