Little bit off-topic here, but there's almost 8 billion of us now. 7 billion was past a while ago and exponential growth continues.
118 karma · joined October 14, 2016
As to the actual meat of the article, the whole thing seems to be yet another "us" "them" hit piece, another partisan hate-brew in a long line of clickbait...
I don't really understand why the writer disagrees with "white men" belief that it's pipeline issues rather than anything else. I mean, they offer zero counter other than essentially "women don' believe in themselves enough and it's the white man's fault". That's a pretty thin and tired counterpoint. What does the writer want (since there's a clear bias here)? Companies to not hire based on merit?
Isn't that discrimination in itself?
There's been many theories. The overiding idea being pushed from the "media" is that Twitter simply doesn't censor enough "hate speech" and "harrassment".
I have a lot of qualms with this though. I mean, FB by a long shot doesn't censor anywhere near as much. Take a look at basically any thread there. Yet still...FB seems to manage user-base and stock value wise. So it can't be the above theory.
The other, for obvious reasons more suppressed, reason is that they censor and control too much, and the control they do do, is like you say, one-sided and bias.
There's plenty of evidence that supports bias censorship on Twitter, yet there's none that Twitter doesn't censor enough, at least when you compare to Twitter.
To be honest, I'de be pushed to think that people love scapegoating "the other side", "bigots", etc., for the collapse of Twitter, just so they don't have to come to the realisation that their political orientstion pushes people away from a platform. It's essentially admitting defeat right?
* You seriously try defending reading bomb-making books? To imply that reading a book on how to make bombs, without any background need for it like a job related to pyro, etc., is not suspicios is IMHO rediculous.
* Not "everyone" uses encryption. Actually, the majority of web users do not, and less so knowingly.
* Not "everyone" will suddenly and completly change the overall theme of themselves.
* Not "everyone" has recent loss or has been humiliated.
In general, your other points are getting onto something and i somewhat agree.
However, to be honest I don't think a break down approach is the best to gain incite into the FBI's process. The questions are supposed to be treated as a whole, not singulars. Each question is not designed to give a yes/no answer; but rather the end result, suspicion of terrorism, is a complex, non-analytic function of all the answers
It's a pretty well ingrained idea, and I imagine for a reason, that skill and talent are useless without being able to interact with people well and with a good personality.
At the place I work, most of the developers are eccentric, reclusive, position-protectionist, "geniuses". They are smart, theoretically very knowledgeable. Basically...academic.
And their code? Some of the shoddiest I've seen. Let's just say, we have a database that EIGHT API's are reading and writing to...
In the end, without a decent personality and ability to interact with your fellow work mates, you work increasingly more isolated, on your own, not communicating, and this leads to your produce becoming increasingly isolated and not aware of other people's produce. In the programming world, that's suicide, hence why where I work is losing customers and money FAST from system breakages.
It's sad to see these washed-up 40 year olds drag the place under with their poor team work. I mean, there's 40 jobs that have gone because we have lost so much revenue we couldn't afford the better developers that were here.
Interact and communicate folks.
Decentralisation is a definite positive, and it is sad to see it being taken away by the ever-obvious tendencies of human nature to dominate and control.
If you have any doubts, remember when Facebook, likely bribed by a tremmendous amount of entities, tried to release a "super special kind of free nice generous internet access" service in 3rd world countries with access to "arbitarily" determined access to certain IP's? That's shocking, and they, like Google, will keep on grinding the stones of law with endless pits of lawyers until it crumbles to sand.
Go through my comment history even.
You just totally fabricated the "we've asked you before" line out of no where to add fake punch.
Also, there are plenty more comments just like mine, and some even less focused on the technology side of the thread.
I'm sorry but your whole scheme here seems to flag/forbid comments you don't agree with with fabricated justification.
> Unreadable this, unbeatable that, sailboats, fighter jets, etc.
A company stating it's "unbeatable", has "sailboats", or whatever, again, has nothing to do with "testerone".
In fact, you'll find that for ever rich male CEO/owner of a company with a sailboat bragging about it, there will be a rich female CEO/owner of a sailboat bragging about it.
