>The Success Sequence is bunk, here's some reading on it[1] but the basic idea is that in those three points you laid out number 3 does basically all the explanatory work, number one does a little work and number 2 does almost nothing.
Interesting, though as the comment on one of those articles mentions, I wonder what would have happened if he had started with not having children out of wedlock, how much of a difference would adding in having a job and graduating high school made? Though he does go on to talk about how getting the number of people who are childless or married when they have children, is difficult.
>Okay then where does that culture problem come from? Does it just emerge from the ether to grab black people and wipe away their "personal responsibility"?
That's a good question. The Brookings Institute seems to think it is a result of women's sexual liberation and the unrestricted use of contraception.
>Having problems fixing poverty? Really it's the fact that no good jobs will hire us.
There are only 3 things you need to do in order to not be permanently poor in the US -
1. Graduate High School
2. Don't have kids before you're married
3. Get a job, it doesn't have to be a "good" job.
Specifically with black America, it is very obvious that the vast amount of fatherless children is a huge problem. Single motherhood is associated (if not causally linked) with many very negative outcomes. This is a problem of culture and a lack of personal responsibility. Society does not make black Americans have kids disproportionately out of wedlock. Though it could be argued that the welfare programs enacted in the 60's have encouraged this behavior.
It is interesting, it seems like the default position is "Every complaint is legitimate". There are no specifics given so we're left to speculate and land wherever our own bias tends to lean.
Not having health insurance is different from not being able to access healthcare. Everyone in the US is entitled to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay. I don't really know if that's the best policy or not, but it simply isn't true that people don't have access to healthcare.
>"I can win if I just work harder/emulate those more successful than I -- ultimately I'm in control and nothing else matters"
While obviously there are things outside individual's control, is this really a harmful outlook? I'd certainly rather look at my life as if I had agency vs thinking I had none, or it was incredibly limited.
>It's already had plenty of time to compound over generations, to whatever extent it does.
I'm not sure what you mean, most westerners don't make a habit of marrying their cousins.
Because of this compounding it means that the risks would be much higher than 3-4%, which is what we see in the data.
>I mean, are you really suggesting that a slightly higher incidence of e.g. cystic fibrosis in Pakistani communities somehow makes it more difficult for them to integrate?
It seems as though birth defects aren't the only way that inbreeding negatively affects offspring. It also appears to lower intelligence[0], while also increasing mental health issues.
I did take calculus in high school, but I barely remember it. So I don't understand your notation, if you could explain in a bit more layman terms it would be great. As I understand it, the chance for birth defects goes from around 1% to 3-4%, about the same as a woman in her late 30s/early 40s having a child. I'm not sure if this would compound over generations though, it seems like it would.
I don't really think that my comment was "racist". Just talking about how culture affects genes and vice versa. Was it not bad that the old European nobles were inbred as well?
Unfortunately there might be an argument for some form of genetic inferiority. Considering how many first cousin marriages there are in certain Muslim communities. [0]
>Although British parents of Pakistani origin account for 3.4 per cent of all births nationwide, they also account for around 30 per cent of children born with recessive gene disorders.
I'm not really a fan of government force, and don't really care who other people marry, but this is obviously a problem. The risks associated with inbreeding (especially over many generations) are pretty well known.
>When I went to school there was a pretty high number of second generation muslim immigrants, but even there you already saw their strict values eroding.
I certainly wouldn't take that happening as a given. If you bend over backwards to attempt to accommodate their culture in the west, you aren't giving any incentive to join your culture and worldview.
My own personal theory is that the GDPR was going through and the big players didn't fight too much knowing this was going to come through soon as well. They have the ability to comply, their smaller competitors don't, or at least will have to heavily invest in compliance.
Where did you see that Greyhound said no such event occurred? When searching for it all I see are articles that only cite the Facebook post as proof. There are no videos from any passengers, or statements from Greyhound I can find. If you could post a link it would be greatly appreciated.
