I suspect we have different definitions of "fascism", which I don't want to delve into here.
Good luck firing Jews that exceed their quota
What specifically is this in reference to? I would note that quotas should be based on what's available in the workforce. For example, if group X gets 20% more college degrees in finance, then we should realistically expect 20% more of group X in finance careers.
good luck firing 87% of the Blacks (13% in the US) employees at the all Black Entertainment Television.
I'm sure the laws can work out some exceptions, such as entertainment or political shows catering to specific ethnic groups, at least for the parts of the business that relate to cultural issues.
Drawing perfect lines in the sand may be unrealistic, but that's civilization: compromising and cutting deals to keep the peace.
In the short term, maybe. But I won't rule out that we can get a "better deal" than what we have now when the war finally plays out.
However, I do think it unlikely that we'll get a sufficiently better deal to compensate for what's lost during the battle. It's like winning a physical war only to realize half your population is dead.
If T is such a great negotiator, why are there still about 500 people richER than him, most of whom don't claim they have super-human negotiating skills.
There's nothing impulsive about anything Trump does; it's all extremely calculated.
If so, nobody has published an algorithm to test his actions against to verify it. It sure the hell looks ad-hoc to most of us.
I will agree that to some his off-the-cuff remarks make many feel he's genuine: telling the world exactly what he thinks. This could be considered a legitimate "plan": to gain trust by saying what you actually think, although I see it as merely his inherent personality. He was a compulsive child also: it's why his family sent him to a military school.
The upside of this is transparency: we see his actual thoughts as they are formed. The downside is that much of his thoughts are petty, vengeful, ill-informed, overly-simplistic, and based on inaccurate assumptions.
H was careless with emails; T is careless with everything. If T does well, it'll be a Jar Jar moment in history. May The Force be with us...
That shows that X has some relationship to Y. But the researchers were caught over-interpreting this with descriptions such as "X controls Y" in the chip experiment.
I'll echo Seth Myers in saying that I've been wrong about him so many times that, if this trend continues, he'll be a great president.
People have been wrong about how voters react to him, not really wrong about the man himself.
As far as what he'll actually do in office, we still don't really know. It's like getting in line for a roller coaster covered up with sheets. We don't even know if it's fully constructed yet.
For example, he wants tax cuts, larger military, and infrastructure spending. Together these will likely exasperate the budget deficit. He hopes he can grow the economy enough to expand tax revenue to pay for it all, BUT if the optimistic plan fails, what will he give up to keep the budget in line, or will he just blow the budget, setting us up for a crash without enough in the tank for an emergency stimulus?
The real test of a leader is not when their plans go right, but how they adjust when they fail.
On trade, what if trade-wars start and it becomes clear after a while those wars are hurting our economy? Will he back down, and double down?
And what will he do if Russia invades more territory? If he keeps ignoring it, we may get Soviet Union 2.0. Those were scary days with too many close calls; we don't want them back.
Add to that his ability to agitate countries and ethnic groups.
Spock impression: "This is a fascinating experiment in leadership. I just hope we can watch it from a safe distance, Captain."
We can mitigate the negative effects to some degree via quotas and statistical monitoring. It ain't perfect, but it's a matter of balancing pro's and cons.
Maybe we can try different ways to encourage diversity, such as tax breaks for having balance. Lawsuits may indeed be too blunt an instrument; let's try more carrots and less sticks.
In Europe they use weight-loss medication that has proven fairly effective and safe. But for some reason doctors in the US are discouraged from prescribing them.
I asked my own doctor about them, and got a lectury response something like "patients should just learn to exercise more and eat better instead." Yeah, we know that already.
Ironically, the doctor is also overweight. It's NOT working, doc!
We have to vote for a person, not specific positions. While I generally agree with him on visa workers, there are many other things I don't. And he says really obnoxious things.
Also, it's not about "those leftists". Conservatives and GOP have been happy to give businesses what they want to make a profit, including exploitable and cheap visa workers, and in many cases "illegals".
Lefties have been somewhat more likely to complain about visa worker issues than righties over the years in my observation. Overall, Trump is a generally centrist, by the way.
That's why co's like visa workers: they often DO work harder and longer because the money they receive goes further. They are building up a nest egg such that they want to get as much as possible during their short stint, and so avoid anything that may get them terminated. The world is lopsided.
claptrap. You don't hire to fill quotas... You hire the best candidate to do a job.
I've been in the work-world long enough to know that social factors play a large role in actual hiring decisions/preferences. Humans are social animals and tribal by nature/habit.
We like to THINK we are objective, but in practice we are not. We unconsciously prefer people who think like and have a background similar to ourselves. We don't want mental-world-view-mismatches that take us out of our comfort zone.
Once I inadvertently got the results of my own job interview due to a mix-up. The hiring manager stated, "Tablizer [alias] is technically competent and experienced, but has no personality. He is a stick-in-the-mud. We want somebody more interesting." [paraphrased]
The Mars rovers already have a degree of automated navigation. They can avoid rocks and dodgy terrain on their own. They are set to stop and report a problem if they have to deviate too much from the draft path or encounter excessive obstacles.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect we have different definitions of "fascism", which I don't want to delve into here.
What specifically is this in reference to? I would note that quotas should be based on what's available in the workforce. For example, if group X gets 20% more college degrees in finance, then we should realistically expect 20% more of group X in finance careers.
