adekok

It is entirely reasonable, therefore, to suggest she has no relevant experience.

Likewise, it is entirely reasonable to suggest she might have some relevant experience, but is unwilling to state more than "Professional" on her resume.

Any argument.

So far as any evidence goes, she has zero experience in the field.

So basically you're trying to nit-pick at me for saying that there's no evidence she has any experience... while not showing any evidence that she has experience.

While I don't expect an exec to be at the same level as current researchers, they should know something about the field.

Her music degree is not completely relevant, tho it is concerning. The rest of her resume (and total lack of relevant experience) is more damning.

Look, I personally know someone who's a C level in a tech company, with a political science degree. But his resume shows 15 years of full-time employment in his current field, plus summer jobs in university, and going back to high school. So with 20 years of experience in the field, his degree doesn't matter so much.

Your counter position seems to say that execs can manage a division while knowing nothing about what the division does. There's just no way that's true. The exec must know something in order to be able to prioritize projects, set goals, mediate disagreements, etc.

Or would you say that someone who has no education in a field, and no experience in a field, is qualified to be an executive-level manager for that field?

That's just hard to believe.

After much kicking and screaming, they were forced to put precipitators on the stacks to remove the sulfuric acid.

Which they then sold for more money than it cost to add the precipitators.

Oops.

These people pollute and lie about even when they would make more money by not polluting.

Equifax “Chief Security Officer” Susan Mauldin has a bachelor’s degree and a master of fine arts degree in music composition from the University of Georgia. Her LinkedIn professional profile lists no education related to technology or security.

Her LinkedIn profile has since been removed entirely.

A copy is shown here:

https://www.hollywoodlanews.com/equifax-chief-security-offic...

She was previously Senior Vice President and Chief Security Officer at First Data Corporation, until July 2013.

The snippet posted there shows her previous jobs as "professional".

No security person I know has zero security experience on their resume.

Managed by a security VP who had no relevant experience?

I posted this in another comment, and got massively downvoted. Not sure why...

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/equifax-executives...

Pointing out that such interpretations are twisted is redundant.

Yes, I know they're twisted. That was the point FFS.

I'll also note you don't seem to have a problem with her twisted interpretation of things. Which is the hypocrisy I was trying to point out.

I mean honestly... read this quote:

Once people get married and have kids, men take on additional work to pay for their kids. Women take on less work to take care of their kids.

and try to explain how any rational person would conclude I was somehow nefariously assuming that women were not doing paid work.

Well, yes. I did say "take care of their kids".

As for paid vs unpaid work, see:: http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=54757

In most western countries, men and women do roughly the same amount of total work. For men, more paid than unpaid. For women, the other way around.

So again, just focussing on "women have it bad" misses a big part of the picture.

> I am aware that there are two sides to this story and men have their own concerns

Apparently not.

> But, the open hostility towards women you are displaying ...

is a self-serving lie.

> Your pattern of comments here looks pretty toxic to me

I acknowledge your position, agree that you deserve alimony, express caution that showing one side of the picture isn't a good approach, and show how the choices men and women make each have their pros and cons.

You show one side of the story, and express shock and outrage that someone dare bring up the other side.

And then you call me hostile and toxic?

Please, that's just pathetic.

... if she wants to maintain the same lifestyle. If she's willing to take on a lower standard of living, perhaps not.

> Comments like yours are essentially twisting my intent to an extreme degree.

That's just untrue.

> I did not expect to have people pile on and act like I am some overentitled lazy bum

I did no such thing.

> Edit: It appears you are that someone.

Nope. You're not reading my comments. I clearly said that alimony is deserved compensation.

I understand your frustration that people are taking a somewhat counter position. But the point here is to not blame you or to say you "deserve" to be poor.

The point is to have a discussion on responsibility. Why are people being compensated? How much should they be compensated? For how long should that be paid?

For me, if you're married for 2 years, and pay alimony for 50, that's abusive and wrong. Saying so shouldn't be interpreted as an attack on you personally.

