gdix

There's a question mark icon help menu thing in the upper left.

Oops, fixed this. Thanks for letting me know.

Yes!

This is a totally naive way of looking at the situation.

You're right there's no smoke in the room, there's only a massive multi-billion dollar corporation buying influence from someone powerful in government in the room. That this is not totally obvious to everyone is extremely worrisome.

I find this easier to believe than that some of these events described actually happened.

Exactly my thoughts. I'm surprised that the majority of commenters here are taking this at face value. Especially, as you mentioned, the "implied hidden suicide/murder threat". If it was as the author described, 99% of people at any company on Earth would be absolutely shocked and appalled by something like that. Unless Apple is some truly some kind of other-worldly hellhole, they would not have gotten the reaction that they did.

I'm obviously not qualified to diagnose anyone, especially from reading a single blog post. But have any of the other commenters stopped and considered whether it rings true that her coworker shouted "Die!" at her on her way to the bathroom? Or does that sound more like something that someone with, say, paranoid schizophrenia would say?

It might also have to do with the fact that the author removed it from their own site and the link is now dead.

"If the old lady swallowed a fly. Just have her swallow a spider to catch the fly. Problem fixed."

Translation: "Anyone who makes more money than me stole it". I suppose you don't think your enormous amount of wealth compared to the average human means it was earned off the back of others do you? How much money would be fair for rural Chinese and Indians to steal from you?

Letting people keep the money that they earned.

No way, the bootcamps hire some of their students as teaching assistants which the students put on their resume?! What a scam! What kind of organization would ever do this. Oh wait, every college. Not a scam, duh.

Want to hear the biggest scam? There are organizations that charge $200K up front to teach you things regardless of whether you get a job. Most of what they teach you can be acquired FOR FREE on the internet. Many many people never get a job in their field and spend decades paying these organizations back. Many of these organizations have tens of billions of dollars in endowments. You may have heard of some of them: Harvard, Yale, MIT. Something seriously must be done about these scam artists.

Solution for Peter Rahal: get cancer.

I think his point is that it also may indicate that it's not (simply) a function of wealth, as the article suggests.

Coherent argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4

What a nice feel-good story which is totally not a marketing/PR concoction, albeit a brilliant one. The story is literally the Cheeto version of Good Will Hunting.

Do you all honestly believe none of the hundreds of food scientists working at Frito-Lay thought of making a spicy version their snacks?

Sounds nice on a bumper sticker but not really a point of view that stands up to scrutiny.

> When computer programming was first invented nearly all programmers were women. Only when the job became prestigious were they pushed out by men.

Or maybe they were placed in these positions by men and when they were free to select it as a career, they didn't. In the early days of computing, personal interest wasn't a driving factor in selecting it as a career because it was still so new. I really think your example demonstrates the opposite of what you think it does.

I find it very easy to imagine. So if women on-average would be more successful with "Learning Method X in Context Y" what's stopping someone from simply creating a school or company which facilitates people learning from that method? We wouldn't have to resort to "we're giving women $9000 to help them learn to code".

Ah the old "resource distribution" canard again.

Is it a canard or a refrain. I'm confused.

Also simply stating the thing someone says and saying it's a canard will convince no one.

Person 1: makes argument

Person 2: "Ugh this canard again?!"

Person 1: Uh yes. Nice talking to you.

Yeah I agree, why? Must not be that bad if they keep taking these miserable jobs. They can literally do anything else but they choose to stay.

Fair point, but applied to the original comment, is "not wanting to join a union" so selfish that one can't even understand how someone would have that position? I'd consider anyone who thinks so to be thoroughly ideologically possessed.

Which is why we allow for the free and voluntary severing of those relationships by either party.

> As a society, we make decisions against the will of individuals for a greater good all the time.

Is it hard to see why an individual might be against that?

> The issue isn't with sample size.

Thank you for adding this context. Some people appear to be dead set on spreading misinformation on issues like this.

To me it's not clear if the court is leaving out some context here. "The State" may have mentioned that the counties were disproportionately democratic and disproportionately black in their justification but to say that WAS their justification could easily be editorialization on the part of the judge who wrote this.

Ok yeah you're right then. That makes it a fair comparison. I'll remember that when I see someone passed out in the subway with a needle in their arm as I walk by with my kids.

Why is it a problem when a stranger breaks into your house and raids your fridge but not when you invite a close friend over for a meal?

Both are seeking what they think is a going to be a meal. Both are ever so slightly changing the character of their destination by showing up.

The last one. Doubleplus ungood.