jhowell

Seems like this statement might need a little support to make its point without being inflammatory, or worse inaccurate.

edit: typo

There has never been equal opportunity. This is clear. The reasons why opportunity has not been equal is becoming more clear, regardless which side of the nature versus nurture debate you fall on. Equal outcome should not be the goal (test scores and grades are not the best nor only indicator the likelihood of success). The goal should be equal access.

What happens when people don't pay the fines? I am under the impression that a warrant for arrest would be issued by a Judge. At which point, I imagine you'd go to jail when apprehended.

While in jail, my understanding is that there is an increased likelihood of contracting COVID due to lack of social distancing and ability to more easily follow recommend guidelines to prevent infection.

Still seeing scarecrows?

Can you really imagine the police confronting and/or arresting someone for not wearing a mask only to take them to jail to contract the virus?

Neither had Contra Costa, yet here we are.

This doesn't sound like I want to go the herd immunity route: https://twitter.com/DaniOliver/status/1279155358666305541

> all signs point to meanginful immunity and virtually no signs point to the opposite.

Here is a story from CNN via the Mercury News about 3 teachers sharing a classroom. Anecdotal, but makes me think these are signs of a lack of immunity. A positive, negative, positive test.

> A month after they caught the virus that killed their colleague, Martinez and Skillings are still struggling.

> Martinez says fatigue is lingering, she still has a cough, and she continues to take breathing treatments to relieve tightness in her chest. She recently tested negative and retested.

> Skillings says she thought she was getting better, but recently her cough returned full force. She tested a week ago and it came back positive again.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/12/three-arizona-teacher...

Why would this be a good idea? It sounds like a "punishment."

> People aren't willing to pay much for non-physical goods anymore.

Anecdotal

> I strongly suspect that YouTube is not profitable, or is just barely profitable

Why suspect when you can Google...

"On an annual basis, Google says YouTube generated $15 billion last year and contributed roughly 10 percent to all Google revenue. Those figures make YouTube’s ad business nearly one fifth the size of Facebook’s, and more than six times larger than all of Amazon-owned Twitch."

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al...

> YouTube wasn’t profitable for a while. Even if it is now, it is probably barely so.

First search result...

"YouTube generated nearly $5 billion in ad revenue in the last three months, Google revealed today as part of parent company Alphabet’s fourth quarter earnings report."

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al...

What if they are just , “... pausing our advertising until Facebook can create an acceptable solution that makes us comfortable”? because they don't feel Facebook has acted in a manner consistent with their perceived values?

> There's always been a suspicion, occasionally backed up by anecdotal evidence, that the social media giants Twitter and Facebook have been skewing the balance of power in public discourse toward the Left, by "shadowbanning", censoring right-leaning posts, and occasionally even banning conservative users for seemingly minor infractions, while taking no action against similar or worse offences from people on the Left.

> Lately, it seems they've thrown away all pretence of even-handedness: Twitter, in particular, has been taking down account after account of conservative commentators, even placing a "call to violence" warning on President Trump's pledge to enforce the law on mobs of anarchists and arsonists.

The fun times guys is back. Send me a message if you'd like to read some "ideas" from his blog that he "deleted."

I think the US Courts still use Perl for Pacer (https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-bin/links.pl) and it seems to be used by the US Cours as well: https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl

There will be lawsuits. This is not settled.

Late reply, I've been camping for the last few days. It was beautiful and rejuvenating, thank you!

Calling something "silly" that may not impact you but could have a greater impact on others is insensitive. It so insensitive that you'd have to conceal your identify, or hide your opinion when not voicing your opinion on the Internet to avoid backlash and becoming untouchable to (some/more/most/all) employers. I don't understand the gain, other than dog whistling.

The question you ask, given the opinion you express on your blog here[1] seems extremely insensitive of the feelings of others. Can you share the reasons for this insensitivity?

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200616121527/https://www.shaul...

Maybe one day, we can all find this funny.

Reading this:

"Exactly!" Emma slapped her hand on the table. "We need to go up a level. We need to identify and root out all the racist, sexist, and other offensive terms in everyday language. And we need it by six o' clock today."

"Why so soon?" asked Brett.

"Because that's the deadline for today's news cycle at my station,"

And watching this:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-police-...

Is not funny to me, but I assume that was your intention. My hope radical inclusion reshapes the world we all live in.

You might write wonderful code, or manage wonderful projects, but at what cost if your employer winds up be boycotted (if only for a short period) for the views of their employees? As this has happened many blame the subjects of their satire and not their actions which waters the seed of resentment, which in your case appears to have grown into a forest.

Why not both? Reconsidering the "rightful slots" of either group would diversify the institution significantly, though there are many who believe diversity is not beneficial. Perhaps Harvard sees a path to increased value in their endeavor to be more representative society.

I'm not sure your interpretation is required or adds value. Those with first hand experience have been protesting for over 100 years and have been very clear. Law enforcement needs more August Vollmers.

How often does that freaking happen... Edge case?

The details are there. It seems you're complaining about their order as evidence of a conspiracy theory, "to make the victim seem more sympathetic."

The only conspiracy is that people want those who are not typically victims of these injustices to be inclusive in their thinking about who deserves life and who should make that determination.

> Why the breathless article about 2 cases?

If I worked at Tesla and came to find out about positive tests in this manner, in an environment with what appears to be a more rapid return to work inclination, I might breathlessly express my concern to as many as would listen.

I don't find that offensive.

If your interest is organizational change around best software development practices, you should stay.

If you interest is in writing a lot of code quickly, "this is frustrating since I see how slow dev is", you should leave.

> I am a white guy and my girl is black. You know how much we talk about race? None, zero, never.

This comment reminds me of this comment https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/sport/denver-broncos-coach-ra...

I honestly feel that that's where we are. We all need to stop, think and do better, not easier, smarter, faster, better. What's best. We all know the feeling in whatever we do. Not THE best, YOUR best.

> You don't think I would be justified in blaming 3rd party for pressuring others into firing me?

No and I think that this is the significant portion of the problem. Do better.

I asked a question that it seems you've answered with a question. This is the Internet, so the only real "rules" are related to the physical limitations of the hardware in use. As is demonstrated in the article, other rules are more subjective in nature.

Yes, there are things more dangerous than someone who views themselves as objective while sanctimoniously berating other people for having "biased" views. I can name a great many.

We are, but then we stop because... logic...

> Define strongly. Am I willing to lose my job to be right on the internet? No. But I think it is a mistake to think that those voices lose strength when hidden. Quite the opposite.

This means you'll rant on message boards and complain to friends but to no action, because you have something to lose which is good. Make bad decisions, say/do dumb stuff, pay the consequences - we are being more equally protected. This has not always been the case.

> I am looking for a reasonable rationale. Frankly, I do not understand some of the decisions people make.

In trying to understand the decisions others make, you should first listen. Otherwise, I think what some give themselves credit for as "understanding" is really just judgement.

Worst case scenario, you continue posting, your identify is discovered and your opinions become public and have real world consequences which you'll blame on the subjects of your opinion.

This, as the country continues to diversify in both public and private life (more women in government and business, minorities becoming the majority, etc.) is a dying perspective and new ones are being formed. You should try one on to see if you like it.

With respect to amateur psychologist it is not my intention. It is difficult for me to understand how you think and feel during the conversation without asking questions. The fact that you see this as me playing amateur psychologist could be projection on your part.