adventskalender

Which games do you play?

I love reading, however, I am sad to say, most books are NOT worth "it" (being read).

There are many, many books in the world. Only very few of them are good. I don't know the percentages - perhaps 0.001%%

The good books are worth reading, but they are difficult to find.

As for information from web sites vs information from books: some books are just the content from web sites blown up into book format. So there is no general rule of "books are better than web sites", either.

Even though I am a fast reader (I think), I find many books too wordy.

"statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected"

I actually read the memo by Damore.

But OK, "batshit crazy" goes more for the "movement" as a whole. This is just crazy. Or maybe just legal weirdness?

Social Justice Warriors are killing people, you just don't care, so you don't notice. They try to destroy lives - make people unemployable and outcasts in society. There have been suicides, and lots of ruined careers.

If a company publicly hires James Damore now, SJWs will probably launch a campaign against that company sooner or later, so I wonder how employable he is these days?

It's only because they don't have enough power yet that more people haven't died.

Analogy to the Holocaust: of course it is not the same thing, I was using an extreme example to make the point obvious.

Nevertheless, SJWs are not a force of good in the world. And "proactive social justice", as I said, is just a way to mark the territory and grasp power.

""When you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.""

That's just a lame bullshit excuse to not look at what is actually happening. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter if you do it in the name of good or not. If you prefer to hire non-white female people, you are racist and sexist. It's absurd that those same racist and sexist people then get to send normal people to diversity training and accuse them of being racist.

If you look at individuals, the injustice of the "proactive social justice" approach is patently obvious.

Sure, I get your point - I just meant this wasn't supposed to be the rational discussion about women in tech. I would approach such a discussion in a different way. If I would put myself in a situation where it would be necessary (like accepting a job offer from Google), I would be more diplomatic.

I am emotionally charged on that subject, yes - but that is after years of dealing with it.

I think Damore made a pretty good effort at putting his thoughts into rational discussion points, and it didn't help. I think to make any headyway on that topic, if it is possible at all, will require psychology, not rational arguments.

Comp meaning compensation? OK, I could understand that.

Google has a problem, or thinks it has a problem - in the Damore case it was "too few female engineers". So I would expect to use rationality to come up with possible solutions.

However, as I said, I think Google is entitled to do it in their own way. I just personally don't want to work for a company that doesn't employ rational thought and discussion for trying to solve problems.

I am not proposing to implement a law that forces companies to allow open discussions. I am just saying I personally don't want to work there.

Diversity training and safety - I wrote it elsewhere. It signals "this is SJW territory". In a similar vein you could say "why does a Swastika tattoo make you feel unsafe? Just don't say you are Jewish or homosexual".

This is not a Google internal discussion, though, and I am not working for YCombinator.

I am stating the fact that I would feel unsafe working for a company like Google. Whether my feeling of being unsafe is warranted is up for discussion. That I have the feeling (or expect to have it) is a fact.

By the way, forcing people through diversity training is also like that: it is saying "you are racist and need to be reprogrammed". That is likewise not a good entry for discussion. Except that compared to my comment on an internet forum, it is official company policy.

He didn't, though - he published his memo in an internal discussion group (after being encouraged to think about solutions in a diversity training session), and it was published widely without his consent, making him a worldwide outcast. IIRC - it's been a while.

That's a completely different way to frame it. "Here is a course on how to avoid the legal pitfalls in the workplace" is something I might be able to accept.

Indoctrinating people on why they should behave in a certain way is a different matter. And again, the insult of assuming employees are in need of such training.

I said "forced diversity training" is not the right way to go about it.

I don't claim to have a recipe for converting racists. Maybe a good start would be not to hire them in the first place?

I think forcing them to attend "diversity training" would be very likely to turn them into a more hateful person. That's what force tends to do.

I know he sued Google, not details, though.

This statement by the NBL just proves to me that the NBL is a batshit crazy untrustworthy institution. (Add the NBL to the list of places I wouldn't want to work for...).