>But this “believe the victim first” mentality came about as an inverse to the “give the accused the benefit of the doubt” mentality because the latter suppressed the former’s credibility and made it difficult for real victims of real heinous shit to come forward.
Are you referring to our courts "innocent until proven guilty" standard? I'd suggest you be extremely careful in trying to change that.
During the Obama Administration Title IX was used as an extrajudicial bludgeon to expel students who were deemed "more likely than not" to have done something illegal. They were not allowed legal representation during the "trials". This resulted in many cases where police exonerated the alleged perpetrator through evidence, but the student was expelled anyway. The Emma Sulkowicz story is one of these cases.
"Listen and believe" is probably okay for friends giving support to their friend. Legal standards on the other hand must be more strict and an accusation cannot be a conviction.
Strange that you view it this way. I'm not extremely familiar with the case, but how I remember it is Gawker published a sex tape of Hulk Hogan and refused to take it down. While at the same time lampooning "society" about "the fappening". Hulk Hogan sued Gawker, which brings it to a court. Peter Thiel had a personal grudge against Gawker and used that case to take them down. Either way, it was still up to a court and all Thiel was doing was helping to fund Hogan's legal case. I'd hope that our courts have enough integrity to where if the evidence is against someone, no amount of money will change that verdict. Perhaps a bit idealistic, but I see no evidence that Thiel's money caused an inappropriate ruling in that case.
I'd characterize it as, "journalists" using their platform to go after specific people they don't like. Thiel helping one of their victims who couldn't afford to mount a case without running the risk of ruining themselves if they lost. Seems to me like a really noble thing to do.
Perhaps they feel an undue pressure to do something like this. There are some people in these threads that definitely find it out of the norm. [0] It very well could be people who simply don't stand up for themselves particularly well. I find it really difficult to believe that they lack the time/ability to use a gas station bathroom. Some routes may not have public restrooms, but I'd be willing to bet these are few and far between. They would most likely be rural routes, where you could get some privacy much more easily anyway.
It is also possible people actually prefer to do this rather than stopping frequently and dealing with the hassle of finding a place, parking, running the risk of it being a single restroom and already being occupied.
Seems like charging a specific fee might help alleviate some of the concerns about that. Though I suppose you still need to know how much money you should charge.
I really hate estimates and have always hated estimating projects. I do appreciate the need/desire for them by some in management. I've tried to figure out how other people do it and have yet to find anything satisfactory. It doesn't have to be an extremely simple process, but I don't really know how one gets better at estimating. The only way to get better is to just understand the domain more clearly but estimating doesn't really help with that.
Kanban does have a cool idea of just attempting to break down work into equal parts and measuring the throughput of these roughly equally sized components. The only problem is actually sizing stories to be equally sized. Some changes don't have any kind of real stopping point of functionality without large changes. It seems kind of arbitrary to chunk it out just because your project management system wants you to.
I'd encourage you to amend "equality of opportunity" to "equality of opportunity under the law". I've seen too many people try to argue that if we want equality of opportunity we still have to actively level opportunity.
By arguing what the role of government should be. If the role of government is to protect property rights, it needs to be able to defend the country from foreign invasion. Typically people in favor of "small government" mean small in scope. It is only meant for (and efficient at) solving a narrow scope of problems. So while it may be good as a means of upholding property rights, it isn't great at manufacturing cars, for instance.
Interesting, though as the comment on one of those articles mentions, I wonder what would have happened if he had started with not having children out of wedlock, how much of a difference would adding in having a job and graduating high school made? Though he does go on to talk about how getting the number of people who are childless or married when they have children, is difficult.
>Okay then where does that culture problem come from? Does it just emerge from the ether to grab black people and wipe away their "personal responsibility"?
That's a good question. The Brookings Institute seems to think it is a result of women's sexual liberation and the unrestricted use of contraception.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wed...