ecorithm

Right, to be fair to you this was a hotly debated topic in ethology (and still is to an extent), however I would say most modern ethologist have come out on the side of embracing evolutionary parsimony and viewing our human experience as a valuable asset to understanding animals (especially mammals).

Probably the most cited paper regarding this debate is by Marc Bekoff, "Cognitive Ethology: Slayers, Skeptics, and Proponents" (http://cogprints.org/160/1/199709005.html). Your original comment would be categorized as a "slayer" a position which is widely criticized. In fact Bekoff's focus is on canines and he used your exact example with dogs, but to opposite affect.

You should go and read some stuff written by ethologists. Basically everything you said would be vehemently disagreed with by a large group of prominent ethologist. The term anthropodenial has even been coined to criticize your exact thinking and to describe the dangers of not anthropomorphizing enough. Not saying you can't over do it, but the GP's comment is much more in line with thinking by modern ethologist. Frans De Waal is a good place to start.

Racism isn't always obvious and can definitely be subtle. But actively discriminating against a whole group of people based on ethnicity is cut and dry racism.

The grand parent said he was getting into "murky waters" but in fact he is fully submerged in the deep end of racism.

> As for your first question, I'm getting into murky waters but I'll admit that it is difficult to put aside the fact that every Asian you hire, makes it harder for another black candidate to get hired. But it's definitely not as simple as rejecting every asian candidate, definitely don't want to leave a pattern behind :) i'l leave it there.

This has to be Poe's law. This is incredibly racist.

Phase 1's are really not that hard to get, and the process is not nearly as stifling as you are alluding too. Most people without prior funding or reputation don't just get instant money from VCs. Convincing them to give you money can take a decent amount of time too. Especially if you are trying to do something actually out of the box not just something like "Its like UBER but for ..." Just speculating, but I would bet if you are a just starting out and are not well connected getting a phase 1 would be easier than getting VC funding.

Another major plus is that SBIR's don't have to be the next google. You can get funded for a product with fairly mild potential. VCs only seem to care about the 100x investment.

This sounds similar enough to the SBIR/STTR program that many federal agencies already have from the NIH and Department of Agriculture too DARPA. Basically a company pitches an idea to a federal agency which if accepted will give you something like 100k (phase 1) to explore the initial idea and place in you in a pipeline that can lead to much more money if the idea seems valuable and doable (phase 2 and phase 3). This program has led to the development of all types of cool technology and has supported a bunch of small businesses. However it is not the silver bullet you are suggesting it is.

I've always just read the site and never posted. But what is wrong with you? You are clearly a disturbed individual with some serious moral failings. By the time you retire hopefully you've grown up enough to not give into your childish impulses.

If you were being sarcastic then I'm sorry and I'll feel like a total idiot.