lulmerchant

Well, TIL...

If only they could run a payroll system as effectively as they can run a genocide.

On this note, I can't believe that iOS the operating system and IOS the operating system have managed to get along.

Exactly. It's one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy in the world.

>Basically, a complex mix of social expectations, social bias, how women are treated in society, and biological aspects of women’s personalities may contribute to an overall significantly higher rate of BPD diagnosis being a female diagnosis.

By your own admission, with 5 seconds of googling, and 0 knowledge on the topic, you submitted a comment attributing this to gender bias. If you don’t want your comments to be scrutinized by others, then perhaps don’t post them on public forums...

Discussion is the point of the comment section, and the limit of the discussion you’re willing to participate in is “I posted a random study from Google along with some of my own commentary, that I’m not prepared to defend in any manner whatsoever”.

I'm not going hard on you at all, only on what you've said. The evidence about BPD is that it affects women far more often than men, the clinical data overwhelmingly supports this, and so does the genetic research on the topic. Instead of considering this evidence, you've tried to find some seperate evidence for gender bias, you found the one paper that examines this, and that paper doesn't even really draw any conclusions.

Any time a question is asked about 'why are men and women different in regards to x', you'll have people lining up (like yourself and other commenters in this thread) to say it's gender bias. When the answer is often just because men and women have differences, which is exactly what the evidence points to in this case.

You've started with a presupposition that all of the clinical evidence is simply a misguided outcome based upon social constructs. How we choose to define BPD is entirely constructed, but the evidence is not, and the evidence very clearly shows that this disorder overwhelmingly affects more women than men. Just as APD and various other disorders overwhelming affect more men than women. If you're going to assert that this is due to anything other than genetics, then you're going to have to come up with something better than a weak meta-data study that barely draws any conclusions. Because to do that, you'll be going against decades of clinical data.

How people perceive others is irrelevant to the question. Women are more often clinically diagnosed with BPD, not simply perceived by others to express it. The rest of your post is mostly unsupported speculation. Apart from the parallel you've drawn with APD, which has a lot of similarities to BPD, except with inverse gender distribution.

>If cities build appropriate multi modal transportation networks and restrict the amount of space allowed for vehicle traffic, people will walk, bike or take the train rather than drive

This is far from being an established fact. Ignoring the fact that cities can't simple be redesigned from the ground up to maximise the benefits of public transport, there's very conflicting evidence about whether increasing public transport decreases congestion.

You shouldn't conflate the law with ethics so readily. The same logic could apply to lots of different encryption or security technology.

The exact opposite is true. With all the pressure on diversity numbers, talented female engineers are very highly sought after.

The truth is it doesn't matter what the data says. There's an entire political philosophy that's based on everybody being either oppressed, or an oppressor. For people who subscribe to that, they will always claim that invisible forces are at work oppressing people, no matter how much reality proves otherwise, and they will never offer any proof to support these claims, because it's just so axiomatic to them.

I'll ignore the irrelevant marxist talking point and trump references, and redirect you back to the data. The Nordic countries always lead in these stats.

These are the countries that are the most egalitarian in the world, where 3rd wave feminism forms a major part of social policy, where women have an equal level of opportunity to men and the freedom to choose their own paths in life. The data shows that under these conditions, this freedom has a negative correlation to women choosing a career in STEM.

You can't say that this is a remnant of some patriarchal system of oppression, because as women's freedom has increased in those countries, their participation in STEM has decreased.

Of course it does. Feminism is ingrained into the cultures of these countries. The data overwhelmingly shows that when you give men and women equal opportunities and the freedom to make their own choices, that men and women, on average, make different choices.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. Apart from those who buy into the world view that the only two groups in any society are the oppressed and their oppressors, which is clearly just toxic bullshit.

This data entirely negates that claim. In countries with the highest levels of gender equality, where women are least likely to experience any of these negative forces, they simply self-select not to participate in certain fields (on average).

If you cannot participate in a field where not enough of the people look and act like you, then perhaps you have the problem.

Legally this is most likely correct. But you can't have your cake and eat it to. If you support political censorship (which you might have a good reason to do), then you have to own that. You can't support political censorship and then justify it by saying it's not censorship.

CBS didn't have integrity issues as a broadcaster before expanding into news. Buzzfeed's entire business model has been based on no-integrity clickbait garbage, that's what their brand represents. It doesn't matter if they decide to hire a few "real journalists", or at least what they think "real journalists" are, they have no credibility at all.

