Yes and like every good conspiracy theorist knows, the inability to point to evidence is all the more proof of the conspiracy.
Leave. You're a net-negative to this website.
2,488 karma · joined September 14, 2008
Leave. You're a net-negative to this website.
You have no place in polite society. Get lost.
Yes. To de-obfuscate, they sent a message that he should be cancelled. It backfired spectacularly, as it rightfully should have. Good.
And yes I'm aware her posts have made it to the top of HN many times in the past. That I've seen, they've all been unhelpful vague-posts like this one.
Maybe she's actually a real expert I should be listening to! But layer upon layer of vague "if you know, you know" do not make that case.
No, it's not "propaganda". It's factual reporting that happens to be inconvenient to Hamas apologists.
It's also corroborated by the atrocities against innocent civilians that these monsters gleefully filmed themselves committing on October 7th, such as attacking children with grenades.
The blood of the Palestinian civilians that Hamas waged war from behind is absolutely on Hamas's hands.
They certainly approach stories with an editorial perspective, but they're generally factually reliable and hardly "incredibly slanted".
I've seen no indication that simply protesting is seen as "not ok". But trespassing on private property, or worse blocking bridges, goes quite beyond "protest" and freedom of speech.
Some things really are objectively stupid as hell.
In principle it shouldn't matter. But I'm worried userbase demographics will determine from which quarter the next legislative threat to end-to-end encryption emerges.
Can you share evidence of this? Because it clashes with all the messaging I've seen from Parler.
Is there evidence of a causal relationship here?
I haven't yet read into the details of this case, and I may end up siding with the protestors once I have. But I do not abide the corruption of language for whatever political ends.
Huh? You've described a run-of-the-mill, moderate-scale reservation system. This is not "astounding" in any sense except, perhaps, the hyperbole.
If only nuance were present when politicians on the left make misleading or false statements like "women (are) paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men".
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/jun/21/barack-oba...
> Shouldn't choosing to raise a family account for the experience gap?
Edit: I think I misread your second paragraph. Choosing to raise a family likely does account for the existence of the experience gap, if that's what you mean; but raising a family isn't equivalent to on-the-job experience.
Are these people mistaken? Does what's allowed to appear on Twitter really have no effect on the broader society?
On the other hand, as you point out, one could design a race-blind system that gives a leg up to people who grew up in poverty, people whose parents were incarcerated on account of the war on drugs, etc. This system would disproportionately give a leg up to black students, so when looked at from an angle of averaged-out racial group dynamics it may "approximate exactly what affirmative action does."
However, crucially, on an _individual_ level such a system would not discriminate between otherwise similar applicants on the arbitrary basis of race. Unlike affirmative action, such an alternative system as you describe would not be racist, and that is no small distinction.
The third sentence in the article: "Google didn’t specify how many roles are being cut and said it was working with affected employees to find them new positions in the company."
The facts to counter the propaganda:
- https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/16/was-there-a-cou...
- https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodig...
I somewhat agree with this statement. But judging by the ink spilled over sex differences in places like the New York Times, and by the views on the subject that one is allowed to hold in the polite company of higher education and industry, and by the intensity of the backlash when one publicly deviates from those views: I suspect the "deeply entrenched biases" most significant for present-day researchers lean quite opposite from what you assume.