Lawtonfogle

If he has used up the USDA money and switched to private sector, where is the problem? If he wants to do work for Large Company with USDA money, then that is a problem and I see no reason to not ban it.

>Some people have been arguing lately for something even more absurd, which is that if a university receives any public funding at all, then all of their research has been tainted by the transitive property of government funding and must be released to everyone for free and fuck the hard work the researchers put into it.

You do realize that often researchers have to pay to publish in journals. They don't make money from the papers being distributed. If anything, getting rid of the journals will give them more money back as they would stop having to pay to publish them in for-profit journals.

>U.S. society has decided that it must be very costly for young women to have children

I'm pretty sure U.S. society isn't the one responsible for the fact that raising a child consumes significant resources and makes obtaining other goals much harder. The time spent caring for a baby makes it harder to complete higher education. Even if offered help, a baby takes a lot of time.

Also, this isn't something that only applies to young women. A single father has to sacrifice a lot of time to raise a child. While the initial pregnancy is not as bad for the single father to deal with, the time spent with a child that could be spent on anything else is a significant factor for the next 18 years.

>You want to assume people are inherently good actors

I wish I could assume such but having studied a bit of psychology, I have found no evidence to support such an assumption.

And then there are people who have two last names separated by a space, but which cannot be considered a single last name. Their last name goes <paternal figure's paternal last name> <maternal figure's paternal last name>. Those who keep this naming standard for their children will pass on only their paternal figure's paternal name, which they consider their last name.

A few I know had such issues they had to drop their maternal figure's paternal last name so that they would be called by their paternal figure's paternal last name, which was their preferred name when using only one last name (using both was similar to when someone uses a full middle name calling on a person).

It could also be a cost benefit analysis. How much business lost vs. the cost of supporting. Especially when many such users have encountered the problem often enough to already have a work around.

There are definitely some cases where it is a testing issue, but especially with accepting all possible valid names, sometimes the cost is too high to convince the one in control of funding.

A man cannot have a child by himself, he requires someone to be a surrogate mother, which is expensive, rare, and in many cases legally and ethically grey. A single woman can (due to certain medical procedures where the needed biological material is already in stock), and while a pregnancy is not cheap, there are no where near the significant legal and moral issues.

Of course either could adopt a child if they really wanted to. So really we need to determine are we comparing extremes to extremes, or are we comparing what actually happens in the population (and at what point do we disagree and thus need to begin supporting our ideas).

>because every pregnancy is different, and every woman is different, and every family is different. You cannot safely assume anything about a pregnant woman. So her pregnancy can't help you reliably judge whether she can handle being CEO.

Couldn't this logic be applied to almost anything about any person and thus leave one saying that nothing can reliably be used to judge whether someone can handle being a CEO?

At the same time, a single man has less options for having a baby than a single woman, thus there is still inequality in the risk.

The problem is that unequally applies rules are often intermingled with biases. While a single instance of 'what about that other guy' isn't a worthwhile plea, if you can show a trend as to who gets pulled based on something other than speeding, you have a problem.

In business, it is less of an issue because business doesn't need to be fair to the same standard of law. There are still certain laws and protect groups and such, but the bar is still much lower than in law. The complaint of unfairness can be valid, but also pointless.

You can't look at a single individual. Even as soon as you include two individuals with advantageous mutations, the chance of them having an off spring with both is extremely higher than for an asexual organism.

Scale this up to 1000 individuals, each with mutations that are advantageous or disadvantageous, which impacts their chance to have children, and run it across a few generations (with a small chance of children getting new mutations not in their parents), and the chance of a subset of the population getting many of the positive mutations is much much higher than if they were an asexual species.

The asexual species will end up with more member of the final population having the single most advantageous mutation, but with none having more than that.

>You ask of evidence in a thread about a man being killed by police emptying multiple magazines into and the area around him.

This is a question of accuracy and situation awareness, not of intention when shooting.

>That doesn't even sound like shoot-to-kill that sounds like they were afraid to death.

My question was directly related to the comment made about shooting to kill, not about when to shoot.

>There's plenty of more stories of where that one came from. Were you unaware of that?

Stories about shooting when you shouldn't, not about shooting to kill.

>A policy of shoot-to-kill tells the populace

No, the policy of shooting too soon, without assessing the situation, is the cause of the problem. There is a distinction between when to shoot and how one shoots once they have made the decision. My question was focused on a comment made about the latter.

>I take issue to the police being justified in using lethal force as a first resort.

And I agree they are too quick to shoot. But my question was directed to a comment made about how they shoot once they shoot, now about when they shoot.

Where is the evidence (or argument) that shooting to kill is, and I paraphrase, something that is incredibly stupid? Arguments supporting knowing when to shoot, knowing what is around the target you are shooting, knowing how to shoot such that you hit the target do not answer this question.

>Something that is incredibly fucking stupid

Any evidence of this point?

>and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misguided use of of lethal weapons.

Many countries choose to not use guns. There is a vast difference between not using guns and trying to shoot to wound. If you want to protest against the police using guns, speak directly to that.

>As a programmer, if I'm building a technology that's open to the public to use, I make sure it doesn't have canned responses to certain triggers that are abusable in that way.

How do you protect against a near infinite list of possible questions?

