d_e_solomon

That would be like me telling you I don't like brussel sprouts and you telling me to shut up because brussel sprouts are good.

Why is your opinion about a group that you're not a part of suddenly more important?

Yes. Because losing your job due to using hate speech is the same as losing your head for being on the wrong side of the committee of public safety. Next you'll tell me that I'm literally hitler.

"""Admitting this is even the case (which it isn't, as people recently are being cancelled for being just moderate, or for stuff they said when they were teenagers which is ridiculous), how can you justify having someone fired by a mob for something they SAID, therefore denying their livelihood?""

Go into your bosses office and use an ethnic slur and tell me what happens. Speech has consequences and hate speech rightfully has more consequences.

I struggle to come up with examples of people who raised "objective, convient facts" that suffered undue backlash. Most of the ones that get used are usually pretty terrible.

Apologies - I deleted examples that went too far

There's this crazy fallacy that speech doesn't cause people to change behavior.

If I influence people consistently by saying that Programmers are terrible people; convince a bunch of people that it's true; then policies that target programmers are much easier to make into law.

Slavery existed in part because people thought black people were subhuman and plenty of people argued that quite publicly.

Or consider a gay child whose teachers say that gay people are going to hell? Do you think that wouldn't have an impact?

I really don't understand this idea that speech doesn't have consequences that cause disparate impact.

Speech has consequences. If you make statements that are blatantly: - Racist - Anti LGBT - Anti Trans - Misogynistic Then don't be surprised when other people call you out on it and you face consequences.

We're not discussing some random philosophical pie in the sky question. Speech that oppresses minorities deny their fundamental right to exist. Wouldn't you fight back if someone wanted to take away your life?

I don't think it's particularly difficult to refer to a person how they want to be referred to. Enforcing that as a standard isn't thought crime and the amount of hand wringing over this supposed 'thought crime' is gross.

I call Robert, Robert - and not Bob, Bobby, or Teddy. Because Robert goes by Robert. Similar to pronouns. Not difficult at all.

> Hasn’t Trump been in favor of LGBT rights?

No - see here: https://www.glaad.org/tap/donald-trump

This is a favorite of mine and got me through some tough days in undergrad. I'm no longer a young man and I don't really pursue mathematics anymore, but it was a good reminder of a good days.

Thanks for posting :)

Yes - presuppose you fall seriously ill right before a filing deadline. The IRS actually covers such cases under a one time abatement policy.

Yes, that's what I meant - they're not unique. Sorry for the typo :)

As a former consultant in SAP - Most companies aren't that unique in how they execute most processes. For instance, AP payments generally looks the same at a high level. For the variations of business processes, SAP gives you lots of room to modify configuration to fit your process. If you're in a specialized industry like Aerospace or Oil and Gas, they have unique industry specific solutions.

I've seen the flip side where people custom code the heck out of the system. That becomes impossible to upgrade and impossible to take advantage of new features.

I've also seen lots of bad processes continued that could have been re-engineered to be good processes if the implementer and business had an honest conversation. SAP for better or worse forces these conversations by limiting the ways that you can implement the solution.

SAP failed implementations are not unique from other software failed implementations. It doesn't fail because of the product; it fails because of the people and politics of the organization. SAP tends to make the headlines because of the size of the implementations and the eye watering costs.

Uh... see here: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-citizens-ice-201804...

Dynamic DNS :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_DNS

I posted this article several years ago. In my mind, the interesting question isn't who goes Nazi; but rather, would I go Nazi and what circumstances would I go Nazi?

Its easy to assume that you are the good guy in the movie. Twist the plot a bit, and do you become the bad guy?

I would say that a picture isn't an exact replica either. The photographer chooses what to photograph at what time and with specific framing and with a particular set of features on the camera. A photographer makes choices just like an illustrator does. So a photographer is still warping a version of events through their mind as well.

One photograph of a person crying or upset could be used to represent then entirety of a trial. Imagine if that one moment is published in a newspaper. The person would be immediately assumed guilty in the court of public opinion.

Sure, sorry to be slow in replying - busy day. So it goes further than that. It sets an expectation for industry that they will need to develop technology to make the 2040 deadline.

If auto firm A makes the deadline and is able to sell awesome EV vehicles and auto firm B and C have only so-so, because they didn't take the law seriously, A is going to sell a lot more vehicles. So autofirms have to start considering these sorts of government regulations in their R&D budgets today. The investments made today will help determine their outcomes in 2040.

> What started off as a clever way to win arguments has become a lazy put down. It’s (Virtue Signaling) too often used to cast aspersions on opponents as an alternative to rebutting their arguments. In fact, it’s becoming indistinguishable from the thing it was designed to call out: smug posturing from a position of self-appointed authority.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/20/virtue...

If I'm going to read a daily, it's probably the Washington Post, NY Times or the WSJ. I haven't noticed a particular drop in quality of any of those three. Why do you think the Post has gotten worse?

Not for profit doesn't mean that the people doing the work don't get paid. It means that the entity doesn't exist to payback a financial return to its investors.

Think of it this way, a not-for-profit insurance company has to pay its executives, staff, and so forth, while a for-profit insurance company has to do all of that and show a return for its investors.

Just to be sure - if you show up at the hospital w/o means of payment - even if in coma - are you going to be treated? If yes, then you have insurance and you're free-riding on the system. If no, then you're more barbaric than Reagan.

> but I found out he was a physicist recently

The horror.

>Aren't you obligated to make the highest returns for shareholders?

Actually no. As recently as Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court said:

"Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html

This might be pedantic, but stagflation doesn't describe our economy. Stagflation would indicate stagnant growth and too high inflation. Inflation is currently at 1.6% according to the BLS for the past 12 mo. If anything, that is a little too low due as the Fed's target is about 2%. Growth is also going the correct direction as the Fed is forecasting growth for 2016 of around 1.6-2%.

Does that mean the economy is perfect? Of course not, but stagflation probably isn't the right word either.

> If I were to form a new place of discourse due to being banned, it would most likely become an echo chamber of other people that have been banned not a major place of discourse.

What's wrong with that? If you hold bad opinions that most people dislike, you're not guaranteed an audience. If you have white nationalist opinions, the rest of us don't have to be held hostage to your views.

Generally if you're ready for marriage, the question you should be asking yourself is in the event of death, sickness, and yes divorce, how do I ensure the well being of my spouse and kids?

If you're asking how do I protect myself in the event of divorce, you yourself are not ready for marriage.

No. You're free to form your own major place of discourse.

Yes, everyone leaves for Voat, Voat crashes, and then everyone goes back to Reddit. Most people go to Reddit for their cat memes, not to hate on people.