HFCS is a misnomer. It's just 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Whereas sucrose is exactly 50% fructose and 50% glucose. HFCS is a health problem, but not not more so than sugar already.
Balancing free fructose does not matter because by eating starch, you are already intaking much more glucose than fructose.
This does nothing to explain why 85% of women and 85% of men in Sweden work in gender segregated professions, with gender segregation getting worse for every year. It does nothing to explain why out of 5 professions with 99% or higher gender segregation, 3 is female dominated and 2 is male dominated. It also does not explain why the only university program that ended up single gender a few years ago was female dominated.
The gender paradox is also poorly explained through the narrative that historical gender roles is the cause of gender segregation today.
I don't understand how any of these conversations(besides the first one, in perhaps an HR meeting), could possibly be topical at work? The company isn't paying me to preach my political agenda.
Have you also considered that while a "marginalized" person might be keenly aware, researched and emotionally invested in discussing these things, a "privileged" person may feel ambushed and distracted by these questions while they are trying to focus on work? The language and obvious expectation in many of these "discussions" is a with-us-or-against-us recruitment for the agenda, often backed up with moral blackmail(e.g. "we're fighting for our lives here and you won't even help us"). At work we try to afford each other respect, politeness and professional courtesy, but from what I've seen, these "discussions" are anything but.
I don't think imposing oneself onto other people like these "discussions" do is effective. Surely you've seen the hyperbole, the aggression and vitriol that goes with them and can imagine how it seems to someone who isn't invested in the agendas? After all you ask to not be downvoted even in your meta-discussion about the topics, what about when discussing the topics themselves?
I agree with the progressive arguments - that you can't just say "no politics in X", that politics are inherent to what you do. What I absolutely disagree with is the tactics employed, and I think they are not just ineffective, they have a negative effect on engagement. People may want to help, but they don't want to feel like they're being coerced to. People may want to discuss, but they want to do it on their terms. People may want to listen, but they don't want to be lectured.
I think this is why there is such a strong push to disengage and ignore these problems - and I agree that they are problems that need discussion and need solutions. The in-your-face unapologetic advocacy, the constant motte-and-bailey argumentation, the extreme emotional reactions to any dissention, the preaching from a perceived moral high ground - these are not a conductive environment for changing minds.
So I agree with you. I'll go even further. It's bullshit to say "no politics at work", and it's hypocritical. I will keep supporting that policy, because it's the lesser of two evils, because I think progressive strategy is counter-productive and a recipe for disaster. I'm happy to have any of these discussions, on a neutral, preferrably anonymous forum, where there is enough distance that perhaps we could have a productive argument. Work is none of those things.
>> If you disagree I’d love to understand your viewpoint as to why.
I'm a underrepresented minority in just about everywhere but tech, yet you draw the line "at tech" for some arbitrary reason (as if my place of work or work opportunities defines who I am).
This is why I disagree. Someone is making arbitrary groups of underrepresentation and/or minority harm who have no real claim over said power.
Also:
>> I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege...
I am one of said underrepresented minorities "not in tech" (I also don't work in tech anymore, so I guess I'm in the clear now) who have no interest or desire to talk politics at work. Not when I was poor and drawing on EBT/SNAP/WIC and not when I've been well off, or anywhere in between.
There is no absolute reason you have to be privileged to not want to talk about politics at work. This is a majorly false assumption.
Have you seen problems with people in any of these groups unable to talk about these issues? I had a project owner once who had a manager not get along with her at all.
"Is it because you're a woman," I asked her. She said, "No, I don't think that's it." .. and he did get along with another woman; one of our Functional Analysis.
Sometimes person x doesn't like person y because .. they don't like person y. They don't think person y is effective or useful or good at his or her job, not because y is an Asian, or woman, or trans or Mexican. ... or it could be and the person is a victim of bigotry and doesn't know it.
I know it's anecdotal, but I've worked in a lot of different places, in 3 different countries, and in my experience, I think it's the opposite. I think people are afraid to say anything remotely non-left or criticize any minority employee or say anything that could remotely be inferred as problematic.
The slides didn't have the explicitly racist and sexist bits. Basically if you were a white guy, you weren't allowed to interrupt anyone and anyone was allowed to interrupt you. There were also implications that one should discriminate against white men when choosing who to hire, who to promote, and who to have speak at conferences.
> We can’t improve without discussion, and it’s unfortunate that these type of issues are so divisive.
Except Cancel Culture is making it that these can't be discussed without complete agreement.