Please learn to distinguish a discussion on the topic of alimony from a personal attack on you. There are absolutely not the same thing.

In most jurisdictions, child support is more than the cost of raising a child. In Canada, equalizing incomes was the goal of the latest round of child support guidelines, not "support for the child".

For a US reference, see http://www.divorcecorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Ec...

> I spent two decades supporting my husband's career. When we divorced, he still had a well paid job and twenty years work experience. I was starting over from scratch and was "lucky" to get a better-than-minimum-wage job to start.

And you should get compensated for that. The question is really how much, and how long.

> It aggravates me that the world as a whole acts like having kids and raising them is only a financial cost to men.

In some sense, it is. See research on the wage gap going back to the 1960's. Never-married childless women earn about the same as never-married childless men.

Once people get married and have kids, men take on additional work to pay for their kids. Women take on less work to take care of their kids.

This means men have higher "out of pocket" costs than women do. But women pay the "opportunity cost" of raising kids. Hence alimony.

> if you just don't want children at all, there are several viable solutions:

None of those are truly viable. They're necessary conditions to not having kids. But not sufficient.

In practice, a women can name any man as the father if she wants. No paternity test is necessary in most jurisdictions, and such tests are illegal in parts of Europe! In some states, if the father is notified of such a child and doesn't contest it within 30 days, he's determined to be the father, and has no right to fight it after that.

See any number of cases where men are paying for kids they didn't even know existed, who DNA proves aren't theirs.

The guy doesn't even have to have sex with her. If your girlfriend's room-mate sneaks into the room at night, grabs the used condom, and impregnates herself, well, as the man, you pay for 18 years. No choice, or you go to jail.

> That whole "sleeping with me will destroy your entire future" vibe is a distinct turn off for me.

As it is for men. The reality is that women hold essentially all control over reproduction. Women can choose to get pregnant, and can force any man to pay for their choices, for the next 18 years. At the threat of jail, losing jobs, passport, drivers license, etc.

It is entirely rational to be wary of such side-effects.

The point here is that while your choices have cost you, men don't have some magical happy land of money, cigars, whisky, and bro-hugs. There are costs and benefits to the choices made by both sexes.

Should it?

I mean, let's say we have a happy "leave it beaver" family with 2.2 kids, a white picket fence, a dad who works, and a mom who doesn't. Due to no fault in particular, they get divorced. They now have two households to maintain instead of one.

Why would both people deserve a "middle class lifestyle"? Their expenses have each gone up, and the total income hasn't changed. How can you split one "middle class lifestyle" into two, and obtain two of the same thing?

Why would someone work if they can divorce, keep the kids, and get paid forever?

Other states aren't quite as bad, but they're still bad:

http://tomjameslaw.com/blog/what-judges-really-think-about-f...

A study conducted in 2004 found that although the tender years doctrine had been abolished some time ago, a majority of Indiana family court judges still supported it and decided cases coming before them consistently with it.2 A survey of judges in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee found a clear preference among judges for maternal custody in general.

Even in jurisdictions which have 50/50 custody as the default, judges still overwhelmingly favor one side over the other. i.e. judicial prejudice is well known, wide-spread, in defiance of the law, and ongoing.

See Florida again. Action groups have successfully fought against equal custody by default, because saying "we're for equality" means "fight against equality", apparently.

If you give courts / child protection services a cut of the child support money, you get more divorces where the fathers are cut out of the children's lives.

If you punish men in divorces, financially ruin them ("imputed income"), and don't let them see their kids, you get a massive increase in male suicide after a divorce.

I have friends who do this. They set huge passwords for "security", and then can't type them consistently, or forget them, and have to reset the password. Then they complain about their accounts getting locked.

I can't convince them that a shorter password is still secure, and will remove much of the aggravation.

The people advocating this idiocy are unaware of history. The end result of their advocacy is genocide. They will end up being accused of the things they oppose, by people even more radical than themselves.

