Hmm, I thought controlled burns were best practice and was being done. Is that not the case?
538 karma · joined October 3, 2018
Absolutely. But let's be real, the odds are likely that Google tried to bend over backwards to make it work. They want more women in those roles and generally.
Plus they're actively working on the microplastics problem: https://www.patagonia.com/blog/2017/02/an-update-on-microfib...
In regards to their product, they make high quality clothing that lasts longer (reducing consumption) and sheds less.
"Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis."
So why is he working with the government then? Well, a combination of something he wants to change and business opportunity. Sometimes to change something, it's best to work within the system and help steer it another way. The government has been invading people's privacy for a long time and increasingly so, with or without Palantir. At least this way he has influence over the direction. But who knows in reality how much is driven by trying to improve it vs making money and how that calculus works out.
At his events he asks the audience to disagree with him. He gets excited when a guest disagrees with him. He'll also call them out when they say something that can't be backed up. He's constantly sharpening his positions.
If you can make better arguments, then you should start doing so. Seriously. Because not many can.
Soros would be the boogyman regardless, it comes down to the fact that he's pouring tons of money into political causes. Like the Koch brothers do on the other side. It's simple. No need to add additional theories.
If you've ever donated to the Salvation Army, you too "fund LGBTQ oppression".
As for the press, they only play along if it fits their narrative. During that hearing Fox News framed polygraphs as pseudoscience while CNN was promoting it as evidence. Both sides will just as easily do the opposite the next time depending on what their audience wants to hear.
TV news used to be a loss leader until the past 20 years or so. You could see essentially the same news regardless of what channel you preferred. Now the world looks completely different depending on what source you consume.
It's a relatively recent phenomenon that news has been corrupted by advertising, clickbait and catering to specific audiences as they fight for smaller and smaller pieces of the pie.
I've long been under the impression that it was commonly understood that the polygraph was fallible. Has this changed?
People who say they've seen bigfoot aren't lying when they genuinely believe they've seen bigfoot. That doesn't mean bigfoot exists.
If Yelp actually did shake people down like that, there would very likely be concrete proof by now (recorded phone calls, documents, emails, undercover journalism, whistleblower employees). Just as there would be concrete proof of bigfoot by now.
"What I got without spoken direct words..."
"The restaurateur says the representative didn’t blatantly tell Dloomy he could solve his problem by paying up, but he believes that was the underlying message"
It sounds like motivated reasoning and applying an existing narrative to the advertising calls.
How do you square that claim given that both current and former Yelp employees say they do no such thing?
How do you know those reviews are fake vs coincidence? I've heard a lot of anecdotes and conspiracies about this, but have never seen actual proof. No documents, recorded phone calls, court cases etc? And given how many people have worked at Yelp it's strange no one has blown the whistle yet if they engage in such practices. They would be an instant hero.
How much of it is rational vs irrational fear. Is it more likely you'll get hurt driving on the way to the date?
Maybe it has less to do with bias and more do to with preference and culture and upbringing and other factors. Consider how much asian parents, for example, push their kids in education and toward certain careers. Or the over representation of black people in sports and music. Or the dominance of women in teaching and healthcare. Etc.
What they seem to be doing is judging people based on surface traits, not the content of character. Their approach to diversity is a regression and not good for progress.
Edit: Lots of up and down votes. Why is this question so controversial? I'd like to see an argument as to why it's an invalid or flawed question.
> Wi-Fi and electricity trigger Carmen's strange symptoms. Jamison hasn't left his room in two years. Bekah lives in a van in the desert to avoid mold. Star has been diagnosed with a dozen different conditions.
How much of it is real, how much of it is the mind making it real?
Maybe what happened with Detroit helped too.
It seems fundamentally problematic, but is there any alternative workable system that wouldn't have unintended consequences?
What's with this unrelated off topic dig?
Secondly, what's the point they're trying to make? That Thiel is a hypocrite? If so, you can both hate politics/government and work to try to improve it. One strategy is to do so from within. Musk was trying to do the same for a while.
How do you know?
Serious question: Would anyone realistically have a better idea than the fed about that?