Demonstrably untrue. The people affected are persistently, spectacularly unsuccessful. It's unclear why more investment into helping with Ebola would work where previous intervention in other crises has failed.
However I think your outlook is that which enables the worst in us.
We like to demonise leaders when we count up the corpses of history, but it is twisted little fuckers like you who oil the way for them, make no mistake about that.
> Somethings are better than others, not discriminating based on gender, where the gender doesn't matter for the job, is strictly better than discriminating based on gender.
Prove it.
> Seriously if this happened in the US you would be up in arms, the Chinese should not be allowed to be different.
Should not be allowed by whom? Last I checked, China wasn't a US state. Are you going to pick up a rifle and go conquer it?
Oh, it's a religious belief. I'm curious to know why you and the poster above think you can forcefully bring your faith to the Chinese. Is China not a sovereign country? Does the strength of your conviction override geopolitics?
It's a ploy from the rail companies to have the tax payer foot the bill to build these high-speed rail lines, knowing full and well that there is just not enough demand at the price (per trip) they are proposing.
Sure there will be the occasional passenger train to warrant keeping it around, but the long term goal is to have the rail companies step in and say "See, no demand for passengers, but since you have all of these tracks built, we'll gladly use them to haul our freight."
Oh, I'm sure they'll begin it. We'll get a shiny new sixty-billion dollar rail line from Bakersfield to Fresno, and probably two or three trains a day along it.
Not being very smart accounts for some of those reasons. Do you feel there is a significant category of people who are intelligent enough to be nuclear physicists, but decided to drive trucks instead?
Whether the number is significant or not is irrelevant. The fact is that being a truck driver does not in any way disqualify one from being intelligent. A less loaded but more helpful title might have been something along the lines of "Man who isn't a nuclear scientist uncovers secrets about first nuclear bomb." It might help to understand the problem I'm describing if you replace "truck driver" in the title with a race.
> Can you provide some evidence regarding intelligence of truck drivers?
Sure. This very article. Some non-truck drivers were apparently pretty impressed with the truck driver's book:
The review, written by the eminent atomic historian Robert S. Norris, began, “For many years, Coster-Mullen has been printing his manuscript at Kinko’s (adding to and revising it along the way) and selling spiral-bound copies at conferences or over the Internet.” Norris clearly considered Coster-Mullen’s understanding of the bomb superior to his own.
My own copy of “Atom Bombs” soon arrived in the mail, along with a sheet of testimonials from Harold Agnew, the former director of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, who was aboard the Enola Gay when it annihilated Hiroshima (a “most amazing document”); Philip Morrison, one of the physicists who helped invent the bomb (“You have done a remarkable job”); and Paul Tibbets, the commander and pilot of the Enola Gay (“I was very much impressed”).
Incidentally, can you provide some evidence regarding the intelligence of software engineers?
Ironically, software engineers aren't even listed here except for in an aggregate group (possibly many) which undoubtedly includes many other occupations.
It's pretty lucky I don't make sweeping generalizations about your intelligence based upon a single data point :-)
Just to be clear, negative stereotyping "backed" by statistics is still wrong. There's plenty of scientific evidence "justifying" racism. Even if that scientific evidence were completely correct, racism would still be morally abhorrent.
> Doesn't feel like anything at all
I think you've profoundly missed the point (point: empathy).
Anyways, when your hobby project is upheld as fantastic research by physicists and leaders of national labs, you can be condescending toward other occupations.
Interestingly enough, that's an opinion shared by a small group of people with similar likes and dislikes. The rest of humanity isn't on the same team as you.
Can you recall any instances of out-group violence committed by your tribe?
Because it indirectly affected the salaries of everyone who works in tech in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, and possibly a larger portion of the U.S. tech industry.
It's standard practice in HR to calibrate salaries based on what other companies are doing. Some large companies end up being benchmarks for entire categories or regions.
If top engineer salaries at one company are suppressed, then so are junior engineer salaries. If that company's salaries are artificially low, then any company that uses that as a benchmark will duplicate those low salaries.
I don't believe you. Top engineers are in a completely different bargaining category than regular, and especially junior engineers.
A junior engineer adopting "Steve Jobs is keeping me down" as his personal narrative probably has problems other than the games Silicon Valley billionaires play with each other.
Junior engineers are more likely to be affected precisely because of this reason; they have far less bargaining power than a top engineer and are subject to the standard “This is the salary band based on our research on our competitors' salaries”
I think there are current court battles playing out over the employers who didn't settle. That being said, everyone is acting like this didn't happen and ostensibly stop five years ago.
"Over the past two decades, the use of antidepressants has skyrocketed. One in 10 Americans now takes an antidepressant medication; among women in their 40s and 50s, the figure is one in four."
To be clear, that does not imply that people are more depressed over the past two decades. On the positive side, it could mean that we're finally able to diagnose and treat something that has plagued us all along. On the negative side, it could be the direct result of the Big Pharma marketing and profit machine.
This isn't about my preferences. The whole point is that only an arrogant asshole would claim their preferences are the only rational ones.
As another example within GPS, Waze used to give truly horrendous routes, as it would often fail to understand the difference between overpasses and intersections. A bunch of early adopters liked the promise of Waze and helped crowd-source the fixes, so that now Waze is a very good navigator.
By the OP's logic, the early adopters who helped make Waze great were irrational, because it truly was worse for quite a long time.
That said, I get it, you're just here to snark at strangers. After all, if you'd had even a hint of an interest in a real conversation you would've realized I never stated that any set of attributes was better than any other, nor that my interpretation of attribute definitions was the only valid one.
Anyway, thanks for the snarky bullshit and have a nice day.
