In fact the actual point should be that those production houses will never buy this stand because they already have their stands. (this is what MKBHD said anyway).
And to be honest, if I had the money I would buy that stand, I always loved these move-around-stay-in-place gadgets.
So far no one mentioned the poor dinoes who would be saved from the vicious predators with the proposed declawing. I mean, it's not like I like dinoes, but too many shitty demigods are too many.
Wha? I was never into paleo, I think it's stupid, every damn vegetable and animal has changed since, and it's not like we are sure people actually were so much better of back then...
No, it means that the people who were compelled to follow a low carbohydrate diet for one reason on another lived shorter. It doesn't tell you anything unless you know why they followed the diet they followed.
1. in reality, nothing ever is continuous, and those small errors are black swans.
2. PN!=P not because we can't solve it, but because it is impossible to solve, because there are more possible solutions than space we can use to model them. (oversimplified, i know)
3. que?
"open isn't a magic bullet" yeah, but closed is a harmful pattern. Open isn't about everything magically getting better, but when you do close development of something that potentially influences billions of people, it's an invitation for disaster. We do not want open because we like open, we want open because we are afraid of closed.
and just to be clear, the least whatever you are doing in a closed format affects people the least i want it to be open.
That is not what I said. What I said is that math ultimately doesn't need to and doesn't want to deal with reality. The "proofs" they create do not even have to be consistent with each other, you can pick whatever you need...
math resides in the land of abtractions(fantasy land) and actual code has to run on actual physical machines in the real world. In the real world you can't just state an axiom and fix bugs as math people have solved all their problems in the past 150 years.
I am ok with people questioning anything, the only situation when this is not ok when there is an emergency, and for those situation we should be prepared ahead, so there is no question what we have to do. I see that you agree that the differences are irrelevant. Or how I would say, the effect size is too small to be considered as a factor.
1. however any organization should have a purpose beyond sustaining itself and if it has no such, it should be dismantled immediatelly
2. probably true, but it's definitely more about the circumstances than about the individuals
3. agreed
4. this is as much about diagnosing behaviors as about expressing the said behaviors. my views of how minds work significantly differ from the views that use these diagnoses
5. i don't believe in "talented individuals". rest of this point is fine by me.
6. this whole thing is nonsense to me. sure, what you say is true, but as I said I don't believe in talent. I also don't believe that you need to be competitive to be productive. I don't think a team or an individual has to be competitive in any situation besides competitions, and those are actually quite rare. obviously, if someone believes they are competing when they are not or should not, that can be extremely destructive.
7. the grass is green, the sky is blue, and truisms are truisms. :)
8. sure, but to be empathetic is to express empathy when it's appropriate, which can be learned. some people learn it fast other's maybe never. but most often the reason for this is not because they were born like that, but because the circumstances didn't allow them to learn it.
9. diversity is good in ecosystems because it gives resilience. that's true again, in almost any sufficiently complex situation
10. depends what you mean by "balance" & "in the end". certainly i don't see it being nowhere balanced currently, i know lots of people who are forced into roles based on their gender (sometimes even by their sex) that they can not fulfill and it's just bad for everyone involved.
I don't think we are different enough for us to talk about it how different we are and definitely we are not different enough so we have the society built around these differences as it is right now. Maybe not where you live, and if you are lucky like that, be glad for it. Where I live, women are oppressed actively. They have to spend way more time to be accepted by their peers than men, they have to work way more than men to be accepted as productive. They have less chances to have say in important decisions. etc.
as i wrote it elsewhere already regarding the original "manifesto":
i am curious, if this person is ok with questioning their belief in "traits" that are defined on the level of sex. after all they are the one who says that "some ideas are too sacred to be discussed" and when i bring this up, i often find that the "differences" between the sexes are exactly one of these ideas.
And to be honest, if I had the money I would buy that stand, I always loved these move-around-stay-in-place gadgets.