vorotato

If you're going to give them economically useful work you need to pay them a fair wage or it drives down wages for everyone.

I thought this title was referring to the euphemism.

He worked for a company that flayed people's identities for profit, of course he's a bad person. That doesn't mean he's wrong though.

Someone can do junk science irrespective of the field and it has no bearing on the field. There's junk science dna testing. Junk science physics. Everything and anything can be junk science if you apply yourself and try real hard.

Drive by down votes, presumably because they thought you were incorrect but didn't even have the dignity to tell anyone why.

The only reason I don't use it is because I use windows. While you can theoretically use it on windows, nobody does.

As I understand it type providers work with dotnet core code, provided you build the providers in mono. But yeah that's not exactly ideal.

Government is not socialism. Indoctrination is also not socialism. You seem to be conflating the authoritarian/libertarian axis with socialism/capitalism axis. It is authoritarian, it isn't socialist because there's nothing about it inherent to socialism even though yes it is happening within a socialist structure. I think the more accurate sentence is "This is an obnoxious kind of authoritarianism". For example you can have a very socialist, very libertarian governmental structure. Some individuals view libertarian and socialist as opposites but actually they can completely coexist. It just takes viewing both corporations and governments as structures limiting your individual liberty. This kind of authoritarian policy can happen in either a capitalist or socialist environment.

It's rhetoric, I presume nothing about your youth or your parents. Literally every generation has had that said about them so it's a pretty safe guess.

You don't need a smartphone to engage in gambling or other addictive behaviors. If children are seeking out skinner boxes it might be worth exploring why they aren't getting fulfillment out of their life.

I think there's a lot of value in having self-aware conscious behavior, it's important that you're doing what you want with your life. You only have one. People have definitely wasted their lives away, from their own opinion deep in a book. The vehicle by which people waste their lives is a lot less important than the awareness of what you're doing with your life, and that it's something that you actually wanted to do.

Public Schooling is a socialist policy, taking smartphones isn't. Giving every student a smartphone would be socialism in this context. However nobody is talking about that.

I think there's definitely room for talking to your child about self-awareness, and self-directed behavior. If you just stop your child from using some distraction then they'll just be an adult who is consumed by distraction. You're creating a crutch from actually learning the skill of managing their time.

Do you have evidence for that claim? You know your parents said the same about you with your computer games. In reality, yes you played games, you also learned more. The truth is you used more of your time than they did and some of it was productive, and some of it wasn't. VSauce has a good episode about how every generation thinks this about the next, and there has never been any evidence for it being true about any of them.

This has nothing at all to do with socialism.

Also just going to say, if you had taken away my smartphone/internet in highschool I would have just dropped out, moved out, and probably would have been better for it. Most of the profitable skills I know are self-taught, from the internet. It's very bizarre to me that we're having this discussion on hnews.

Socrates felt the same way about books actually a lot of big thinkers in that era felt that writing and reading would lead to the degradation of the human memory. However the argument that kids shouldn't have books in school seems laughable. I would say they aren't wrong. Humans really can't remember entire books any more, but then they also don't need to.

I suppose if it's crowd sourced he has no choice but to tilt at windmills.

Argument by assertion, bold.

IANAL, but as I understand it, it depends on what causes the discomfort. If your discomfort comes from the existence of other protected classes, like a baptist in a den of atheists then it's tough beans. If however you can evidence that they've created a hostile environment for you outside of your relation to other protected classes then yes that makes sense.

Also someone doesn't have to be a conservative to be sexist so... In fact many conservatives I know aren't sexist.

He'll have to explain that to a jury, and I've read the memo that claim is not abundantly clear.

Yes from a certain angle it's a PR win/win. However if he actually pursues a lawsuit with his money he's with near certainty going to be the loser.

Race and Sex are actually protected classes. Conservative however yes is totally not federally protected and neither is Socialist, or Liberal. Frankly I think that's weird, but the law is the law.

Yes, discrimination against men, and or white people is illegal. They can show though that they hire plenty of white men. You are correct in California you cannot discriminate against employees due to politics, however I'm sure they'd be able to show they hire plenty of republicans. It is also an uphill battle for Damore since he'd basically be claiming that he was discriminated against at the same time as arguing that they shouldn't do more to balance the apparent discrimination against women. Whether or not any of that is true, it's going to be a hard sell to a California jury

If I was the firm I would. For google's intended audience it's basically free advertising.

They aren't a federally protected group according to this list. This particular situation though is extra hairy because even if it was religious the offended parties could argue that a protection is not a license to advocate discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

A fool and his money are soon parted.

There's always the distinct possibility your hands have a face you haven't noticed.

edit: To clear the air, I completely agree regarding the statement. "convicting based solely on the accuser’s testimony is not fair no matter the crime."

it's not always so clear cut though, for example if they decide to quit as a result of the advances, then it could count as sexual harassment due to the adverse employment decision. Admittedly you're completely right about winning. You're not going to win a lawsuit because Sally politely asked you out once, but maybe if she "politely" badgered you every single time she spoke to the point where you were not willing to work with that person any more, and that caused you to get demoted.

Usually someone has to be a dirtbag, but some people think they're not dirtbags when they totally are dirtbags. That's when HR disasters happen and the accused weave some tale about how they were totally innocent when in reality they were shitty people creating a hostile workplace otherwise the jury would never have voted the way they did.

bob: "Oh but you said asking out was okay" HR: "yeah but uh your version of asking out was putting your balls on their desk and saying 'hey babe you know you want this'" bob:"Yeah but there was nothing rude about that, babe is a compliment"

bob@thePub: "I can't believe they fired me you ask a girl out and all the sudden it's sexual harassment"

you know who I'm talking about.

Many businesses and social activities are also enriched by not having downtime