At best those examples are misleading.
The article ignores the R&D which often happened at private institutions and cherry pics the first use or minor refinement that occurred at a government facility.
1,788 karma · joined April 25, 2011
The article ignores the R&D which often happened at private institutions and cherry pics the first use or minor refinement that occurred at a government facility.
Why pick on traders? I know a lot of developers making well into six figures. I hear them talking about getting 3 new graphics cards for their gaming rigs instead of how they worked at a soup kitchen.
What is your point? That GS should be donating 100m to charity instead of reinvesting into their business?
Where do you think that money goes? Workers will be paid to implement their plan and taxes will be paid on those wages. In fact about 40% of that 100m will eventually end up being paid in taxes.
You can try to turn the mundane into micro challenges. Can you build a script to automate those TPS reports?
Whatever your task, how can you make it more interesting? Take the final product from an 8 to a 10.
Go watch a dude perfect video on YouTube, those guys are the masters of taking trivial things and making them interesting. Basically, do the IT version of that.
Most Netflix originals prioritized a political message first and entertainment a distant second.
I don't need to get my values from entertainers, of all people.
To treat the problem, you have to go straight to the root.
And that problem is: The cost of free is too damn high.
Most people in the US don't pay for their medical care or their medical insurance. It's "free", at least in terms of money out of pocket.
We need to remove the corporate tax deduction for healthcare insurance from the tax law. This in turn will solve most other problems as market forces are brought back into the picture.
Once people start selecting and paying for their own policy, they will be more price conscious on their claims, as most people already are on their auto insurance.
Once people are more price conscious, medical facilities will begin to complete again on price and insurance companies will focus on individual plans.
It all has to start with the consumer though, and currently the consumer doesn't care what the price is. They don't pay for the medical care and they don't the insurance premiums.
That is the assumption that scares me. The algorithm encodes the bias and applies it in every case.
This feature will only save you from a shifting bias.
The Alex Jones censorship is another matter. His stuff is pretty crazy, but not worthy of being taken down. Louis Farrakhan says lots crazy stuff and I don’t believe he’s been censored at all. There is definitely a double standard at play.
You argued that the restrictions on press are justified, said nothing about free speech, and that you hopefully don’t need to defend yourself.
So it sounds like we agree on the basic premise I set forth, but disagree on the importance of it.
By fallout, I mean women are starting to realize that men identifying as women isn’t in their best interest. Feminist are already split on this issue.
In the US, the state of Connecticut has biological boys who identify as girls competing in female sports and blowing them away, displacing biological girls on teams and soon in athletic scholarships.
This throws well-intentioned gender based laws into chaos. Title 9 will be challenged as biological men displace biological women in sports at larger scales. The Olympics will be dominated and world records will be shattered by biological men in female gender events.
Then there’s the guy in Canada that spent $50 to change his gender to female and saved $1,400 on his auto insurance.
This era of self identification will end since sincerity is not an objective truth and can’t be measured.
Or, another possibility, all laws attempting to promote equality between sexes and races will be made useless.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
When you say race is a social construct because we may visually ascribe a person wrongly to a race seems pointless in an era of dna tests. The possibility of being factually wrong doesn’t suddenly make something a social construct.
If I see bear cub from a distance and then find out it was actually a dog, it doesn’t mean I should shrug and say that a bear and a dog are social constructs, so I wasn’t wrong because these distinctions are fluid based on the social norms of our day.
Why you seem to deny that science can blindly determine your ancestral origins (and thus race) with astonishing accuracy is beyond me.
What about what I said is nonsense?
Are you saying that you have freedom of speech while a 19yr old posting lyrics from a rap song on her private Instagram page is censured and fined for doing so?
Are you saying your government can’t censor media outlets from certain topics?
Are you saying you have the right to defend yourself with some sort of force multiplier?
If you’re willing to explain why I’m wrong factually or philosophical, I’m willing to listen.
Freedom of the press: The Tommy Robinson episode which is the first time I had heard of the broad government ability to ban news stories from being reported. You don’t have to agree with Robinson’s politics, you just need to realize the precedent it sets.
Freedom of speech: Chelsea Russell - https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh...
Mark Meechan - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotlan...
I’m not defending these people, but think about the chilling effect this has on speech.
Right to self defense: U.K. took away the right to legally own hand guns in 1996. Since then knife violence has been on the rise. London is now considering “common sense knife control”. There is no longer any legal weapon you can carry that will give you a force multiplier over an attacker. This is especially dangerous for women.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_...
How is it not political when someone else says a man surgically inverting his penis into his body cavity magically becomes a woman?
But when I point out that the man still has the wrong chromosomes to be a woman, it’s somehow political?
Who’s arguing ideology and who’s arguing science in this scenario?
If that’s your idea of “intellectual curiosity” just ban me now. Please.
Everything is a social construct then.
Police get to optionally, at their discretion, set bail?
That seems ripe for abuse.
At this point in history, I would NEVER look to the UK as a model for anything state related. It barely qualifies as a western democracy these days.
Race is not a “social construct”. If that were true, I wouldn’t be able to blindly tell your race via a dna test.
Where does all this anti-science rhetoric come from? I guess global warming and evolution is a myth too?
So you would rather see bail set at a percentage of net worth? That would make things equal?
But I’ve never seen a woman become a man or a white person become a POC. So that’s pretty immutable.
I’ll take examples from either category though.
In practice, it was liberals who enacted heavy sentences on crack usage.
California, an extremely liberal state, voted in a 72% majority referendum for the three strikes policy.
So, I’m just curious why liberals have some sort of lock in the minds of people as being on the “side of the poor”.
Yet, the article has the opposite view.
Somewhere along the road our society has flipped and now virtue is vice and vice is virtue.
Can you name a more moral economic system than that?