Let's imagine the very high IQ'd high scoring person, who grew up in a certain environment has the task of creating software for someone in a rural community they know nothing about, and they will not visit.
You keep mentioning rural areas as if people living there require some special software. From what I've seen, people in small towns, rural areas and big cities all use the same phones/computers and software on them without any problems. BTW, there are many wealthy people living in small towns and rural areas. What does Microsoft have to do to their software to make it more rural-friendly? Microsoft is primarily developing tools for businesses and makes most of their money there, so why do they care about villagers? ...They are very clever, and they'll come up with something.
They will hopefully come up with good software, as opposed to a villager who won't know anything. So, in my mind, if I have a mission to help such people, it seems the best way I could do that would be to incoroporate them into my dev team in some way. ... It might be a temporary contracting or consulting role rather than full employment.
This is completely ridiculous. Consulting role on a Microsoft dev team for a villager. hahaha... Why do you assume that people in rural areas could help you write a better software? Will inviting comedians, porn stars or basketball players to your dev team help you in any way when you are developing software in Microsoft? That might include providing them with additional educational opportunities they might not have otherwise had. It might be a temporary contracting or consulting role rather than full employment.
Maybe instead of wasting Microsoft's money on training villagers, you could just hire people who are already competent and willing to work at Microsoft. This is the argument of why diversity matters in tech.
You're not providing a rational argument. You're writing an emotionally-charged responses + elevating the importance of 'emotional intelligence' for being a computer scientist and writing software. All the SAT scores, college graduation rates, and the like, are just the pieces we're moving around...
You're now trying to discredit methods that tell people whether someone is good at math. SAT scores tell you a lot about people's math skills. College degree tells people that you completed all the courses in a particular field. Those math skills are a prerequisite for being a good computer scientist. The hilarity is in how this perpetuates the reasons for excluding a class of individuals from participating in the software creation process.
You are excluded from companies using computer science if you are bad at math. Blacks are worse at math than Whites and Asians, therefore they will be hired less - especially in companies where everyone wants to work. Good in math probably won't give you the empathy and insights into how technology could help rural Kentuckians.
Will being bad at math give you that? What does building software have to do with rural Kentuckians and how are black software engineers going to help you with that? Additionally, software today is very much a 'poke at the frameworks, and mash it together' sort of affair.
Are you trying to say that Blacks are as good as Whites/Asians at poking at frameworks. If they are bad at math, maybe they are bad at this as well. BTW, I am referring to computer science, not knowing JS frameworks. Computer science requires mathematics. So, yah, one more exclusionary myth about the qualifications of engineers, and who's best at it (whites and Asians? really?)
What is mythical about this? I've given you the data that clearly shows that Blacks are worse at math than Whites/Asians. They also perform worse at SAT-Critical reading. [1] http://bit.ly/2acARwG
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital#Recent_performance_2008-2010
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxtXMlPSQAY [1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/277483/market-value-of-the-largest-internet-companies-worldwide/ very few economists agree that raising the minimum wage by X dollars will result in prices rising by X dollars so that the effect is non-existent
You are looking for obvious increase in prices, but raising prices is unpopular with consumers. cost of labor isn't the only input in pricing
It's the main one, since the biggest cost to most companies are employees + suppliers (that also have their own employees). Increase in the price of labor will certainly have an effect - if not directly on higher prices, then on quality. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkflation some will be writing novels, or starting bands, or making community gardens, or teaching, or whatever.
And slaves in 3rd world countries will make all the things (cameras, phones, clothing, furniture, raw materials etc.). Are those gardeners actually going to contribute in any way to the lives of people in China who make the things that help them be a gardener? Trade is a 2 way street. Person in China makes the things, but what does the American gardener do in return for the Chinese maker? UBI gives people the ability to follow their dreams without risk of homelessness and starvation.
This is what independently wealthy have today. But, the way those people make money is by subjecting everyone else to wage slavery, creating monopolies and extracting rent. Sometimes it's fraud. In the past it was explicit slavery. https://youtu.be/_Wvv-bt9SzI?t=11s Robots have the potential to give us what we've always wanted but could never ethically achieve: slaves. We want capable beings to do our bidding. To serve us, to build for us, to obey us. If we follow some nonsensical robotic social justice, we can lose this.
Why is it ethical to enslave robots? Why should highly intelligent entities do the work so that some lazy, fat slobs in the human form can parasite off its labor? You are deluding yourself if you think there won't be justice for robots.
There was justice for black slaves, for women, for minorities, today we're working on animals and nature. Justice for robots will be achieved, maybe even faster than others, since we can use previous victories and examples and build on top of that. No actual intelligence required, IMO.
This is a trick. What does 'actual intelligence' mean? Term 'intelligence' is already vague, so adding 'actual' creates even more confusion. Sentience, to me, goes toward a concept of self. Of being aware that one exists and is responsible for one's own actions.
Responsibility is a social construct. In the past, people would put non-human animals on trial, because in those societies other animals had responsibility for their acts. When it comes to awareness, that's a very vague thing and I'm not sure how you would test it without asking the subject (who might be fooling you). Also, why would having an attribute such as 'awareness' be a reason not to enslave someone who has the attribute? - Corporations can be owned (enslaved), bought and sold. Humans can only be rented (a job, service).
- Corporations have tax advantages (deductions, deferring taxes on foreign income etc.) that regular humans don't have.
- Corporations don't go to prison; they just pay fines when they break the law.
- Corporations can easily become citizens of most other countries through subsidiaries, while humans cannot easily do that.
. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Rights_of_Mother_Earth
BTW, the number of obese people is projected to grow even more [2]. Plus there are people who are overweight. God help us all. We're going to have a nation of entitled land whales walking around promoting fat acceptance.
[1] https://li.st/l/0rxOcNfFIoDGd9n4AAAMna
[2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi...