ankushnarula

I can't speak for "dear fucking g-d" but my it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social justice crowd.

> A privileged majority angrily attacking any attempts to refine the meaning of existing words to describe the real-world consequences of prejudice (racism), and attacking attempts to introduce new language to describe the structure of non-prejudice (privilege).

1. Which privileged majority?

> It's almost as if the majority doesn't want us talking about it at all. That's how it's playing out in the culture.

2. No one is censoring you. Talk all you like. Putting ideas and thoughts in the open is critical to arriving at common truth. But if these redefinitions and new language terms are to be pushed into the culture then expect inquiry, discussion, criticism, debate, resistance, dissent, and (when dialogue fails) mockery.

> Think about this when you attack terminology.

3. I don't accept that use of the terminology in question, in case that was unclear. Your redefinitions and new language are not sacrosanct to me. Here's how I see the three _P_ words:

* Prejudice, colloquially speaking, is to negatively judge people based on preconceived notions and stereotypes.

* A Privilege is a specific right or advantage gained through merit or inheritance.

* Power is the ability to exercise a freedom with low risk of sanction.

That's nice because you reduced it to actual authoritative power. I can respect that. But that's not how it's playing out in the culture.

In my not so humble opinion, it's illiberal and destructive in its current form.

For example, a white Appalachian coal miner and a black Ivy League professor have a power disparity based on income, education, and social class.

But the "prejudice + power" crowd will have you believe that the coal miner's membership in the elusive all-powerful "white people" monolith gives him more social cache´ (hence power) than the professor. That's because the professor's membership in the elusive "black people" monolith puts him near the top of the marginalized intersectional hierarchy.

Any rational person who isn't obsessed with the phenotypical categorization of individuals (aka a bigot) will reject this notion - recognizing the professor's freedom/power relative to the coal miner.

People are individuals (not groups) with complicated lives and experiences.

To reduce ALL "black people" to marginalized victims is the soft bigotry of low expectations. But worse, to elevate all "white people" above all "black people" is a vile and tacit view that all "white people" are the necessary saviors of all "black people". This kind of twisted illiberal thinking permanently infantilizes all "black people".

I used to share a lot on Facebook - with intricate control over privacy of my posts using Friend Lists. Over time my usage decreased until I finally cleared out my profile, likes, activity, apps, friends, and devices. Now I only use it in a separate desktop browser once every few weeks as a means to check the profiles of family and close friends.

I harbor no resentment towards Facebook because they've been largely transparent via their terms of service, privacy policy, and developer API. Nobody forced me to use it. In the end, I am responsible for sharing my own information, not Facebook.

The Advice Memo clearly implies skepticism at Damore's intent and the sources own which he relied. It sets the precedent for successful EEO claims against any venue where the content contravenes similar social justice based codes of conduct and employment agreements.

Damore's top line argument was that these diversity programs are causing reverse discrimination, workplace hostility, and monoculture. The rest of what he wrote was descriptive and prescriptive. And bear in mind, EEOC also has a mandate to protect employees who file their concerns over discrimination. I believe the active class action discrimination lawsuit against Google could be a stepping stone to break up this kind of EEOC precedent.

I read it. And I'm even more skeptical now:

> ~ statements about immutable traits linked to sex — such as women's heightened neuroticism and men's prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution — were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding~ effort to cloak~ comments with "scientific" references and analysis, and notwtihstanding "not all women" disclaimers.

"Effort to cloak" and quotation marks around "scientific" are giving something away about the author.

> Moreover, the Charging Party reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace.

Damore "reasonably should have known" someone else was going to violate workplace confidentiality and code of conduct by leaking the document to the media? This seems like a failure of the employer not the employee.

> Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so.

This is the evidentiary component of the argument - which pivots on the not-so-reasonable "reasonably should have known" assertion.

Yeah I skimmed the comments and just read many of your replies. Thanks very useful. Guess I'll have to read it.

That would be a narrow and incomplete reading of Damore's memo based on prejudice. Damore's description that on average men and women are different is not itself discriminatory or harmful since it's backed up by quite a lot of biological and psychometric science.

The question should have been "What is Damore advocating?".

And if they read the entire document then it would be clear that Damore was suggesting methods to bring Google's gender balance to 50/50 by making Google (and tech in general) more attractive to women by altering the software engineering culture to leverage inherent strengths that women (on average) possess.

Any side-effects? Bladder/urinary issues? What happens to you as it wears off?

It's a political problem not an economic one. From an economic perspective, I am happy that the Chinese government wants to subsidize American solar installations with Chinese capital. As an American worker or American solar technology innovator, I am unhappy that I can't compete.

BOTTOM LINE: you don't win political power/elections by pandering to consumers - you win by pandering to producers.

Which followers? And what did they take it to mean?

"...for breaking terms of service by calling for violence"

I was convinced that I had ADHD by the time I was 21 after a lot of struggling in high school and college. I went to a psychiatrist and he asked me the basic DSM IV questions and he said it was a 90% match. So he put me on Ritalin and then eventually Adderall. I also had severe insomnia so this exacerbated my abuse potential in order to make it thru multiple days with higher performance without sleep. Within a year or two, I got off all the stimulants because I was falling apart.

Almost 13 years later (and a lot more serious work struggle) I started talk therapy and began to realize that confidence, self-esteem, chronic anxiety and depression were my real underlying problems. It's hard to focus when you feel anxious all of the time. It's very hard to think deep - which reinforces the confidence and focus problem in high performance work situations. A vicious circle. So we tried the usual SSRIs, sleep meds, and benzodiazepines - which all have their own problems.

Another 12 years later after being on these meds, I stopped early in 2016. Life was slowly getting worse - and my physical health as well. In the start of this year I to realized that SSRI/SNRI are not fully effective if you don't change your lifestyle. So I cut out sugar, juice, sweet fruits, simple carbs, alcohol, and limited my caffeine to the morning - all of which makes a world of difference. Now I'm struggling to form the daily habits of cardio in the morning and mindfulness meditation a couple times a day. I feel 100% more focused and stable.

Only wish I had figured this shit out when I was a younger man.

Rather than throttle, Apple has done something similar since the A10/A11 processors with their additional low-power cores. Presumably this should reduce the short-term wear on the battery and extend the life of the cells.

Sure we can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

You did nothing to contextualize or explain your sarcasm or your ad hominem.

This is mostly correct.

For cable/satellite/OTT, most of the package (Viacom, Time Warner, NBCUniversal, etc) content providers bundle content and get a large lump sum up-front per annum from each distributor. However, premium a la carte content providers (HBO, Showtime, etc) receive a small lump sum plus a a bulk of the per subscription fee.

For Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime - content is bundled and paid for up-front per annum on a multi-year contract. For example, Paramount/MGM/Lionsgate/EPIX distributed solely through Netflix thru 2014 and then switched sole distribution to Amazon Prime.

Hollywood traditionally likes cash up front because production and marketing costs are "bursty" rather than evenly distributed. And this is because the success to failure rate (risk) of entertainment products is too abysmal to easily obtain reasonable financing rates from lenders or reasonable terms from investors.

That's true - but the Canadian Dept of Justice indicated (and then removed the link from their website) that they would enforce it in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code. Go read it: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/code_grounds/gender_identity

> how does avoding load on the internal backbone leave which costs of growing the backbone to the ISP?

I didn't say anything about avoiding load. They don't want to raise capital to build their own backbone - so they want to pass off the cost to the largest traffic sources (Netflix etc) and largest traffic destinations (most oactive consumers).

> How is the number of connection requests relevant to a router?!

More connection requests means more CPU usage on a router. More open connections means more RAM usage.

> Non-discriminatory is no enough, it has to be free or at cost. They are a monopoly, and as such non-discriminatory is still a monopolistic price.

Non-discriminatory means they offer all content providers the same prices. Now if you're saying that they can overcharge because there's no competition, then I agree. This is a problem in the short term. But if I understand Pai's logic, this gap in the market will spur competition (and solutions) to emerge through innovation. I'm skeptical about this logic but cautiously optimistic.

I grant you that this is not a satisfying answer when you only have one shitty ISP option like Comcast and there's no hope fore a competitor in the short term. But given the growth of fixed residential wireless and new spectrum like White Spaces it's possible that a Comcast/Verizon would be doing more damage to their own brand (and content offerings) in the long term by mistreating their customers.

> Packets delivered to the ISP at an exchange are equally free. > There is nothing wrong with ISPs engineering traffic to be delivered to them via the closest exchange possible, they just don't get to abuse their monopoly over their subscriber's line.

I don't think the ISP's problem (opportunity) resides in the scenario you're describing. The problem is the top .0001% of Internet destinations congest the ISP generic network interconnects. Hence, these larger vendors (Netflix, Akamai, Cloudflare, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc) either pay the ISP for direct network peering or server hosting to sustain acceptable performance. However, this typically leaves the cost of growing internal network backbone capacity on the ISP. I believe the scenario you are describing would allow ISPs to offset this capital cost to both the big content providers and the biggest consumers.

