These are not usually the types who would be interested in the care and maintenance of fruit trees. Why bother with all that work when you can steal from your neighbors?
This reads like a Tesla ad and a warning to anyone thinking of becoming self-sufficient. Wouldn't want too many people being able to generate their own electricity otherwise how would you control them?
What about the environmental waste of running World of Warcraft servers? Playing video games? Watching Netflix? Imagine how much electricity we'd save if everyone shut off their gaming PC/console, we could put it toward something useful.
It's funny because this is the EXACT line the left has been parading around after every single islmaic terrorist attack. They say "not all muslims! don't blame islam, it will only radicalize them further!". Whether this line of thinking is right or wrong it means people on the left will have some thinking to do (or mental gymnastics).
So when do we get to write articles saying East Asian people are better at science than Australian Aboriginal people? That White people are less impulsively violent than Black people?
Isn't this OK though for most use-cases? Startpage will effectively act as a proxy for your searches, preventing Google from associating your searches with your identity.
It still feeds them though, which I suppose is a problem.
Bitcoin won't free people who won't lift a finger to learn it just like the US constitution won't protect people unwilling to defend it. I've yet to meet someone who is unable to understand the basic use of bitcoin (sending and receiving) and if we are trying to cater to the lowest common denominator we have already lost. It is worrying that we have resorted to scrapping a new technology just because lazy or incompetent people are unable to completely master it.
How is this elitist? Do most people understand the current financial system in any meaningful way?
Do most people understand how their computers work? How their air conditioner works? How about the pressure dynamics that make their toilets flush?
Saying everyone can't mine it is inaccurate, everyone can mine it even with a smartphone. Is it profitable? No, but neither is mining iron ore with a shovel. Those with the knowledge and capital to fully utilize any system will always have an edge over those who don't, in what reality is this not the case?
I'm curious as to why you don't think diversity programs are not exactly that: discrimination programs. Enforcing quotas assumes (usually incorrectly) that there is an equal supply of talent within the underrepresented minority group and that it is simply bias on the part of the hiring managers that prevents equal numbers of blacks/women/hispanics/whatever from being hired. Putting pressure on companies for not having more minority representation is being discriminatory against (usually) white males, as there are limited spots available at a given company.
If you start with the potentially incorrect assumption that your hiring practices are biased in favor of one group over another then doesn't it make more sense to address this bias directly rather than enforcing quotas? Having your hiring process audited and getting rid of any bad weeds seems like a good start. I've seen firsthand manager who have said outright "we can't hire him, we need to hire a woman this time" after interviewing what seemed to be a good candidate.
Is that not what a diversity program amounts to? If the candidate was superior on merit alone then market forces would reward those companies that ignored race and gender in their hiring decisions and punish the racist/sexist ones that were passing up perfectly good candidates. If all existing companies are racist/sexist then the potential entrepreneur that starts a competitor and scoops up all the "ignored talent" would make a killing.
Perhaps instead of whining about gender ratios we should be the change we want to see while making a ton of money at the same time?
>There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races.
Actually there are numerous observed differences in physical ability that are attributed to race, such as Tibetans having better adaptability to high altitudes than most other groups[1]. Physical differences are relatively uncontroversial, the problem arrives when we start to discuss mental differences.
I see not reason why a difference in environment would not cause various mental adaptations to form along the course of natural selection of geographically separate groups of people. This is an inconvenient idea and has been vehemently suppressed in the scientific community whenever it is brought up [2]. Instead of pretending such differences cannot exist we should instead focus on overcoming these differences so that everyone can participate according to their own unique ability.
How about female coal miners? Female construction workers?
This isn't about fairness it is all about browbeating people from a perceived moral high ground so that wages can be lowered for all (more supply of programmers = lower cost). The "useful fools" here likely have the best intentions but are being used by people without good intent.
Actually, diversity measures make things worse by promoting below-average candidates unfairly based on their superficial attributes (skin color, sex etc). This actually achieves the opposite of what is intended as it reduces fitness selection of whatever genes make someone good at/interested in STEM topics. By going against meritocracy you are harming the vulnerable groups by giving them a crutch to rely on.
>The reality is that tech companies led by women do better
Wow, what a sexist thing to say. Ignoring Marissa Mayer for the moment, are you claiming that women are inherently better at something than men? Isn't that a little like claiming that men are better than women at technical roles? That white people are better than black people at building civilization? Seriously, that is a nazi-esque belief you have there. I suggest you reconsider your stance before making claims about one group being better in any way than another.
As a woman I appreciate your use of "miss moneybags" instead of the classic "mr". Little changes like this are really what we need to reverse the patriarchal dominance women have been subjected to since forever. Just wanted to let you know that your signalling has not gone unnoticed!
Do you think these people don't have extensive private security? The elite could easily take on a whole city of rioters with the resources at their disposal. When the gloves come off and it starts being about survival it won't be bodyguards pushing people out of the way, it will be mercenaries with helicopters and full-auto weapons. The middle class that can't afford such protection will of course be the losers, as usual, and will be scapegoated after all the Richie Rich types have escaped to their private islands/bunkers.
>Almost 100% of midwives in Ontario are female
No, it is only a problem for the "good jobs" that are dominated by men. No one will fight for gender ratios in the coal mining business, despite how useful "a diversity of life experience and opinion" might be within this industry.
This entire thing is a political tool being disguised as a moral crusade and it is playing off our collective desire to do the right thing. Absolutely disgusting.
Germany has "volksverhetzung" which amounts to hatespeech laws. To me it seems like an intentionally broad law banning "incitement of hatred", a noble goal for sure, but still not free speech. They also have laws against holocaust denial (again, noble intent) but that is not free speech. They also have anti-nazi laws ("the distribution or public use of symbols of unconstitutional groups") which again is not free speech. Somehow the US allows all of these forms of speech but has maintained its position as a pretty decent place to live, even for minority immigrants. Free speech is a binary despite what the detractors will try to claim. If someone wants to run a nazi political platform it is up to the public to make the judgement call to not vote for them.
>not take 4% back on gas and 3% on restaurants
yes? This is the same argument for using stuff like gmail. What, are you really gonna pay 20 bucks a year for email? I'm sure everyone's price to sell away their privacy is different but I'm a little off-put by how cheaply people are selling themselves these days. I hope it never becomes a problem (e.g. Stasi) but if it does I won't be crying for those people whose lives will be ruined.
So then based on the admittance data Asians have it easiest? Must be due to discrimination in their favor, not because they are pressured to get good grades and do well. Surely you see the hypocrisy of such a position?