This type of social control is so bizarre to me. Like, here's a literal script for you to read from if you'd like us to stop attacking you in the future.
> Like, here's a literal script for you to read from if you'd like us to stop attacking you in the future.
Us?
I'm talking about them, in a third person sense, not a first person sense.
Them, in this case, is meant to refer to trollish individuals looking to cause trouble under the facade of caring about the plight of women, people of color, etc. but actually are just in it for their own emotions. The people who want to stir the pot, not make things better.
Rather than a script furnished in a list of demands from said subset of the populace, this is more of a suggestion to defuse conflicts in a way that doesn't let them win.
> Being forced to adopt others beliefs about diversity as their own is the definition of hegemony.
Okay?
I really don't have any interest in where this conversation seems to be going.
If you're dealing with a troll, doing what I said will disarm 99% of their tactics. If you don't like that, take it up with the trolls.
If you, rather, have a problem with diversity itself, then let's end this discussion here.
EDIT:
> You're taking part in making sure they have the "right" beliefs about business structure and hiring practices, and it's all the more insidious because you claim you're not.
Okay, this is clearly not a discussion worth having.
That's the problem. They can't answer that question and neither can the market. The market is great at assigning value to things based on scarcity and demand, but there will never be scarcity of the Navier-Stokes equations because they can just be copied and shared so the market is useless for saying what they're worth.
And before a discovery is made literally nobody knows how it might change the world. I somehow doubt a thousand investors could have better predicted the future value of the transistor any better than the handful of electrical engineers working on that frontier.
That's great for solving known problems, like maybe Coke could estimate that reducing turbulence in their pipes in Warehouse ABC would save them a half million dollars a year. Then they can set aside money, maybe insure the project against failure, the insurance company has some idea what to charge them for such a policy, and so on.
But when Einstein was working on Relativity nobody could have foreseen what it would make possible. In that case the discovery was made and then eventually the business sector found a way to sell it, decades afterwards. Today we know what GPS makes possible so we know what it's worth, but in 1905 there was basically no market value for it.
Your comments would be more positively received if you acknowledged the minority position your views represent, and take that into consideration when trying to make points to others.
Many people support large amounts of free market activity and decentralized economic agency, but most people believe that only relying on this model of human organization will bring significant harm to society.
Very few people consider the idea of "taxation is theft" to be even remotely reasonable.
Thus there is a fairly large gap for you to bridge when trying to make points that rely on such principles.
I have a hard time seeing taxation as always theft. In a democratic society the public either is or was part of the decision on whether or not to fund things like the LHC. If society agrees to pay for it then by definition there's no coercion.
I think the LHC has over a dozen participating countries, each of which volunteered to be part of it. Ideally there should be checks and balances making sure a project of this scale is free from corruption.
Neither theft nor markets exist without property rights. And to have property rights you need a legal system, you need democratic institutions, law makers, an executive branch that enforces your legal rights, etc.
That costs money. It requires the work and agreement of others. You are not entitled to that for free and without entering into any sort of negotiation that involves give and take.
Your demand for protection against that thing you call "theft" is essentially a demand for the existence of a system of government, and that requires taxes. Therefore the claim that taxes are theft contradicts itself.
I think the comments above are pointing out what appear to be perverse incentives surrounding seeking mental health resources. It raises the question of whether those incentives could be changed in a way that all parties would benefit.
It's at least as related as the sexism controversy, which is mentioned. The title and subtitle both blame Uber's current turmoil and controversy, and the Alphabet suit may easily become the biggest issue. If the CEO conspired to steal tech from Waymo then the entire management structure at Uber is going to be in serious, serious trouble with its board and with the law.
Not necessarily. It broke within six months. It's believable that he didn't know anything about the parentage of Otto, and when the lawsuit hit, he realized just how screwed up of a situation he found himself in and bailed.
We can't say it is related, but we can't say it's not related either.
That's a fair point, I hadn't considered that. I still think leaving it out of the article is fair though. Since we don't know one way or another and there isn't anything pointing in that direction just yet.
I expected that to be a post to an actual discussion, not a link to one of your own posts which nobody actually responded to.
It also sidesteps the point that there's an orders of magnitude difference in how much effort goes towards getting women into safe and high-paying male-dominated jobs compared to dangerous low-paying male-dominated jobs.
But that's the point - OP wasn't trying to have a discussion, OP was making the same tedious point that has been refuted countless times on HN, let alone elsewhere.
Every single time this discussion happens someone will make the same stupid point - "What about women in X?" or "What about men in Y?"
And every single time someone has already posted a link to a programme to increase the numbers of women in X or the numbers of men in Y.
It's dumb and it's lazy, especially so because this information is trivially easy to find.
> there's an orders of magnitude difference in how much effort goes towards getting women into safe and high-paying male-dominated jobs compared to dangerous low-paying male-dominated jobs.
Grandparent comment was saying "X is bigger than Y", saying "Y is not zero" misses the point.
sqeaky's comment offers an explanation. I don't fully agree with it but it's a productive step forward in a discussion. When you use words like ignorant, tedious, stupid, dumb and lazy while failing to refute the argument it doesn't make you or your side look any better. I look at sqeaky's comment and have to admit I can see where they're coming from, meanwhile I look at your comments and wonder why you think you've just knocked this one out of the park.
> CITATION NEEDED.
Do you really need proof that more effort is going towards getting women into jobs from Column A than Column B? You had to resort to linking one of your own comments from a middle-popularity post on a fairly small website from a year ago. I could easily find videos of world leaders saying "This is important"
But you can just clear your cookies, go to google and see how "women in ____" auto-completes, then see how many results each phrase gets. You may not see an "orders of magnitude" of difference but you won't be able to act like there's equal attention going in each direction either.
kinetic energy: "energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."
in normal person terms: the energy of moving, or ~exercise, in a parallel world :)
Dorje Chang, Fa Zang's teacher, claims that he's the 3rd incarnation of the historical Buddha, the one that Buddhism is based on. But this Dorje Chang lineage isn't a lineage in the sense of The 14th Dalai Lama, or The 16th Karmapa. In those lineages there's a transmission of teachings, some real cultural functions, Wikipedia pages...
But this goes beyond the usual claiming of Rinpoche status, or saying that he's some long-forgotten Tulku, I'm not sure his claimed lineage* even exists or is in any way recognized by any of the major schools of Tibetan Buddhism.
I am not an expert on Buddhism in any way but many Internet buddhism commenters, who are not affiliated with Dorje Chang, claim that Dorje Chang made up his lineage.
