694 karma · joined December 23, 2012
For real? It's astonishing that India - a second world country, alleged rising star - could get beaten out in sanitation by Africa.
For example, blacksmiths got replaced by automation. Highly skilled labor, replaced by machines + lower/unskilled labor.
Burger automation is the fantasy of automating all the way to the bottom of the skill pile. But I would put my money on new waves of automation that disrupt skilled labor. There may come a day when we reach the bottom of the pile and utopia/dystopia is realized, but I don't think that day is today.
I later reject his argument after examining it cursorily and directing some half-ass arguments of my own at it. Not out of hand though
I think the key is here:
"The Austronesian advantage seems to have been threefold: (1) a more flexible and innovative approach; (2) a less present-oriented time orientation that extended further into the past and the future; and (3) a less individualistic approach to life that made collective goods and goals more possible."
First of all, these three traits are even less in evidence from the archaeological record than the alleged farming practices he is criticizing. Flexible and innovative is basically meaningless. The second one ("present-oriented") in particular is a staple of Austrian-economics-type diatribes against the poor (especially black poor), so it is likely to be a back-projection of present day arguments rather than a genuine window on the past.
But anyway, none of the three points are given any significant support - just a short handwaving paragraph each.
"Couldn't have been agriculture" - I can go along with that - "must have been racial superiority of this particular type" EDIT: those are my paraphrases, not direct quotes - that is a step too far. It's too far not so much because arguing racial superiority is wrong (although it is) but because the evidence adduced is flimsy and does not support it.
"...and that's a stupid thing to say."
On the contrary, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/a096d1d0-d2ec-11e2-aac2-00144...
I've always thought "Oh, Singapore," next thought: "where they cane people."
Lobbying for height restrictions? Lobbying against the next Michelangelo.
It seems to me that, if it were, there would already be a better solution than Facebook in place. Or if it is just about to be, that Facebook is unlikely - even with this project in place - to be in the best position to provide it. Unless they get really close with local regulators, but I doubt they have it in them to shimmy up with the local fuzz to be the most favoured credit bureau in Paraguay.
This is not evidence-based development strategy. This is a shot in the dark.
But they do this. What a [presumably tax-subsidized] waste.
Edit: and the piece is by a sitting Republican congressman, who is a somewhat legendary figure in movement conservative circles.
Having taught Latin to French speakers, I can confirm.
This isn't the beverage or toilet paper industry. Niche products - especially ones like GNOME that don't have to "sell" or turn a profit - have a demonstrated way of living on.
There may be good arguments for what GNOME has been doing, but the need to compete (with largely imaginary competitors imho) is not one of them.
I believe this is not a coincidence.
Arbitrary search and seizure, checkpoints, mass detention are common features of military counterinsurgency. They are also features of the drug war.
I'm not saying the drug war is consciously aimed at youth and minority citizens the way similar tactics were aimed at Communist guerrillas in the Malaya emergency, or Sunni insurgents in Iraq. But I am saying that the effect is about the same.
That's why it's probably a mistake to lean on rational utilitarian arguments against the drug war. The unspoken selling point is its unacknowledged side effects. Sure there are costs, but no more Watts, no more Black Panthers. The calculus of harm reduction is weak against dots that are never connected out loud.
"Last week, the company parted ways with Vic Gundotra, a talented executive who led Google+ through a thick fog of expectations. The company is also reported to be reassigning team members and sub-products (possibly Hangouts) to other business units. "
He acknowledges that for some things like tech discussion G+ is doing fine. The argument is that, organizationally, Google itself is pivoting away from G+.
People are attracted to all kinds of things. Go out to a big box store in an unfashionable suburb some weekend and look at the couples walking around. It's not as if The Real America is living in a PUA utopia where only attractive people find a mate. All kinds of facial and body types are walking around with each other.
If people can pair with unconventional types, they find them attractive enough. Some people will harass what they find attractive. Therefore some people will harass non-conventionally attractive people.
Which is a long way of saying, by no means will conventionally attractive women be the only ones to find themselves receiving such harassment.
This pretty much defeats the purpose of the rest of your comment.
>and confident men are going to act on their desires.
What do we mean by "act on their desires?"[0] There is enough ambiguity to drive a rather alarming truck through.
[0] http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/zines/spacemoose/take_bac...
Here is why:
"Why did the chicken cross the road? BECAUSE NEGROES CAN'T READ. HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!!!! Pretty funny, huh? Oh, come on, lighten up."
^Typical context in which "lighten up" is used . You don't want to sound like that guy, do you? So don't say "lighten up', no matter what race or orientation you are.
If someone finds your joke uncomfortable (like I'm hoping we all found the joke above uncomfortable) trying to cajole them into comfort with it is wasted effort at best, continuation of harassment at worst, and a simple dick move most likely.