It's the obvious implication from stating that women are biologically prone to being inferior engineers, and that they should end diversity hiring programs.
HTe original was pure conservative (oh I'm sorry, "classical liberal") circle jerk about how poor (er... upper middle class) white males are being discriminated against and are such victims nowadays. Pepper in some dog-whistle sexism and little digs at the left and you have a nice manifesto.
Maybe he should have thought about that before he posted it. The author of the medium article is right that the manifesto implies that a lot of coworkers are less capable.
> If you don't see any other way to deal with OP's views than described in this belittling rant
If that's how you read it then I feel like you missed the entire point.
> This is a non-statement. Replace 'engineering' with science, medicine, finance, customer service, politics, retail, programming etc., and it will sound as correct.
I'm reading it now and it comes off as another (very well off) conservative complaining about how they are oppressed and discriminated against. It's no different than the narratives peddled about white genocide or christian oppression.
> I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason
Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny.
That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect.
> Don't pretend there are no other funding models.
In the US if you don't like your internet provider you can shut up and keep paying because the government helped them get a localized monopoly. Google can swing regulators from "anti-trust" to "it's all good they said they would fix it". Lobbyists write legislation.
The level of corporate control in the US is disturbingly high. Ultimately they are weaker than the federal government.
> Would we still use the "private companies" can do whatever they want argument?
At some point I would think you would run into anti-discrimination laws, but short of that sure do what you want.
I'm free to say to those users "hey, come post here my lgbt brothers/sisters/anything in between. Come post here liberals who are pissed off about the actions of facebook/google".
Whereas if I said something against the government of china they would just toss me in prison or have me killed.
Except that people can just leave facebook and go use something else if they don't like it.
Don't get me wrong, I am deeply disturbed by the level on control facebook (and google) exhibit over news, information, the internet. But it's a fundamentally different thing then the government doing it.
Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be.
Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. This is why I like the idea of a (properly funded) public news source, just not as the only source of news.
That's absolutely true, but if the DoJ is acting in good faith (they believe they have sufficient evidence of guilt by this person) then is this really a problem?
There are good reasons to be cautious, but this particular case is far from decided either way.
> I don't know how musk does it but he has access to levers of power to keep himself afloat.
A well run PR machine that keeps the constant hype going. The right misdirection at the right times (we totally need to worry about the mythical smart AI, oh but don't worry about the timeline or the dangers of self driving cars). The Hyperloop and Tunnels are totally amazing building blocks for Mars so we have to build them.
I think Musk is a brilliant guy, but the cult around him is pretty ridiculous.
oh and plex.
yeah, it's getting to be too much.