And did you update your email signature in the way the OP suggested? Specifically, do you let everyone getting email from you know that you not only track that read it, but when they read it, and even where they were when reading it?
I ask, because that would be the ethical way to handle what this app is doing for you.
A better view would focus what kind of government control. Are we talking about a government where legislators are entirely and exclusively dependent on the votes of their constituents? Or are we talking about a government that merely presents the facade of a democracy while actually being dominated by corrupt cartels who use its power to extract rents and squash competition?
Because I promise you, "government" behaves very differently in these two situations.
The most important cities (culturally and economically) are, at least, left-leaning.
That's not a coincidence. It's a direct product of cosmopolitanism. The cities that represent it most clearly are its capitals. Like any working system, it has rules. If you want the benefits, you need to play be the rules. If you don't, you're free to leave. Goodness knows your apartment won't go unfilled for long.
There is nothing random about the world's most powerful retailer wanting the basis of virtual retail to be based on an 3D engine they control, and not one controlled by an independent third party, such as Unity.
Here's the deal; if you're (a) at work and (b) dealing with subordinates, the correct amount of sex to bring to the relationship is zero. Figuring out "where to draw the line" is no more complicated than deciding how much flirting with your own daughter is appropriate. Seriously, when you're in a position like Lasseter's, the math is SUPER simple.
Whether they're enforced exactions of voluntary contributions is not the Court's call to make. Some people are happy to pay their taxes, recognizing them as the perfectly reasonable cost of living in a functioning civil society (which, not coincidentally, is seen as the basis of their security and prosperity).
Others, for whom this connection may not be so clear, take a more exploitative view of the public sphere, in which their own role is all take and no give. They may see taxation as forced extraction, but that view is hardly shared by everyone. Moreover, were they allowed to act on this view freely, the public sphere would surely collapse - which a clear majority clearly recognizes.
In this regard, tax law is no different from laws against, say, murder. Most people are internally resistant to the thought of killing others. But the law still exists because "most" isn't "all". In cases of extreme anti-social behavior, the few - if allowed to run riot - really can secure tyrannical domination of the many (classic example: the mob in Sicily).
You're being downvoted because this is a fundamentally dishonest argument. Even if you believe the bit about averages it's clear that the recommendations made by the memo didn't pertain to the average. They pertained to the staff of Google, where the average employee - man or woman - has abilities that vastly exceede those of the population in general.
Using this "on average" bullshit when making adverse reccomendations aimed specifically and directly people who are anything but is an especially nasty sleight-of-hand, and sound reason to disregard the writer's claims of good-faith and benovelence.
Of course, it's possible that Damore is just an brainless idiot who is too intellectually mediocre to check his own work for basic logical consistancy, but he lost the benefit of that particular doubt When putting Harvard and MIT on his CV.
At this level, the rules are different. If, like Damore, you're presenting yourself as one of the best and brightest, you better live up to a very high standard when taking public shots at the standards of others. Otherwise, you could get dumped very unceremoniously.
Here's a direct quote from the "Personality Differences" section of the screed:
"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs."
So yeah, it was referenced, specifically, explicitly, and used in direct support of the central argument that the preponderance of men in Google's ranks was biologically determined, meaning a number of Google's D&I initiatives were misguided, at odds with scientific consensus, and should be discontinued.
Dude, this is a massive, for-profit corporation, not some leafy liberal arts campus. Their cultures and priorities may align to a degree, but there are some fundamental differences between them in terms of whose interests they serve, how those interests are prioritized, and the way conflicts are resolved (something Damore discovered the hard way).
Assuming rough parity in terms of simplicity and cost, no. Unlike, the limited range of B&W photography vs. color, there is no intrinsic value in having a compromised sense of space and severely limited range of motion when using immersive media.
Not if you understand the difference between a system that only tracks three degrees of freedom (i.e., rotational motion only / e.g., Daydream and GearVR), and one that tracks all six (i.e., rotational + translational / e.g., Vive and Rift).
Since 3 DoF systems are widely-viewed within the industry as being time-limited, most designers with long-range plans for their work will build for 6 DoF first and foremost, and maybe develop a 3 DoF version if the basic concept and funding stream allows.
Being a general authoring tool rather than a specific title, Google's VR Blocks fit squarely (sorry) in the Do 6 DoF First category.
Eh, "community range" turns out to be pretty massive around the SF Bay Area, for example. Moving people two or more hours away by car can still do a lot of damage to their relationships, especially when their ability to drive is becoming weaker.
No the answer here is "sorry, but no" to all the people who have decided to block density in central areas in order to keep their own property values astronomically high.
There's no good reason why we should be shipping everyone but the richest workers in their economic prime to painfully remote locals because people in San Francisco's Sunset District are blockading the kinds of buildings that make places like Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Brownstone Brooklyn such attractive places to live.
That's a pretty shitty solution for everyone involved if they don't actually want to be separated from the rest of their family by 3,000 miles. And not just their families, but their friends and communities, which have a profound impact on overall well-being in their later years.
I wouldn't call your suggestion deliberately cruel since you don't seem to have any idea how socially damaging this kind of isolating displacement can be. But I would say that the forced separation of people from their famalies and communities is a really hideous policy outcome, and one that should be strenuously avoided.
Obviously, if somebody wants to move far away, fine. But forcing them to do so is horribly wrong.
As the end of the post notes, if you're having an especially hard time with this, that's a pretty good indicator that your company may be screwed. Noting how hard it is to unscrew a company that lacks clear focus, it makes a strong case for defining the core I/O very early on.
It may turn out that the I and the O are, themselves, fairly complex concepts that are only understood within particular, highly-specialized markets. That's fine. People in those markets can still easily describe and discuss what your product does without anyone from your company being there. And that's the goal.
It's not about what the marketing team says. It's about what's said when the marketing team doesn't even know the conversation is happening.