They built their business on the lowest form of tabloid clickbait that could possibly be imagined. You can't go from a position of 0 integrity, and then say "Hey, we're expanding into an integrity market. You're simply ignorant if you don't read our content".

My point is that it's still censorship, whether done by a private company or by a government, and whether they have the legal right to do so or not.

You're correct, they do have the legal right to censor anything they like.

How could banning the_donald possibly be considered anything other than censorship?

Maybe that's how they became successful. It's a well established fact that industriousness is one of the strongest predictors of success in people.

"Organic" and "Chemical" are words that already have a clear meaning. In the alternative context in which these words are used, they have no meaning. You won't find a consistent or concise definition that describes the alternative context in which these words have come to be used. What those words really mean in that context, is completely arbitrary, varies greatly depending on who you're talking to, and has noting to do with the use of chemicals, or organic chemicals. Worse yet, products that are deemed to be either "Organic" or "Chemical Free" often fail to meaningfully differentiate themselves from the products which are "not organic" or "chemical".

At best, the use of these words is a deceitful marketing ploy used to manipulate people who don't understand chemistry. At worst (as is the case with "organic certification"), it is simply a scam used to con money out of producers and consumers.

"Organic" is almost as bad in my opinion.

Years ago I discovered a bit of a trick for getting through customs in Jakarta in about 5 mins (I was travelling there a lot for work). However, what I always ended up with was standing around for about 15-20 minutes for my bags to be unloaded, as even the priority baggage was rather slow off the plane.

Since watching King of Kong, I haven't been surprised about any of the shady stuff I hear about TG. Also, I'd recommend that anybody who hasn't watched that movie to watch it, it's hilarious.

>New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with nuclear power.

This is absolutely false.

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/...

>Labour campaigned against nuclear propulsion and weapons

>Labour announced its decision to ban ships that were either nuclear-powered or -armed.

>party activists were unwilling to draw distinctions between nuclear propulsion and nuclear weapons. The mood of the nation was also turning against such political manoeuvring.

>Following confidential discussions over the selection of an acceptable ship, in late 1984 the United States requested that the ageing guided-missile destroyer USS Buchanan visit New Zealand. The Americans hoped that a perception that it was not nuclear-armed would be enough for it to slip under the political radar, and believed they had Lange’s agreement. But on 4 February 1985 the government said no. ‘Near-uncertainty was not now enough for us,’ Lange later explained. ‘Whatever the truth of its armaments, its arrival in New Zealand would be seen as a surrender by the government.’ In response, Washington severed visible intelligence and military ties with New Zealand and downgraded political and diplomatic exchanges. George Shultz confirmed that the United States would no longer maintain its security guarantee to New Zealand, although the ANZUS treaty structure remained in place.

In any case, even if your claim was true (and it quite clearly isn't), rejecting the alliance with our strongest and one of one of our closest allies over the issue isn't a good move, no matter what way you look at it.

Port 53 is still a major pita though.

Most of the poor pay 0% tax. A company is mostly just a collection of assets, and many of them can move their operations from one country to another if they're motivated to do so, you can't just say "this company belongs to the US federal government". If you want capital to permanently leave the US, then start jailing executives anytime they structure a multinational company. If you'd like them to structure their companies in a way that benefits the US, then implement an internationally competitive tax structure.

It's still a clickbait headline, no matter how interesting it otherwise is. "Negative mass" and "negative effective mass" change the implications quite a lot. One potentially means wormholes, warp drives, quantum gravity, faster than light travel, and time travel. The other does not.

The problem with this argument, and most of the other disparaging (and borderline nihilistic) comments in this thread, is that it ignores the fact that competition is a two way street.

Delivering value to stakeholders is undoubtably an indicator for success in business. If your work environment isn't rewarding you for that in a way that satisfies you, then find one that will. If you are delivering value, then your company has to compete to keep you, just as much as you have to compete with your colleagues (and also the rest of the workforce in general) for what ever position it is that you want.

If you're not prepared to seek better opportunities, not only are you disadvantaging yourself, but by just putting up with whatever you're unhappy about, you're also disadvantaging every other person out there like you, by stifling competition, and setting the tone that you'll just put up with whatever bullshit comes down to you from management.