For me, all of the despotic ideologies are the same. This kind of political correctness, communism, anti-semitism, etc. They all want "good" people to destroy the "bad" people.

Reality be damned. Consequences be damned. Humanity be damned.

Neanderthals and sapiens are separate species. Just look at the pictures here:

https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderthals-sub-species-moder...

Clearly related, but also different.

Pretty much that model works well for Netflix.

I pay $10 or so a month. I don't watch 10 movies a month.

As in no one would use drugs if the cartels didn't exist?

How about removing the revenue from the drug dealing cartels? How much power would they have then?

Testing? Pfft.. that's for losers.

Design specs? Same answer.

Apparently if you spend enough on sales, you can sell utter shit to unsuspecting customers. Then, you beat up the engineering team to fix all of the bugs that the customers report.

Uh... I've been at fucking home all day.

Or worse, see the truck drive by your house, followed by the tracking updated to "no one home".

That's a fake delivery attempt.

If you have a clean record, your car insurance is low. If you have multiple at-fault claims, your insurance is prohibitive.

Why can't we do the same for professional services? The individual who acts ethically ends up with lower insurance than the individual who acts unethically. And at the same salary, the ethical person will take more money home.

That's individual incentive.

It is entirely reasonable to assume that there is a biological basis for the sex differences in men and womens fashion. There may not be proof that the sex differences are innate, but it's reasonable to propose that they are innate.

By the same token, it is unreasonable to deny that these sex differences are innate, until such time as proof is offered.

> I have to say I'm quite suspicious of inherent genetic traits that only reveal themselves when the textile industry appears

There's also every reason to believe that people were modifying their appearance before textiles were around. See scarification, use of colored clays / paints, etc. Even something like singing can be used as a way to attract mates. There's no reason to pick textiles as the sole use of fashion.

The reason this is an engineering question is I think we all know what happens to control systems without negative feedback.

Untrustworthy laws are rather more foolish than doing revision tracking on English text. I mean... FFS how hard is it to track changes to English text? Really?

There are many, many, fewer animals now than even 50 years ago:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027113306.h...

58% of species are in decline

https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_...

Many fewer insects than 50 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_fishing_in_Newfoundland

After his voyage in 1497, John Cabot's crew reported that

"the sea there is full of fish that can be taken not only with nets but with fishing-baskets".[3]

and around 1600 English fishing captains still reported cod shoals

"so thick by the shore that we hardly have been able to row a boat through them."[4]

While individual human life has gotten better, it has largely been at the expense of every other organism on the planet.

For a logical conclusion (mostly) to this process, see "The Godwhale" by TJ Bass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Godwhale

In it, people are the only animals left on the planet, as they've eaten everything else.

The idea that women are oppressed by men is an ideology. Because it's based on ideas, and not on reality. If it was based on reality, it would be called "science". Or maybe "facts".

Instead, it's based on "just so" stories that people tell each other. Like "the Jews are rich because they stole from the white people". It's a lie.

All of these ideologies are the same. They use the same talking points. The same BS rhetoric about "oppressors" and "oppressed". The only things that change are the names of the oppressors (men / jews / the rich) and the names of the oppressed (women / white people / the poor). The ideologies are otherwise substantially similar.

Since you're arguing over this. Let's talk details:

* men in the US do not have the right to vote.

Huh? How can I say this? That sounds crazy!

Well... because they have historically not had the right to vote unless the registered for selective services. So men in the US did not have the unrestricted right to vote. The selective service act was fought in court, and men lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Draft_Law_Cases

The court held that the draft was an obligation citizens had, in return for the right to vote.

Women, of course, have had no restrictions on their right to vote.

And who gave women the right to vote? The evil, patriarchal, oppressive, misogynistic... men. Yes, the men who "oppress" women gave them the right to vote. Without asking them to take on the social burdens that were demanded of men.

So who's oppressed, really? The people who got conscripted, and died without having the vote? Or the people sitting at home, secure in the knowledge they'll never have to break a nail supporting their country?