passivate

>telling someone to keep their story to themselves unless they can present an argument that satisfies a scientific standard

I don't see where they made this claim, or a reference to a 'scientific standard'. Can you please point to it?

>It's not exhausting, you're just refusing to understand the other side of the argument.

Do you also accept the "other side" of the argument that the author of the blog post could be wrong?

I am aware of domain applications from F@H, but not core science work. What are those fundamental contributions?

I know of the famous people that work there, and I don't have anything personal against them. My comment was more directed towards the company. I can't support the way Google and other data mining companies operate. Its such a waste of talent.

I don't mind admitting Google employs people far smarter than I will ever be, but they're creating and maintaining the largest global spying apparatus in history. Maybe we should be learning from people who're actually making the world a better place.

>"Earning a ton of money" is not exactly a well defined company goal.

Well, okay, but you'll have to agree that at-least it is easy to quantify, "Good design" OTOH isn't, but again I'm not a designer so I see things differently. "Good design" "good code" in the abstract does nothing for me personally. The older I get the more I care much more about results, and the less I care about purity/aesthetics of design/code, etc. I'm around purpose-built biotech software all the time and to any UX person its going to look like ass. Janky, confusing menus, clusterfuck of various icon styles, seemingly random buttons littered everywhere etc, etc. No cohesive UX flow. But then this is expert software and is used in many aspects of vaccine r&d/production, and supports the production of high quality life saving products. I respect that, and therefore I respect the software as well.

I am not a designer, so I take a more pragmatic view. If the intent is to earn money through your website and you are earning a ton of it, then you've succeeded. It doesn't matter if an outsider considers it good or bad design. But that' s just my simple-minded view.

>The impulse for people from distinct cultural groups to govern themselves. Bengalis didn’t want Pakistanis to have control over the laws that applied to them. They wanted their own country that they could run the way they wanted.

Americans of German, English, Irish, Italian, Swedish origin are not all seeking to maximize the number of individual ancestral cultures being represented in the government. Inside Europe, the Italian culture is completely different to German culture. Being American is not the same as being Italian or being German. Which is why I asked if you were lumping everyone seemingly white as having the same culture.

>if someone from rural Oregon is mad at people like my dad coming to America from Bangladesh, who thinks “nobody hunts for food,” and voting to take away his guns, why isn’t that justified? Why can’t he be mad that people who aren’t acculturated into the cultural underpinnings of his community have so much power in deciding how that community should now be governed? Why would I begrudge him that sentiment when my uncle fought in a war over the same exact impulse?

If people can't convince others and get consensus on their ideas, then those ideas should die out. Tough shit. We managed to clear out the idiots objecting to giving civil rights to minorities and voting rights to women. A country is not static, the laws are not static and should never be. The laws are something we made up to serve our needs. It's a democracy, and all citizens get to vote and make decisions. What you're describing sounds anti-democracy.

Edit: The guns issue is a hot-button but you can draw parallels to anything that one group of people want to "preserve". Well if you want to preserve it - go make the effort of convincing people who aren't convinced. I can appreciate guns from an engineering perspective, but I think owning guns and killing defenseless animals from a distance is not something I would personally do. But I am not "taking it away" from anyone I am simply exercising my right as a citizen.

What difficulties do you think a highly-paid exec is going to face?

>Who said anything about white people?

When you mention Germans below are you talking about the Chinese origin Germans?

>One of the most fundamental aspects of democracy is drawing the boundaries of the body politic.

You're conflating legal immigration and demographic shifts to open-borders. Those are not the same.

>My parent’s generation went to war to create a country where the body politic would be mainly Bangla-speaking people, instead of sharing a body politic with Urdu-speaking Pakistanis. Why would I begrudge a descendant of Germans in the Midwest or a Tejano in Texas for having the same impulse?

I don't know what impulse you're referring to. Please expand on that.

> I don’t begrudge any American who wants a country of their own, just like Indians and Bangladeshis do.

Anyone who is a citizen is already an American. Or do you mean only white Americans are "real" Americans?

The US is hypocritical (most countries are) and meddles with the internal affairs of other countries. Expecting the world to care about US sovereignty is only going to get a few chuckles, nothing more. Certainly no country is in the position to go to war with the US, so we can be thankful for that.

>Oh, you think Americans are racist for wanting to restrict immigration? How would people in India react to massive immigration from Africa?

It's my view that people, in any country, should seize political power to fight for and implement changes they wish to in a legal, peaceful and non-violent manner. Whether it's about healthcare/internal policies/laws/immigration/foreign policy or whatever. If legal immigrants wish to fight for changes to the immigration system, then they should use all the legal rights they are afforded to under the current law. The previous arcs of history are all irrelevant, people should use the power they have in the here and now.

>But thanks to immigration, white Americans practically already are [1], yet it is they that are called xenophobic

Why does it matter if a particular race is the majority or minority of citizens? What concerns do you have about it?

In this context of legal immigration, the point here isn't about sovereignty. It's simply documenting one persons experience - I don't see it as a call for open borders. Also, does the US recognize a country's sovereignty when it conducts its foreign affairs? It constantly meddles in the internal affairs of other countries, not to mention the countless military interventions over the years.

>It's like they feel entitled to all this free stuff and the one thing they offer of value they pull back at the last second. Shitty.

FTE salaries, healthcare, equipment, business expenses, travel costs, legal fees, etc, etc versus...few cents? Maybe it would help the conversation if you can you quantify what you think they're actually earning from all the "free stuff" as you claim.

Actually, in-house IT is going away. I've seen many companies switching to a hybrid format with a skeleton IT crew and larger external managed service providers providing IT services. And many managed service providers do have a global teams. Can you link to the report about projected IT jobs growth?

With remote work and easier access to the global talent pool, these salaries are bound to normalize across the board. Enjoy the ride while you can, my friends! :)

With the recent emphasis on remote work, you can hire from the global talent pool. The US labor market is indeed very expensive.

Can you expand on that? What has it to do with racism?

Interesting, thank you for replying!

>but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward,

Honestly such people are extremely rare. The quote doesn't apply to the vast majority of employees at Apple. There are always going to be other talented people willing to take their spot.

How many is a lot?

Is there any precedent on that?

I think its just a legal thing. You don't want "Google says ___" headlines based on internet comments from employees. In any case, if I was a Google employee, I'd want to hide the fact.

Its my own ignorance, but can you please link to data showing effectiveness?

The best proof of any kind of methodology is in its application and results. I'd be impressed if some data were to be presented showing its effectiveness.

You're right it wouldn't matter. I think I had a brain fart here. What I wanted to say was the thing with 'everybody has a point of view' is that not all points of view are equally represented in the population. I'm not going to dismiss the viewpoint of the people who do like coming in to work, if one person hates it. It would be nice to accommodate everyone's individual preferences in every situation, but realistically you can't make everyone happy if they're outside of whatever standard deviation a workplace can manage.

>No, it isn't. Businesses tend to play "follow the leader", so the ability to find a company offering substantially different work conditions is limited.

Assuming your premise is true, the 'leader' here would be remote-work if we are to believe that amazing benefits and therefore success that it can bring to a business. Businesses tend to copy things that other successful companies are doing.

You calling it a cartel situation is not fair, but I'm going to look the other way and assume you did that just for effect.

>What works for you may not be what works for everybody, and that's the point.

Instead of making it personal, lets make it general. According to you how many people have a problem working in the office for the reasons you listed?

To make it more general, non-autistic people also sometimes have trouble with body language. The non-controversial point is most humans fall somewhere on the spectrum where they're able to read others' body language - with a minority being outliers.