Take for example, "Women in Tech", personally I don't see underrepresentation of women in tech as a problem that can be or should be 'solved'. For the better part of 15 years, there has been a massive movement to encourage women in STEM. There are hundreds of Women in Tech meetups, scholarships, Womens only courses... yet the numbers have barely budged in more than 10 years. Personally, it looks like in aggregate it will be difficult to get 50/50 representation of women and men in tech. To make it clear, we should definitely support everyone who is in tech, and make it an inclusive environment, but the continued push for 50/50 isn't going to happen so perhaps its not worth the huge money sink it is.
At the last place I worked that opinion was flat out branded "sexist", and if you didn't vocally agree with every women in tech initiative people asked why.
So I would say the ability to speak openly about politics was shut down long ago, and not by the people you think.
I've worked at a company that heavily encouraged discussion of politics at work, and it was a nightmare. The things management sponsored (at the request of employees) included:
- A women-only Slack channel.
- Women-only events, such as a free screening of Wonder Woman. The men at the company were expected to work during that time.
- An "ally skills workshop"[1], which attempted to indoctrinate us with an explicitly racist and sexist ideology.
- A Diversity Council that had the explicit goal of increasing the number of non-white non-men in engineering. One time when I was invited to a meeting of the council, I said that their goal should be to eliminate bias in the hiring process (such as by blinding resumes, replacing phone screens with text-only mediums, etc). I was taken aside and chastised for my statements.
If I had actually said my opinions, I have no doubt I would have been fired for my beliefs. If that's what happens when people are encouraged to bring their politics to work (especially in SF), I will gladly take the "no politics" option.
Going after public sector unions at all is extremely difficult. The most successful attempt to do so that I'm aware of was Gov. Scott Walker's in Wisconsin. And even he didn't go after the law enforcement unions. (It might be possible to split off the police unions from the prison guard unions, but it's not clear to me that it is.)
Law enforcement unions are one of the few American institutions with completely bipartisan protection. Democrats don't go after them because Democrats are pro-union. Republicans don't go after them because Republicans are pro-police. Furthermore, you really don't want to pick a fight with police unions. What happens if police officers and prison guards go on strike? It's against the law in many places, but if the police are on strike, who's going to enforce that? There is a very significant risk that you'd have to call up the National Guard just to maintain public order. And even then, how many National Guardsmen does California have? How many LEOs? And most of those National Guardsmen are not actually trained in law enforcement. In effect you would be declaring martial law. It's not worth it.
"Private businesses shouldn’t have to create expensive welfare programs for their employees, but pay their taxes and let [individuals] take care of [their own] healthcare and other essentials".
The truth is that there is no gray zone. Marijuana, until otherwise classified by the FDA, is illegal.
Many states have decriminalized it, meaning that they have effectively nullified the federal regulations-- though not technically the legislation, as none [that I'm aware of] exists.
Like immigration, the federal government chooses to enforce (under Trump) or ignore (under Obama) sections of federal legislation and regulation as they see fit.
I'd personally feel much more comfortable if everyone was subject to the same laws, as selective enforcement can quickly lead to corruption where one group is punished, while the other is ignored.
> can someone explain why the server side public license is not an open source license
Depends on what you think 'open source' licence means. The source is literally openly available. There are just some extra restrictions on what you can do with it. The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence.
Disclaimer: RSI can have many different causes and what works for any one person may not work for someone (or anyone) else. But here is what worked for me:
I had completely debilitating RSI in both arms for years, eventually getting to the point where I was using Dragon Naturally speech recognition for any computer interaction, and a hamfisted stylus for using my phone since actually using fingers with any dexterity hurt too much.
On my better days typing for short periods was ok, but any interaction with a mouse was immediately painful. Once I discovered I could use a trackball mouse on the floor with my feet I was able to get back to a point where I could work professionally again. But if I ever went too far I would be out for at least the next few days without being able to do much.
A year or two after I realized that the pain was generally worse when my arms were cold. After some experimentation I found that almost all of the active-use pain went away when I kept my arms warm.
Since then I've been able to get back into the full swing of things. I'm consigned to always be wearing sweaters, jackets, and hoodies while working, but that has been a small price to pay for being productive again.
Any time I forget and use a computer bare-armed it comes right back again, but so far keeping them warm has been the silver bullet for me. If you're at the end of your rope give it a try!
>a diverse student body is part of the educational mission of a school.
Why? Why should anyone attempt to intentionally manipulate the ethnic backgrounds of college students? If you award admission bonuses for the symptoms of racism like being worse off financially or going to a poorly-rated high school, wouldn't you be adjusting for adversity in exact proportion to actual hardship instead of assigning an arbitrary value to skin color? This entire process can be completely race-agnostic and still compensate for systemic racism at the same time.
