Presumably models are also real people who have an interest in being there (their interest is in being paid).
If consenting adults are being treated fairly, I don't see any moral problem here.
799 karma · joined October 18, 2016
If consenting adults are being treated fairly, I don't see any moral problem here.
As for why I imagine the CIA is testing this, the CIA has experimented on unwitting American citizens and servicemen with drugs and poisons in the past[1], so it's not outside their ken to do such a thing.
Perhaps the CIA is testing their new stealth harassment/assassination/mind reading tool and wants to test it on realistic targets but also not risk exposing the device to a hostile party. With US intelligence agencies perpetrating and investigating attacks on realistic targets, it may make a good test environment.
I'm not saying I believe it is the CIA, obviously I have no evidence and this is just speculation. I'm just saying I'd consider them as suspects.
1 - http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/23/the-legacy-of-the-cias...
I agree that it's probably not Cuba itself doing it though. My own suspects, based on nothing but wild speculation, is that this is Russia, rogue elements in Cuba, China, or the CIA testing experimental technology.
That quote doesn't seem right to me.
I think the basic premise - that facial recognition typically doesn't work as well with black people, apparently backed up with research from the FBI, is a critical thing to know and work on. I don't think the explanation is that software engineers responsible are disproportionately white or racist, but rather that the networks need to be trained with datasets including more people of different races. For example, neural networks can recognize species of birds, and that advance was not delayed by a dearth of avian engineers.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/modern-parenthood-...
This evidence seems to directly contradict your view that women spend less time at home because they are bored and made unhappy by it. Furthermore, the evidence I've given above, that women in developed countries all have fewer children than they say they want suggests there is a systemic oppression of women here.
Your point of view discounts taking care of children. You assume people would be unhappy doing it, or people who do it are inferior. This is a sexist opinion that devalues child raising and domestic labor.
A) Be unaffected
B) Increase
C) Decrease
I'm not saying there is a fixed amount of work, I'm making a supply and demand argument to argue that the cost of labor will fall when the supply increases. Thus, I think my analysis isn't committing this fallacy, but if be happy to consider your reasoning if you care to explain.
I'm a believer in the idea that we should be using productivity to ease the obligations of labor. Ideally we could get back to one person per household working, or even better, both parents doing part time work (though I believe this plan requires socialized medicine). This would give plenty of time for child raising and wage earning, and distribute the burdens evenly among parents.
In recent years women have faced a declining happiness according to self reported results. We also have dwindling populations in the developed world and exploding populations in the under developed world where ideally that would be reversed and we could send the developing world doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. I see these problems as connected by the fact that women are structurally limited by society from pursuing their biological drive towards children whereas men, who don't face declining happiness, live in a society that encourages their biological drive (sex).
The reason women have fewer children nowadays is because of women's liberation - specifically in terms of education and professions. Working and studying requires time and dedication, and that conflicts with having and raising a child.
I don't really know how to solve this problem other than force women to choose between careers and children as they currently do. The best thing I can think of is subsidizing child care, trying to get more jobs that can support a family (so one parent can work and one can child raise), better maternity and paternity leave, and maybe making it more common to take a year or two off around 18 to 20.
1 - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/11/birth-rates-...
First, people shouldn't love you for who you are. That assumption is in popular culture but it's really pernicious if you examine it. I don't love my mother because she's my mother. I love my mother because she's nice to me, she cares about me, she sacrificed for me, she wants me to do well, etc. If my mother acted like a robot, or worse, was abusive or exploitative, I wouldn't love her. That's true for everyone I do love, and I think it should be true of all love (possible exception for one's own children). If you expect people to love you regardless of what you do or how you act, that's demanding a lot from people for no reason.
Second, consider the group of people at the concert. Going to a concert is fun, even if you're just kind of standing around watching. The problem is, when taking a photo, you can't convey visually the fun of being there - so you exaggerate the visual aspect, you look happy, so you can take a picture that represents what you're actually experiencing. I grant that it could be the case that people are cynically trying to create a fantasy life for Snapchat to seem popular or whatever, but my experience with such things is just that you're trying to convey your experience with images. Going to this concert is fun, so look fun so we can snap shot it!
Over Thanksgiving I took pictures of my mother, my sister, and my sister's daughter doing the same thing. On the one hand, two of the pictures were staged (I asked two of them to come here and do this so I could take their picture). On the other hand, it captured the similarity that I could see between the three of them. The picture is authentic in the same way that the Snapchat picture is - it had to be created artificially to capture something authentic.
My memory is the same as the comment you are replying to. "Fake news" was a left attack on the media supporting Donald Trump (think Breitbart). Trump and friends then coopted the term to describe the mainstream media and repeated it enough for the term to become associated more as Trump-thing than anything else.
1 - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...
You are incorrect though regarding Skitt's Law - this sequence of posts is not an example of it. My comment is mainly about the subject under discussion, with a post script correction on a tricky spelling error. Your comment, which is purely a correction of a common spelling mistake, contains no errors so far as I can tell. Thus, you are the spelling pedant in this situation (even implying I should be embarrassed for making a spelling mistake) and yet, you have no spelling errors - exactly disproving Skitt's Law.
>1. To make or bring about; to implement.
>2. Misspelling of affect.
I believe the second one is the relevant definition here. Compare that to google's verb definition of affect:
>1. pretend to have or feel (something).
>2. use, wear, or assume (something) pretentiously or so as to make an impression on others.
Which seems a much more natural fit for your usage.