You may have been mixed up since there are less female CEO's, so it seems that it's a "male thing", but really, every study shows that when but in the right position, females and males will do equally fantastic, or horrible, or stupid things.
I think maybe you need to make things less about "male vs female"?
To generalise an entire company, a kind of global one at that, as that, just comes of as incredibly bitter and nieve.
And these companies haven't "gone crazy". There is zero evidence for that.
Also, exact quotas is discriminatory by definition. You are, by definition, hiring and/or not hiring somebody because of their race, which itself is becoming a rather tenuous concept in itself due to globalisation (mixing of races).
In circa 2012, Amazon, likely bowing to monsterous bribes and other pressures, allowed China to list items as 3rd party. In the 4 years since, counterfiets have increased by around 70%.
It will be the death of them. But hey, Bezos has his rocket ships, right?
You invent an enemy (the linked article, "anti-SJW"), and then attempt to "brush off" what is clearly a misleading and likely agenda-fueled article, which as per the MSM definition is "fake news.
Also be aware that your "brush-off" and "oh it's not that bad" argument is identical to "sexists" claiming the "wage gap" doesn't exist...the very people you clearly are opposed to by the sounds if it.
Migrating products and services to be "online", which is essentially what the cloud is, is a win-win - politically and economically.
Being online means that Senior Analyst Mike Bloggs from GameCorp Co. can make monthly summaries about which ad struck, about which user did what, about how well that microtransaction performed with each user. It means that CTO Satya from Microsoft gets tax breaks et al, discussed over the meetings he often attends with government, for exchanging user data with FBI, GCHQ, etc. It means VP of Sales Matt Thebosspants from EA can control access to a game with codes, DMR-ing content.
It's a win on all sides, and there is nothing you can do about the ever-spreading cloud.
Heard of those cloud-connected toys for kids nowadays? Ain't that cute.
The electricity cost will in itself mean in maybe a year or so they'll cost more than an equivalent Nvidia/intel card.
Also not sure how the hotter-running AMDs affect their life, but it's possible it's considerable...
Death rate is 3x larger, but US population was ~60% of what is was now. That alone means that the death rate is actually only 1.8x times bigger.
Additionally, it's been shown that doctors have been bribed and has caused vast over-diagnosis.
Why was this clickbait, masquerading as a study, linked on HN?
I'm of the opinion that using the word "retard" in a github repo is stupid and unprofessional, and makes your project look far worse, but why, seriously, why couldn't github leave free-market dynamics to let this kind of stuff to die?
Shut I man's mouth, and they'll only try harder to speak. Ignore them and they'll have to focus on why people aren't paying attention.
let x = love; let y = fear; let z = lack of fear.
This statement is basically saying:
x = z; y = x; => y = z; => We fear the lack of fear.
Sorry but that quote is basically 90% redundant, with x ("love") being a trivial parametric, eliminatable variable.
One organisation that provides our transportation, internet (which itself is gaming, information, communication, business, etc.), energy, and basically every facet of our lives. Google and Facebook are already trying to get closer to that...
It's been shown almost all of these stories are fake. Remember the gas station one? Several people, and even major news orgs, rang up the local police department, and they said they never received any call from the victim or from anybody in a gas station.
Classic :P
I've talked to my SO's grandpa about this in fact just last week. He was telling me how after over 40 years in a council, one thing he is sure of is the affluent's hatred, fear and/or disgust for the poor.
It's happend since the dawn of time. The rich want to stay away from the poor. Generally I hate the idea, and all it does is seggregate, breed hate, and create ever higher barriers to social mobility.
b) If you read past the headlines into the correlation and probability theory of each study, you'll find that the reason why there is the difference is because of education and lower ambitions and goals of black people. You could say there is no real racism, only perceived racism, which then mentally affects the perceiever, and dissaudes them from getting better qualifications and therefore worse job prospects.
That is not in itself racism. That is a false perception of reality ends up affecting reality later on. I think it's called the self-fulfillment fallacy.
You have all sorts of terrorist groups like BLM that are telling, instructing, pleading all black people to commit crimes. That's definitely not anecdotal.
Am I allowed to say that in itself is an overused technique of shutting down debate?
Ironic-ness intensifies.