I'm also curious what stops me from putting whatever I want in the race field on my application. I don't recall my university running a blood test to check if I was fibbing.
Depending on your style of programming, I'd recommend maybe not working on Linux if you are trying to learn kernel development and OS internals.
Have you looked at Haiku (https://www.haiku-os.org/)? We have a very well organized and commented modular-monolitic kernel, and a pretty active development team with a wide range of experience levels. I'm more than happy to help you (or anyone else) learn OS development!
Thank the Constitution that some of those "nice things" (freedom of speech, for example) are acknowledged as intrinsic rights and not granted to us by the government. So yes, we can have still them, because they cannot be taken away, only infringed upon, regardless of who is spoiling them.
So much of the existing system could be simplified if providers were required to charge every customer the same price. It would be dead simple to implement- add to the Medicare regulations that if you accept Medicare, you can't charge any customer more than you charge Medicare. The massive subsidy that the privately insured provided to Medicare and Medicaid would be diminished so those prices would rise somewhat, but there would be no inefficient haggling with each individual customer. We would all effectively get the Medicare/Medicaid price for all health care. In-network out-of-network would go away. The differentiation on insurers would be how much they reimburse for particular procedures, not what price they happen to have negotiated with the provider closest to your home. The providers could have different prices from each other, but one provider could not charge a different price to each customer.
Instead, under the current system, we let the providers lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients, while they soak the privately insured and uninsured for massive profits. Everyone coming in the door should pay the same published price.
"Most workers blame drug companies and health insurers for high healthcare costs"
How did the hospitals and doctors pull this off? The number one driver of higher health care prices in the US is the provider cost, but everyone wants to blame insurance.
These examples posted so far all seem to fall into the "What You Can't Say" heresy camp, rather than actual overt racism. I can't speak for his character in general, but the stuff here comes off entirely as him having different political beliefs, a lack of tact, and the nerve to speak about his beliefs publicly.
IN the US there are multiple government programs that are suppose to Track GIS data including Roads, however like with all things government it is very expensive, inefficient, and of low to poor accuracy.
There are entire teams of people in the OpenStreetMaps project dedicated to fixing the inaccuracies of these government databases
This is why google spends m/billions having people physically drive the roads and walk around cities (and to get live photos)
I never really understand why people want government to take over things, in the history of government there is never been a well run, properly executed, highly efficient service. Government by it very nature is incapable of producing good services
Fake news is neither about the availability of multiple perspectives, which have been around for millenia, nor about the power of the Internet, which has been around for decades, nor about misrepresentations of fact, which have been instrumental to every war the US has prosecuted in the post-WW2 period.
The term "fake news" appeared, along with an obsessive need to "fact check" and censor, following the election of Trump. It is the result of the inability of the establishment (i.e. liberal capitalists and Washington) to control narratives. Electing Trump signaled a grave threat to the control of this establishment and thus a need to tighten its failing grip on narrative.
I believe the article is confusing chutzpah for overconfidence. Most wealthy high - class people are business owners. If you can't project confidence to the point of being overconfident, you can't be attracting people, investments for your next venture. Look at the entrepreneur class vs the salaried class? Wealthy people teach their kids to be supremely confident, while poor people teach their kids to be doubting Thomases!
One side wanted a more agrarian nation with hard manual labor (The Protestant work ethic)to prove self worth, while the other side wanted a more industrial nation with all the automation and efficiency that went with it, which in turn fueled the arts and sciences.
There may be some overlap, but these divisions are nearly as old as the nation itself.
Amazing. Endorsed by Snowden makes me trust this so much
„Snowden didn’t just steal information about “domestic spying” operations. The truth is Snowden apparently stole many more files related to what most in the intelligence community and beyond see as legitimate, overseas spy operations — including anti-terror operations and those targeted against the U.S. by our enemies. He reportedly focused his theft on the most sensitive “Level 3” data that includes lists of sources and methods in China, Russia and Iran.
This is the type of information that “could invalidate America’s entire intelligence enterprise if it were placed in the hands of an adversary,” Esptein writes. He suggests Snowden would have known Booz-Allen Hamilton in Hawaii (his last contractor position) was one of the few contractor facilities that had the authority to hold “Level 3” data and former co-workers believe he took the lesser paying gig”
Balancing free fructose does not matter because by eating starch, you are already intaking much more glucose than fructose.