> Which is solved by discriminating between services how?

The point about torrents and bitcoin is that these applications are particularly burdensome on routers because of the amount of connection requests as compared to a fairly manageable HTTP or RTSP session. As I mentioned above, server co-location and direct network peering is already a thing that many larger ISPs offer on a non-discriminatory basis. However, most new businesses will piggyback on existing cloud hosting (AWS/Google/Azure) or CDN (Akamai/Google/Cloudfront) arrangements.

> ISPs want to rescind the 2015 NN rules so they can vertically integrate their content and delivery products, mostly because their content offerings are utter crap and can't compete in a free market.

This is certainly true as well. But we've seen with T-Mobile's zero-rating that it's faster and cheaper to acquire/retain new customers through partnering and network management. To your point, and to compete with Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, I believe T-Mobile announced a TV-related acquisition today.

> Also, medical devices?! Hospitals can/do buy dedicated lines with QoS guarantees and then monitor their own networks' use of those lines; all of that is 100% allowed under NN... so unless your argument is that it would be a net good to add medical devices to the Internet of Crap ecosystem, this is a fantastic argument in favor in net neturality ;-)

Hospitals are already being addressed, as you say, with dedicated lines and VPNs. I'm referring to the millions of device endpoints sitting on consumer-grade (NN limited) wired/wireless networks. Rescinding NN will allow the ISPs to sell premium prioritized QoS to medical and security services companies who can bundle access to their customers. I'm not sure how this will play out in practice though.

> You can't do this with electrons.

The point is that for an ISP, Internet packets are routed via dozens of network interconnects and millions of content sources on a variable QoS consumer demand basis. On the contrary, electricity is generic and is (ideally) sourced on a lowest cost basis and QoS is strictly determined on a supply/demand dimension.

> If I happen to use a tranmission medium that uses electrons instead of photons, does that suddenly mean my ISP should be bound by NN regulations?

I'm not advocating against NN. I'm just pointing out that the electricity analogy is inaccurate. I'm also pointing out that the ISPs want to offer premium Qos and, yes, their own content offerings.

I'm a tad skeptical of the electrons vs bits (packets) analogy.

Electrons are commoditized and generic - and they don't suffer from prioritization issues except during brown-outs/black-outs. When you receive a stream of bits you are routing very specific non-generic packets via various network interconnects from very specific content providers. The routing and interconnect/bandwidth costs will vary significantly depending on the content provider, content type, and consumer usage.

It's my understanding that the ISPs want to rescind the 2015 NN rules so they can offer premium guaranteed/prioritized QoS for specific content types from premium partner providers (e.g. real-time applications such as medical/security devices, VoIP, video conferencing, and streaming audio/video). You can't do this with electrons.

> I'd also posit that it's impossible to define a clear distinction between a "lecture quoting a text advocating murder" and actually advocating murder.

A steel-manning of context should be enough to draw a distinction. Sadly, most contexts today are being redefined by folks who are seeking or making porn for those who need to get off on their own moral outrage.

> Advocating murder of group X -> ban (even if you're quoting a religious text).

An alarming number of social justice advocates have been equating words with violence. Canadian Bill C-16 (now law) is particularly troubling because under the Ontario Human Rights Code it makes debate over gender neutral pronouns a punishable offense. It seems to me that the folks at YouTube are, necessarily, responding with the most "conservative" policies to avoid "controversy" (i.e. boycotts).

Same here. Running 10.12.6

It's more likely that non-autonomous vehicles will be uninsured rather than legislated off the roads. Expect this to happen with new cars in less than 10 years.

The problem cited is less about the architecture and more about the implementation. There would be far less consternation if Intel had chosen to make these components completely transparent and user-replaceable. A truly open source collaborative effort would likely have mitigated most of the concern.

On the other hand, Intel might have selected this implementation process specifically to accelerate delivery of enterprise and OEM requested features at a time when Intel was dominant and firmware-level security was less of an issue.

Given the competitive state of the modern volume processor market (mobile and cloud), it's a safe assumption that Intel will be open to changing their ways. And if not, AMD or some other company certainly will.

I would also fire my employee if she flipped the bird at the CEO of my top customer - in view of the press no less.

Not exactly what you're asking for... but Qubes domains achieve something like this: https://www.qubes-os.org/video-tours/