I don't intend this as an ad hominem. I'm not saying your argument is wrong because you misspelled a word. Spelling and grammar mistakes happen. In fact, another commenter has pointed out one of mine in this thread. I just know that the distinction between affect and effect is tricky, and wanted to point it out as I want my own mistakes pointed out so I can stop making them and become better.
>One truth is that telling somebody to find a new job if they don't want to have to deal with neck strain or gender politics is clearly a dig at the woman's femininity.
My reading of this line is that it is a repetition of the theme of the comment - software development has flaws, but these flaws, in the commenter's experience, are better than in other fields. For example, one might imagine a dentist strains his/her neck while staring down into the mouths of patients for long periods, or a pursuer of the culinary arts will be exposed to variations of gender discrimination less refined than the writings of James Damore.
>of course men aren't going to naturally "feel" intimidated by a subtle implication that a woman is not up to the physicality of many jobs, or that she's being too sensitive
The commenter is not suggesting that the article is not physically "up to" the demands of software development. The article author is saying so when she writes that:
>Over the past decade it has worn me down. I have regular painful migraines triggered by working long hours. I have the beginnings of arthritis in my neck. I’ve tried standing desks, balance board desks, treadmill desks, special diets, exercising more before and after work. Doctors, physical therapists, massage therapists of every stripe. I’ve spent thousands and thousands of dollars. I’ve hidden it because I was afraid it would make me unemployable. I’ve worked those long hours in intense pain
There is no shame or element of sexism in one individual being physically incapable or physically hurt by certain types of activities.
In a way, the comment you are replying to is at odds with article, and in a way the comment is in agreement with the article.
The comment you are replying to states that the physically demanding work that commenter is acquainted with is an alternative that makes software development seem like a good job choice. In that way, the commenter is disagreeing with the article author. However, the commenter also states that he is blessed by the ability to do software development style work. This is a sentiment that the article author shares, writing that she is blessed by the ability to build up enough money to safely try out other careers. In this way, both writers are in congruence.
I think you're reading sentiments that are not evident into the comment you are replying to. In my reading of that comment, there is nothing there that is attacking - just someone observing that they don't share the author's perspective, and explaining why. Bringing gender into the discussion also strikes me as an overreach. There is nothing about the subject that is related to gender - the article author is disenchanted with software development and wants a different career. The commenter, having had a less pleasant career first, prefers software development with it's flaws.
As a final note, I believe the word you are looking for is "affect" and not "effect" - if you mean that men are adopting a tone in order to make an impression on others.
The burglars then went over their files, and found what seem to me to be pretty silly things, like FBI agents being instructed to create the perception that the organizations they were investigating had many FBI informers and agents in them.
They passed on the files to a reporter anonymously. Reporters and later investigations by Congress revealed more details about the FBI's cointelpro project, wherein the FBI committed illegal sabotage against groups they were investigating.
Who are the good and bad people? Well, the FBI is bad for committing illegal sabotage. The burglars are good for getting important information, but bad for doing it by stealing random boxes of files - which might've hindered legitimate investigations. The reporter is good for publishing her story. Congress is good for investigating further but bad for doing nothing effective to curtail abuses by American federal intelligence agencies.
What's especially troubling for me is that this was apparently known, by some, for a long time, and nothing effective was done to deter this person from committing additional rapes.
I'd expect an explanatory video to have audio, and to cover the core utility of the project.
Speaking of being able to focus on three things, why? Why that number? Isn't Amazon, for example, competing in Cloud computing, e Books, retail, tablets, content, groceries, home assistants, advertising, and probably a few other major categories? Likewise Microsoft has game consoles, office, cloud offerings, Windows, search, and again, other areas.
I think the thesis, that you can compete with tech giants, is true, but the analysis of the article is brief and poor. The reason you can compete with tech giants is because they are looking for a way to grow their gigantic companies and so they will forgo relatively small markets even if they are promising. I would not bet on your startup to beat Amazon in making budget tablets, or Apple in making premium ones, but if you can identify a niche with a customer that needs to be served you can outcompete major companies because they won't be willing to focus on that niche.
For example, you can't make a better budget or premium tablet, but maybe you make a tablet that floats to serve fishermen. It's a hit, so you work on connecting it to their fish finders, now you're building custom sonar sensors because your brand has a reputation and you want to add features to the tablet. Before you know it, you have a self-driving boat, and you're entering the shipping market automating the work formerly done by seamen. With a big presence in shipping you use your connections in China to start up your own retail website, and now you can compete with Amazon directly because you can arrange cheaper shipping of goods from China to US marketplaces.
I also do think there is some validity to the article's point that you'll be competing against the C team. I'd add on to it that as a startup you'll be more agile. If you're competing against a tech giant they'll be held up by a lot of bureaucracy that won't afflict you. You can match their dev team for competence, move faster, and compete in spaces where they won't want to follow. That's how you won against big companies, not because they are magically limited to paying attention to three areas.
Likewise for the very poor. I hope to never be very poor, but I still wouldn't vote for systems that mistreat or exploit them. This is not because I'm trying to protect myself in the circumstances that I become destitute, but because I think morality requires the consistent application of principles to people regardless of their economic wealth.
If my child wants to be a billionaire, should I say "Sweetie, you probably won't be a billionaire, so don't get your hopes up." Or should I say "it'll be tough, almost impossible, you'll need to work hard, study hard, be smart, etc."? I know which lesson I'd prefer to give.
"Sorry I stepped on your toes.". That was probably an accident.
"Sorry I did it again. And again." This is probably not an accident.