78666cdc

"Hey want to come over to my house and print some LSD?"

>These “mood bots,” once ingested, will travel directly to specific areas of the brain, flip on genes, and manually turn up or down our happiness set point, coloring the way we experience circumstances around us.

One thinks of Brave New World.

And Watson, from Watson and Crick, who discovered the underlying commonality of all humanity, DNA, and won a Nobel prize for that work, was extremely racist[0].

That's the problem with arguing based on name recognition. Cite rigorous, peer-reviewed, established work. Let the veracity of the work speak for itself.

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-jam...

Where was the implication that they aren't welcoming? The point was that a black church is not "all white male all the time". It feels like you're looking for something to be offended about.

>Your examples were bad.

I'm glad we had this productive discussion.

Where did I say that race doesn't matter?

Then cite that rather than an unscientific, non-rigorous "study" (read: anecdote).

You're putting words in my mouth. But if you want to talk about that, then yes, there is more support for homeless women than there is for men.

But that is beside the point here. My point was to list a handful of the many counterexamples to "it is white male time all the time", which is a silly claim, at least as stated.

Strike that example off the list, then. It doesn't change the original comment's point.

The flaw in this argument is that it makes the implicit assumption that having more startups founded by black or hispanic founders is good just because there are more startups founded by black or hispanic founders.

That there is underrepresentation with respect to a minority is indicative of that minority generally having lower socioeconomic status, and perhaps prejudices against it. To try to combat whatever those prejudices may be, the suggestion here is that "diversity is good" and that just having more minorities will help the problem.

The difference is that it actually won't, because now you have a perception of people being given opportunities they don't deserve, just because they are a minority.

A much, much better way to try to deconstruct the sorts of prejudices or minority disadvantages, which this initiative is ostensibly trying to do, is to make these sorts of initiatives open to anyone disadvantaged (such as the poor), and invest in programs targeted at children in poorer (disproportionately minority) communities.

By your logic, there are no social disadvantages for blacks either, because Jay-Z. Which is clearly false.

>all of the time is "white male time"

Like black churches and communities, professional women's societies, women's shelters, scholarships for women, women's clubs at schools, and so on? In elementary schools, where >90% of teachers are female? Among psychology majors, with 60-70% women? Do you really suggest that it is always "white male time" everywhere?

Go ask a white kid growing up in a mostly black, poor neighborhood whether he feels like it's "his time."

Initiatives like this should be based on socioeconomics, not race.

That's a poor study to cite. If you took two people of any one race and sent them looking for jobs, probably as often as not one would fare much better than the other just because of individual variability. You get hired based on your interview(s), not your resume.

It is interesting that a single comment (since you said "the comment") led to you write a response about "them" and what "they" think. Anonymous internet comments are a grab bag of all the most ignorant comments in the world and are not indicative of actual general social attitudes, and this has been known for a very long time.

The interesting part is that your comment here is, for me at least, one of those exact comments, constructing some sort of imaginary foe to rage against.

That there are no surviving letters from Leopold now, hundreds of years later, when there was no reason to save any letters as there might be for a famous composer, does not indicate that there were no letters.

Aside from that, it seems highly unlikely that there would be no letters just based on the fact that there is no known family drama or estrangement.

I think you've made quite an assumption in your reasoning.

There will be no additional g-forces if there is no acceleration, regardless of velocity. The related concept is that of an inertial reference frame.

A starting point is "stress-energy tensor" as a keyword to search.

Nothing.

Clickbait title.

She should explain that then. Another commented on this post said (s)he knows multiple people that have gone on PIP, gotten out of it, and are working normally now.

I don't imply that women game the system, that would be a ridiculous thing to say. Of course parental leave should be standard in society, and I wish the USA in particular were better about it as a whole.

What I'm saying is that it isn't clear from the article whether there were explicit efforts to catch her up on the surely significant changes that had happened over six months and whether that was the purpose of the PIP program, which it also doesn't explain.

If they had taken away her responsibilities and diminished her role as a result of this leave, then that would be incredibly shitty and she would very justifiable have reason to sue.

But it's not clear that that's what happened. The company could very well have been trying to re-onboard her. We have half the story.

As I replied elsewhere, that is not at all what I meant. See my edit.

You're strongly misinterpreting what I said. Of course she should be back in the same position after maternity leave.

But when there's a team of people that report to you, they need to report to someone else while you're away for five months. Of course when you go back they'll be reporting to someone else until you're back up to speed on what's gone on for nearly half a year.

