kerneloftruth

Actually, the norm in the past many decades in the US was a very liberal press, where people could publish on subversive topics of all kinds. The "left" supported broad first amendment rights on practically any topic. Now, they actively seek to censor and silence those who question or criticize a narrative, and with regard to covid those who question government policy. It's a bizarre and disorienting shift.

It's really the present day that suggest that substack won't be able to stick to their guns out of fear of organized opposition from "mobs". If they're able to maintain dependence only on subscribers, it's possible they can survive (and hopefully thrive) -- until somebody gets greedy.

What does "worked" mean? Illness and risk lower, or simply people following orders? People have lost sight of the former after unrelenting emphasis on the latter.

It's time to turn critical thinking skills back on.

"a project that aims to track anti-immigrant hate speech in real time"

Wow, let's go full dystopian and show the CCP we can do it better. It's frightening that _this_ is what universities (Cornell, in fact) wish to pursue.

They want to automate flagging (and of course naming and shaming) based on completely subjective concepts of "anti-immigrant" and "hate speech". Are statements opposing illegal immigration "anti-immigrant hate speech" -- I'd bet so. Where are the lines? Who decides?

That ostensibly intelligent people have the desire to do this is chilling.

"Looping in others" is an opportunity for others to say NO, or to try and redirect you, or to jump (unwanted and unneeded) onto your band wagon. If I'm working with true peers (not age or title peers, but truly similar in talent and ability), then their early involvement or collaboration is great.

Generally, however, I prefer to get solutions developed to the point where they are their own proof. It's much harder to argue against something that's (near or entirely) completed and which proves to work. It's fine for me to then involve others to get their feedback, etc.

I didn't realize how prescient was Dr. Evil in Austen Powers.

"How about not strike back, just try to survive & show future generations of the world how to be. Go live in that other country that isn't radioactive."

The word for that is "surrender".

I don't see anything mean in the comment, and I also fully agree (it's really well-stated). Being direct and not mincing words is not being mean.

They are _objective_ -- I think you're advocating _subjective_ criteria; and, you've shifted the criteria from race to socioeconomic status and geography.

It's one thing to account for socioeconomic differences, as they're not based on immutable, inherent traits. Using race, though, is simply and purely racist.

You won't solve perceived "systemic racism" by instituting actual systemic racism.

You mean a sane, fair, and objective system of evaluation? Yes.

Glad to know scotus is reconsidering the policies. I'm struck by "Race Conscious Admissions". Hopefully they'll see the same fate as "Race Conscious Water Fountain Usage Rules", and will join other nakedly racist things now on the ash heap of history.

Wise choice. I've known attorneys professionally and have some in my extended family. I've never met a truly happy attorney yet.

Anyone who thinks we're not in the midst of a cultural revolution is deluding themselves.

It's one thing for corporations to follow the money in societal trends (i.e let's go woke for as long as it increases sales), but there's a monotonous tone with these DEI themes now throughout media, academia, ... and increasingly science as TFA shows.

I would hope/think that the company's leader(s) consulted their attorney before instituting an objectively discriminatory practice. You might ask about that -- but if you're not a principal of the company, they don't necessarily have to answer your question (honestly).

I was working at IBM in the 1980s when they came out with the term "workstation" -- many of us winced at such a terrible term and concept. They did that to market PCs to corporate customers. The term takes the machine from a place where you can invent and create to one where you simply toil. IBM chose the lucrative corporate customers in doing so, letting Apple fully own the "creatives" (artists, musicians, advertisers, ...).

You should reconcile these:

"I have always felt like the schooling system is not a place for me to thrive"

and

"I do love learning new things and concepts, but I simply feel like I am not the right person to do it because my thinking is just way too slow/limited"

Given these two statements, and the struggles you're going through -- why not reconsider/rethink the first statement? You don't have to pursue a degree, but some formal education might actually help you.

Your attitude might improve if you adjust your perspective. You're in a field with such opportunities that you can go almost anywhere in the world and find work. You don't have to work outside. You're not toiling at physical labor. You're probably not punching a time clock. Consider what work is like for most all other people, and you might recognize how good things are for SWEs.

Maybe take a sabbatical and get an entry level construction job -- you might find a whole new appreciation for what you have. Or, you might discover that 'real' physical work is more enjoyable and meaningful.

Google would probably fine you for using the word "retard". /s

To be honest, the former New Mexico Cabinet Secretary and current bartender seems to be quite a complainer: he left his job and NM out of a rather general fear[1], now inexplicably working as a bartender[2]; he then proceeds to basically complain about how shitty jobs are indeed shitty, and notably not making a cogent point regarding economic and societal root causes of labor shortage. He vaguely attributes them as due to older people retiring early (many indeed are), but in most examples of people quitting (i.e. the entire kitchen staff) don't fit his thesis. I'd expect more depth from someone whose cabinet post was focused on labor.

He's similarly dismissive with statements like "But since the kids out here don’t have to work because for the most part their parents are rich, getting them hired and wanting to stay is really hard." A little bitter, perhaps?

It seems to all be about his worldview and personal identity being based on being a victim; he and everyone he's working with are all fellow victims. And nowadays, victim-hood carries enormous cache -- they're today's heroes.

[1] "While the letter wasn’t threatening, “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that it was only a matter of time before my home address and other personal information was shared on social media..."

[2] nothing at all wrong with being one, but for a 'professional class' person to need a desperation job in the current market is surprising...and maybe indicative.

Yes, like other coronaviruses[1]. It's time to calm down and return to normal order.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/general-information.html

I keep expecting (not hopefully) the establishment of "Trans Racial" people, where people want to be recognized as the race they identify as, rather than what they were labeled at birth. The logic is precisely the same as transgenderism. There have been a few cases, with the Rachel Dolezal case of 2015 getting a lot of attention.[1] I wonder if the status that transgenderism has achieved would make such a movement easier. Or, would it discredit such movements and "dysphoria" diagnoses? I mean, if we're going to alter/deny immutable traits, and if race is truly a "social construct", why wouldn't trans-racialism become a thing?

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/washington-spokane-naacp-r...

True. And, the question is now meaningless, too, because people can select multiple answers, and can base their choice(s) on self perception rather than actual lineage.

Scientific American? I would have guessed Mother Jones or The Nation with nonsense like this.

No, you've got the distinction right. Many folks don't understand that difference. Many consultants crank out a lot of code, but they also do advising, planning, recommending, analyzing,...

I've been one for over 20 years, and wouldn't trade for FTE, ever. What you describe does happen, but usually it's the reverse. In financially hard times, companies often downsize their biggest expense -- employees. They can control costs easier by instead hiring consultants, to whom they owe no benefits or long term financial commitments.

Regional, and/or Tribal.

"...the former are legitimately strange and I can't fathom how they come to exist"

I've come to believe that 10+% of any given population is insane (i.e. the fringe). I find it true almost regardless of what defines the group: professionals, academics, regular folks, ...

We just lived through a basic income experiment in the US during 2021 (American rescue plan, rent moratoriums, ...), and it showed indeed that willingness to work greatly decreased.

For many/most others, they're saying enough is enough regarding mandates.

I'm not surprised that the UK is deploying it's often used Nanny State scare tactics to try and outlaw encryption. Don't take them lightly, though, fight back!

Often they'll phrase it as "I'm literally shaking".