I'm sure the laws can work out some exceptions, such as entertainment or political shows catering to specific ethnic groups, at least for the parts of the business that relate to cultural issues.
Drawing perfect lines in the sand may be unrealistic, but that's civilization: compromising and cutting deals to keep the peace.
In the short term, maybe. But I won't rule out that we can get a "better deal" than what we have now when the war finally plays out.
However, I do think it unlikely that we'll get a sufficiently better deal to compensate for what's lost during the battle. It's like winning a physical war only to realize half your population is dead.
If T is such a great negotiator, why are there still about 500 people richER than him, most of whom don't claim they have super-human negotiating skills.
That's it: maybe we are all trying to use chess rules to figure him out, when he's merely playing checkers.
If so, nobody has published an algorithm to test his actions against to verify it. It sure the hell looks ad-hoc to most of us.
I will agree that to some his off-the-cuff remarks make many feel he's genuine: telling the world exactly what he thinks. This could be considered a legitimate "plan": to gain trust by saying what you actually think, although I see it as merely his inherent personality. He was a compulsive child also: it's why his family sent him to a military school.
The upside of this is transparency: we see his actual thoughts as they are formed. The downside is that much of his thoughts are petty, vengeful, ill-informed, overly-simplistic, and based on inaccurate assumptions.
H was careless with emails; T is careless with everything. If T does well, it'll be a Jar Jar moment in history. May The Force be with us...
That shows that X has some relationship to Y. But the researchers were caught over-interpreting this with descriptions such as "X controls Y" in the chip experiment.
Correction: "Will he back down, or double down?"
People have been wrong about how voters react to him, not really wrong about the man himself.
As far as what he'll actually do in office, we still don't really know. It's like getting in line for a roller coaster covered up with sheets. We don't even know if it's fully constructed yet.
For example, he wants tax cuts, larger military, and infrastructure spending. Together these will likely exasperate the budget deficit. He hopes he can grow the economy enough to expand tax revenue to pay for it all, BUT if the optimistic plan fails, what will he give up to keep the budget in line, or will he just blow the budget, setting us up for a crash without enough in the tank for an emergency stimulus?
The real test of a leader is not when their plans go right, but how they adjust when they fail.
On trade, what if trade-wars start and it becomes clear after a while those wars are hurting our economy? Will he back down, and double down?
And what will he do if Russia invades more territory? If he keeps ignoring it, we may get Soviet Union 2.0. Those were scary days with too many close calls; we don't want them back.
Add to that his ability to agitate countries and ethnic groups.
Spock impression: "This is a fascinating experiment in leadership. I just hope we can watch it from a safe distance, Captain."
We can mitigate the negative effects to some degree via quotas and statistical monitoring. It ain't perfect, but it's a matter of balancing pro's and cons.
If we leave it as is, the dominant culture will suppress secondary cultures and give each other favors in the work-place.
And I didn't mention immigration. Where did that come from?
I see a lesson in humility here by looking at how poor human scientists do at modelling-by-studying-defects in a general sense.
It suggests that models of the brain derived by seeing what effects damaged sections have on patient behavior may be worse than originally expected.
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
That's obvious drama-queening there.
Maybe we can try different ways to encourage diversity, such as tax breaks for having balance. Lawsuits may indeed be too blunt an instrument; let's try more carrots and less sticks.
In Europe they use weight-loss medication that has proven fairly effective and safe. But for some reason doctors in the US are discouraged from prescribing them.
I asked my own doctor about them, and got a lectury response something like "patients should just learn to exercise more and eat better instead." Yeah, we know that already.
Ironically, the doctor is also overweight. It's NOT working, doc!
Indeed. USA voted for an interesting president.
I don't know why this is used as a justification for bad behavior so often. (And probably not true.)
"I only beat my wife half as often as you do."
We have to vote for a person, not specific positions. While I generally agree with him on visa workers, there are many other things I don't. And he says really obnoxious things.
Also, it's not about "those leftists". Conservatives and GOP have been happy to give businesses what they want to make a profit, including exploitable and cheap visa workers, and in many cases "illegals".
Lefties have been somewhat more likely to complain about visa worker issues than righties over the years in my observation. Overall, Trump is a generally centrist, by the way.
I'm the father of Bobby Tables.
That's why co's like visa workers: they often DO work harder and longer because the money they receive goes further. They are building up a nest egg such that they want to get as much as possible during their short stint, and so avoid anything that may get them terminated. The world is lopsided.
I've been in the work-world long enough to know that social factors play a large role in actual hiring decisions/preferences. Humans are social animals and tribal by nature/habit.
We like to THINK we are objective, but in practice we are not. We unconsciously prefer people who think like and have a background similar to ourselves. We don't want mental-world-view-mismatches that take us out of our comfort zone.
Once I inadvertently got the results of my own job interview due to a mix-up. The hiring manager stated, "Tablizer [alias] is technically competent and experienced, but has no personality. He is a stick-in-the-mud. We want somebody more interesting." [paraphrased]
It seems they want to hire more Asians, BUT pay them less, for whatever reason or perception.
The Mars rovers already have a degree of automated navigation. They can avoid rocks and dodgy terrain on their own. They are set to stop and report a problem if they have to deviate too much from the draft path or encounter excessive obstacles.
Actually, it is a "moon" lander.
How about that, icons with booties. I hope those don't end up in the Unicode set.
Oh, but it feels soooo good
Japan turned toilets into rocket science. Let's hope they don't turn rockets into toilet science.