Whether getting back up to speed takes 15 minutes or two weeks will of course very with respect to the position and the project.

See also the edit I added to my original comment.

Edit: and yes, in my experience and from what I've seen, women have a clear advantage in hiring. Note that I specifically said "hiring" advantage.

Why would you expect to be able to come back into having people report to you after a five month leave from a high-paced environment? Getting brought back up to speed will be obviously necessary, and the PIP thing sounds like an explicit effort towards exactly that. So, in the end, she collected half a year's pay for no work, and then quit.

The insurance "glitch" is highly suspicious, but, aside from that, I can't help but coming away from this article with an impression of an air of self-entitlement.

The obvious agenda (and probably the only reason this weakly composed and unconvincing narrative even got published) regarding gender in tech seems absolutely shoehorned in. At companies like these, women in fact have a clear advantage in getting hired - though that is damaged by stories of women collecting pay for no work and then quitting right afterwards.

I am glad that the author has recovered and is healthy, but this article is very unconvincing.

It is obvious. We call them machines.

Is there a demo anywhere?

Hence my disclaimer at the top of my post.

However, having been a software engineer at multiple Fortune 500 companies that don't even allow their software engineers local admin rights or relaxed proxy filtering - things that we need to do our jobs - I've had to use this workaround to, well, do my job. Sometimes there's a patch or a workaround for an esoteric bug on someone's private blog that you can't access because it's on a .nl domain and your workplace blocks all .nl domains unless specifically white listed, and it would take you weeks to file and get approved a request to get it white listed.

If you happen to be at a company that doesn't trust you to be on the internet and to administer your own computer, this is one way you can use to access what you need while you look for a better place to be employed. I've found it useful and thought I'd share.

I meant "half of the statements", not "half of the comments". That was very obvious from what I said, so I suspect that you are being intellectually dishonest.

Regardless, to stay on topic, out of "a lot" of people, then "at times" some will want to leave. Expecting a 100% retention rate all the time is unrealistic.

Maybe a few of them saw comments about atheism in /r/atheism, a very major subreddit, and weren't comfortable posting in a place that isn't a "safe space" for Christians? Maybe, maybe not - who knows? But if you want to define what's "safe" to allow in open discussion, then you're pointing your community towards the metaphorical grave. Whether there's a possibility of afterlife for a doomed community is an open question.

18,000 subscribed user accounts out of about 36,000,000. That's .05%, or 1 in 2,000. Except that it's localized in one subreddit that doesn't make the frontpage and is universally reviled on the rest of Reddit.

By all means, leave. People that will leave a public forum because "someone over there is someone I really, really don't like and that every else around me also thinks is vile, but who I am not forced to talk to at any point in time" are generally not valuable users in a forum that is dedicated to open discussion.

Reddit is also /r/haskell, /r/emacs, /r/AskScience, /r/AskHistorians, /r/puremathematics, /r/compsci, /r/art, and many, many others. Notwithstanding that /r/jailbait got banned years ago, sounds like you're being pretty selective here.

If you want to talk about "that excrement", let's talk about the sort of selection bias and language you're using right here.

Half the comments you cite are more about moderation tools than about users. As for the rest (specifically, the second one), I don't think that any reasonable person would confuse /r/CoonTown with /r/AskHistorians.

You've missed the point that using the analogy of "biker gang" is inherently portraying groups of people that ride on motorcycles and have a favorite bar are inherently bad people. Biker gangs have often been portrayed in the media in a very stereotypical manner that has little bases in reality. How would it sound if I used the analogy of a "gang of black thugs with their baggy pants and shitty music" moved into my community and ruined it, and that "they should get high and make our white women uncomfortable elsewhere"? Same thing.

Look at your own comment of "go deal meth elsewhere." Is the irony lost on you?

Even past that, the analogy is flawed because it assumes an organized group of "bad people" that move into "my space". There is no such organized group, and it is no one person's space.

Even past that, there is no group of people on Reddit that "show up and destroy or dominate the entire conversation." I've been on Reddit actively for about seven years and while I definitely see the vitriolic individuals (and some specific toxic subreddits), I think it is incredibly childish to suggest that "my safe space is ruined by all these bad people!" The site has not been "dominated" by "the bad people". It feels ridiculous to have to say that about a place that gets, what, 7+ billion pageviews a month now?

Come on.