I can put anything behind 'do you support', and there is no way for your to know every single thing I'm talking about. Maybe I'm mentioning something that is only known to a sub group of the internet, maybe I'm mentioning something horrible that happened in fiction, maybe I'm wording something in a way that references something really bad, but which a text parser cannot pick up on. And if you default to no instead of yes, I can just ask the opposite.

To be able to give any response to a question which cannot be abused would basically require a full AI. Even many humans can be tricked if you word the questions correctly.

>However it's important to pick a sample that doesn't inherently bias the effect that is being measured. This has to apply to both the original and the replication.

All this shows is that psychology is less useful that people thing because any data is likely only applicable to the given group. Even if we say the studies are still good, this means that psychology loses the ability to be generalized to others groups beyond the one studied. And given how often psychology has that done to it, we must question every finding all the more.

And we should be providing welfare to help people get better custom service and improve their love life? When we are talking about providing for people's needs, this wasn't part of the agreement. If we want to expand welfare, let's be upfront about it and decide what we expect in return for that welfare.

>It's cruel to suggest that folks living in poverty can only be deserving of assistance if they embrace their poverty and advertise it to the world.

When I'm getting buyer on something cheaper than an iPhone, why should I help someone else get a full price iPhone? If they want to put the work in finding a second hand one at a cheap price, good for them. But why should I help them pay for shinier equipment than I even get for myself?

The suit will get you a better paying job. How many of those buying expensive shoes are using them in a way that they are expected to pay off like the suit does? I'm not saying it is impossible, only that it doesn't apply in most cases.

It buys them signaling. Why is that a good thing?

>If you're already poor, then an iPhone (not a smartphone) is definitely a luxury.

Depends where you get it. I've known some teens who have managed to pick up iPhones on the second hand market really cheap. There are enough people always wanting the shiniest new thing that more enterprising individuals can pick up a generation old iPhone for less than many cheaper Androids.

The luxury is being able to pay full price for a brand new device.

If it is the article I remember, one example was showing that the study could be replicated if done at the same university (which would be years after the first study), but the criticism was that it couldn't be replicated at a different university.

So the criticism of the criticism seems to be quite overstated. If the study can only be replicated at a single university (or even all in a general area), it means that we need to be very careful in generalizing the results. So to the extent that people take a study of one very specific group and generalize to an entire culture (or worse, to all humans), the criticism sticks.

Back when I was getting my psychology degree, there was a joke that 90% of the findings in psychology can only be generalized to broke American college students who are willing to be lab rats for beer money. While that overstates the problem, there is still a lot of truth in it.

>An advertisement for a home care product.

How do you know I want to be exposed to a consent related question?

Kinda like how asking certain questions about consent can be classified as harassment if you have already been told no, even if the actions of which consent was being requested for were never carried out.

Should appearance be a protected class? One often has more control over their religion than their appearance, especially in certain areas, so I can't see why no.

>There is some (unintentional I'm sure) age bias even in the response of "stay relevant" as if the implication is that older devs don't do that as a matter of course while younger ones do.

Take two doctors. Both learned all their knowledge going through med school. Neither did anything else to stay relevant. One graduated 5 years ago, the other 25 years. Which is likely to have more relevant knowledge? Is it because they stayed relevant? No. It is because everyone has some learning period (be it through college or not), and on average older workers had that period longer ago than younger workers, so the relevancy bonus has decreased more.

The longer since you had a significant learning period (the longer since you graduated school), the more you have to work to stay relevant. This isn't tied to age, only correlated because it is rarer for a younger person to have had their learning period (graduated) longer ago.

I read it as they don't drive, and thus don't consent to the risk of being in a car accident. Not that they cycle because of the risk; they didn't list why they cycle.

>but how is that fair?

Having no monetary help from a family making 100K a year is still different from having no monetary help from a family making 20K. If we want fair, how is growing up in a family with poor parents fair compared to growing up in a family with rich parents? While you might be able to blame the parent for their own financial situation, you cannot blame the child.

>it was pretty upsetting to see kids who were ostensibly poorer than I was get a substantially easier start in life.

Considering that they already had an ~18 year start of life where they likely weren't having it easier...

And the accountability ends up causing waste. A basic example I've given before is when you can't go and buy the cheapest thing because you have to prove it is the cheapest thing, which you can't do without a review (because people abused this is the past). The end result is that the cost to approve the cheapest option is so high you stick with a more expensive option that is overall worse, but currently considered the best.

Imagine a programmer who has to document what they do every quarter hour of their work day to ensure accountability to auditors looking to reduce waste. They end up wasting more time documenting what they do than you end up saving.

Make the winnings be a multiplier of the tax paid on the receipt.

So... what are the modern day equivalents?

I do think drugs still apply, but not as much. But for things like encryption and private communications, there are others. And like with drugs, the thing they target aren't innocent. Many drugs are bad, some are downright horrendous. Part of the genius of their plan is that they do stick to things that aren't innocent and just make them even more guilty than they already are.

If others aren't having to do unpaid work to get an entry level job, then you need to figure out the difference between you and them. Is an unpaid internship going to fix that difference? Maybe, but unless you are sure, you could be wasting months of your life on something that could end up hurting you.