mejari

Because nothing in the world is perfect, and by acknowledging that you and others all have implicit and explicit biases you can use your critical thinking skills to learn about the world without blindly accepting other people's biases as your own?

That's not true at all. If I say "x said y", and don't tell you that "y said z", then that is biased, while telling you only the truth.

>Replace "are using Slack" with "discussing at the bar across the street from the office" and what changes about the situation?

That the conversation is no longer happening over a company-sanctioned and controlled communications system? Seems like a pretty clear difference.

But it doesn't work like that. You can't just say "If they don't do X Y or Z", because while they may not do X Y or Z, that doesn't mean they won't do A B or C that are equally bad or worse. Human and self-driving are two completely separate categories, you can't just assume that things one does well the other also does well, and so just subtract the negatives. You could easily flip your comment to go the other way: "If human drivers don't mistake trucks for clouds or take sharp 90o turns for no reasons then they're safer".

I do think that self-driving cars will be safer, but it's upon it's proponents to prove that.

We already know they have compact nuclear warheads

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/north...

North Korea is really the only viable country that we'd be hit by nuclear weapons from, and they have no way of "pummeling" NYC.

There are plenty of situations where you have to deal with the reality of a nuclear blast that cell phones would still work. It's not all just ground-zero or nothing.

It won't be orbiting Mars, it will pass by Mars.

For any Windows users out there, I use GitExtensions, which has served me very well over the years.

...was proven to be completely innocent of the actions they were accused of.

>I think, in general, they do good work in exposing corruption, and bias.

Where is an example where they've done that? I haven't seen a single one.

It's hard to stumble on the truth when the entire basis for their group is lies.

Already done https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/935275838492332032

But you get the gift card when you buy it. You can then give it to another person. The thing of value is in your possession the entire time.

>Does the definition of imposter syndrome include the awareness that one should feel better about one's accomplishments?

Knowing how you should rationally feel and actually feeling that way are two completely different things.

Their explanation for Earth's gravity is that the Earth is constantly accelerating "upward" at 8.9m/s/s. How would satellites orbit that without constant acceleration of their own?

The demand can still be reasonable for the Echo, if you believe that it is terrible design to be triggered by anyone.

I can start a discussion about racism in the US by going on TV and yelling the n-word, that doesn't mean that I did a good job of opening a constructive dialogue.

>Why is it unacceptable to make the same observation about intellectual endeavors, or programming specifically?

Because the observation is inaccurate. There is no evidence that it is true.

>However, your gripe is with the under-representation of women at tech companies. So that claim doesn't really help you, you would need to show that women perform as well as men on average. Can you?

We have no evidence they can't, why would we assume that to be the case?

>He merely states that it can have that effect.

He "merely" says that Google is doing it, and that doing it lowers the bar. Therefore he's saying that Google lowered the bar. It's a pretty simple a = b = c scenario

>It looks like a logical conclusion to me. Care to explain why you think it's not?

Because women can achieve at the same level as men? I thought it was pretty obvious.

You say he didn't say that Google had to lower the bar, then you quote where he says explicitly that? "Google does X. X lowers the bar."

>So he is in fact arguing a factual claim, that google has applied inconsistant standards in practice, as I suggested in my prior post.

Yes. Re-read my comment. Whether or not they apply inconsistent hiring practices is a factual claim. The idea that the only way to achieve the goal of hiring more women is to apply inconsistent hiring practices is his opinion.

That's a completely made-up scenario. Google themselves have said that the way they're trying to hire more women is by looking harder for qualified candidates, not by lowering the level that meets "qualified".

You can throw buzzwords designed to shut down discussion at me all you want, that's irrelevant. He claims his goal was to have a dialogue, the fact is that he chose a very poor way of doing that. Either his goals aren't what he claims or he misunderstood how to accomplish them.

Not being able to come up with a way to do what you want does not mean you are correct to just do what you want anyway.

You are completely incorrect. Whether or not Google did in reality lower the bar to hire more women is a matter of fact. That Damore felt that in order to meet the goal of hiring more women Google had to lower the bar is his _opinion_, and it is a telling opinion about how he thinks about the capabilities of women.

"You had to buy inferior wood to get enough to build this house. I don't think there's enough good wood to build the house, therefore in order to get enough you had to buy inferior wood."

The fact of the quality of the wood is separate from the opinion of the availability of quality wood.

>I don't understand why this means that Damore shouldn't have shared his opinion.

"Shouldn't have shared his opinion" and "should have shared his opinion in a different way" are two completely different things, and I don't see many people saying the first.

>There has to be a way for everyone to be professional and honest here.

I agree, but just because there has to be a way for everyone to be professional and honest, that doesn't mean that what Damore did was professional and honest.

It's not just "pro-affirmative-action stakeholders" that are expected to respond. _As referenced in the article_, it's extending to expecting women to come up with responses just because they are women. You're talking about a situation where one side (the side of the manifesto) has dropped an "evidence bomb", some of which may be valid, some not, and is now complaining "why won't you have a discussion?" They weren't invited to a discussion, they weren't talked _to_, they were talked _at_, and are now being looked to as the defenders of their gender when they just want to do their damn job.

>Well then this "study" is just an observation.

Yes. Many studies are.

> So it probably doesn't warrant the amount of attention it is getting, to say nothing of people using this "study" as evidence.

It seems like you lack an understanding of how science works? Because the fact that this is an observation doesn't mean that it isn't evidence. Observation is like one of they key kinds of evidence.

>but now they need to perform a scientific experiment in order to make this newsworthy

No they don't. That's not how this works, at all. It's still valid meaningful evidence. I mean, do you ever read stories about stellar discoveries? Do you think they aren't worth reading because they didn't do an experiment to re-create the black hole they discovered in a lab?

What is your point? I said that it's _not always_ appropriate, not that it is _always not_ appropriate. And the ability to do it is not the sole deciding factor on whether it is appropriate.