I guess that is just the modern world, people have so different views (perspectives) that no reconciliation seems possible.

In any case, no need to discuss the Damore memo again, I just wanted to point out that there are different sides, and these recent articles seem to represent only one side.

"Well, it can be argued that he was fired for similar reasons.. Are you saying that it's okay depending on which 'side' (a whole other story) someone is on? "

Good point. I guess what feels particularly unfair to me is that (afaik) Damore published his paper on an internal board, after having been encouraged to state his opinions in a diversity training session. He didn't start out accusing Google publicly. Also, another bit that feels unfair to me is the interpretation of his memo as "hateful".

Other than that - I personally think companies should be allowed to fire whoever they want. Them firing Damore (among other things) just makes them a company I don't want to work for.

I find that completely mind boggling, tbh. What gets people excited about AirBnB? Is this just about perks (salary and so on)?

Nothing against AirBnB, it might be a fine, solid company doing a good job. But what about them is inspiring?

I consider this and the other article by the international relations guy to be very one-sided accounts.

A couple of people are unhappy, out of a workforce of 100000. So what?

It also mostly seems to be political reasons. I would imagine a lot of people working for Google just want to do a good job for a good salary, not make Google a vehicle for their political opinions.

I think people pushing their political agenda within a company tend to harm the company and it should therefore be ok to fire them.

That said, I haven't wanted to work for Google for years. But I am from the opposite side from these veterans. I felt it was very unjust when James Damore was fired, and I really don't want to work at a place that distrusts its workers so much that it forces them to go through diversity trainings and things like that. I would feel "unsafe" at Google.

Maybe part of the problem is that jobs are not forever anymore. So it is a good idea to hedge one's bets and have side projects.

Better AI would be fantastic. I always stopped playing after a while because the AI was too bad.

If women are more optimistic than men, then that alone could be sufficient to yield the results of the study (correlation).

Isn't that basically what dating apps are trying to do? I think "lighter" variants exists, for meeting friends, not just dates.

Not that the situation couldn't be improved, though.

Why not meet up with other people in the same situation (possibly also elderly)?

I have at times invited friends who didn't want to celebrate with their family. But a complete stranger would be too much for me (with little children).

Meaning you have received the event that it has been loaded?

Why shut it down and not sell it?

Here is some more information (in German): https://www.nebenjob.de/ratgeber/2479-ihr-recht-auf-den-zwei...

If your second job leads to the total of your work taking up more than 48 hours per week, your employer can forbid it. Likewise if you work in your holidays.

I don't think it is as straightforward as you make it sound.

It still seems to me the latter is a problem for people working on their side projects in their spare time. Like if you are a software developer, and develop some software at home, it is kind of related to your job.

Maybe sometimes it is not loaded yet? (Just a wild guess)

That wasn't my experience, but most employers actually referenced that case in their contract, so I am not sure what the default rule is.

Also, a second job is one thing. What about ownership of things you produce in your spare time? I don't think the former necessarily covers the latter.

I'm actually on your side with the "actions have consequences" logic. That still doesn't imply the consequences are "extinction of the human race".

I'm also all for handling in ecologically responsible and sustainable ways.

However, what is being proposed is adoption of unproven technology on a massive scale, at an enormous price. That is where the logic falls apart. Many times before, it has turned out that such forced technology changes were actually damaging to the environment.

If the new technology was actually better, in most cases it would be adopted without government pressure.

The extremism is the problem.

What do you mean? Authority is a synonym on expertise, in that context. You claim certain people or institutions have the expertise on the subject to make the right call, so you appeal to their authority on the subject.

No the manipulation is the story about the abandoned settlement. I don't think you understood my point at all.

The only assertion I made is that land being lost to the sea is not a new or outlandish thing. For that 14th century is sufficient - and even better in context of global warming, as there was no such thing in the 14th century. Also I am not a journalist publishing an article. So I mentioned the first example I remembered. If I was publishing an article, I would do more research.