Why does it not make more sense to cultivate local talent, instead of effectively poaching from other countries, and creating negative wage pressure by expanding the labor supply and importing people who are willing to work for far lower wages?
I don't understand the comments on this post. Are we seriously pretending that in 2021 with a nearly universal push for diversity and inclusion, that being a women (or a minority) isn't a massive advantage for raising funds (or getting a job, or getting into college...)?
Are we still conflating lack of proportional representation with discrimination, and completely ignoring the pipeline problem for qualified and/or competent candidates?
Specifically I'm referring to the argument that standardized tests discriminate against African Americans.
Still, does it really justify doing away with meritocratic standards because some proportion of the population cannot compete? Does that benefit society overall, especially in the long run?
Lower admissions standards in a misguided attempt to fix a diversity problem which will only erode the caliber of graduates overall, with knockdown effects on greater society over the years as people lose the ability to test for and recognize the competence required for a meritocracy. It's been increasingly happening for decades, as race, gender, and sexual preference are given an outsized role in candidate selection for school and work. Based on the misguided presumption that all groups of people are on average equal in ability, with inequity justified originally by "socioeconomic factors" and more recently through "systemic racism".
The modern argument is that SAT and ACT tests discriminate against minorities. The reasoning is that minorities score lower because of socioeconomic factors.
>“Well, that didn’t come to pass in 1984, but if we’re not careful that could come to pass in 2024.”
I refuse to participate in social media because the tech is already here, and at this rate it's only a matter of time before our government or big tech itself nefariously taps into the the massive data ocean that is being collected. It only takes a handful of seemingly innocuous data points to uniquely identify a person, and from location data alone one may infer a host of private identity markers - race, religion, political affiliation, sexual preference...especially with a bit of machine learning magic.
Combining this with the political polarization we are increasingly witnessing in the US pushes us onto the precipice of a techno-authoritarian, dystopian nightmare. Imagine how much worse the Soviet Union would have been if the government had access to the breadth and depth of personal information that is merely an access key away from our own government right now. After Snowden we know that even the NSA is vacuuming up enough a massive store of potentially dangerous data.
I don't know that there's any practical solution, as I doubt the average person will care enough until it's too late. Our current economy is built on data collection. Mitigation of this threat would effectively require reengineering of society.
I suspect that you're excluding a nontrivial proportion of homeless people who simply do not wish to live with the burden of employment and responsibilities of rent/mortgage when they can live outdoors in perpetually nice weather. I don't know how significant this number is but I don't think it's fair to ask society to subsidize their lifestyle.
Have we accurately anticipated any benefits? Serious question. There's no way that such a massive shift in a complex, chaotic system will only be negative.
If fox, newsmax, and OAN are the only ones willing to report on certain topics earnestly, like, say patterns in black on asian violence, or other ethnically sensitive issues, then yes, their voices are critical to a functioning democracy. The way that news, entertainment, social, and "fact checking" media all effectively collude to discredit these sources for political leaning is dangerous, and in effect disenfranchises about 50% of the populace who do not lean left, in the online public sphere. This is an unstable configuration. Dismissal of these sources conflates political bias with unreliability. It's disingenuous, especially when outlets biased to the same degree but in the other direction are de facto approved on Wikipedia, reddit, stackexchange, Twitter, etc.
You notice the growing hyperpolarization in this country? This is one of the main contributors. The left has monopolized public discourse and implicitly and increasingly colludes to keep right leaning sources discredited and silenced. YouTube's removal of the video in the OP is one of many examples which consistently align with the sort of progressive policies that are now sweeping the corporate sphere - and rural Americans are losing their voice, while being slandered as ignorant bigots. Go to the talk page for any remotely political article and you'll see a minority of right leaning editors consistently bullied and their sources outright disregarded. That's on top of the chilling effect which this consistent behavior has on the expression of what have become politically taboo opinions. It's an unspoken, incestuous club, and denying this pervasive bias is gaslighting.
It is critically important in a political climate where one side is using the spectre of white supremacy as a political cudgel. When a complicit media makes a consistent effort to paint a false picture. This censorship is not an isolated incident. News articles regularly leave out the perpetrator's race unless it's white. Reddit regularly deletes and locks threads on inconvenient articles/videos such as this, including on default subs. Right leaning sources are effectively forbidden from wikipedia and stackexchange. A dangerous narrative is being manufactured across the social, news, and entertainment media sphere.
You'd be overestimating the average person's ability. Laypeople know virtually nothing about computational modeling. I can't find the famous quote, but it is dangerous to consume such research uncritically because with enough degrees of freedom you can model virtually anything while also backfitting your ground truth. And these models are almost always composed of numerous nonlinear parameters which may be adjusted within wide ranges, individually seemingly reasonable, but with potentially nonsensical and/or trivially biasable results.
Right, screw discussion or examination of contradicting evidence. Your side is unquestioningly right, double down and ram your policies down everyone else's throats, regardless of the potential downsides.
This is a recipe for authoritarian tyranny. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. This kind of closed mindedness is far more dangerous than any likely impending climate change.
>Yes, in some ways. A new study shows Twitter users post even more misinformation after other users correct them.
I can't help but feel like the academics studying this "problem" are blinded by hubris. Even the byline is exemplary - what's being described is a discussion.
When you gatekeep science in the public square with "fact checking" you inevitably end up with a politicized orthodoxy. The opinions and majority consensus of our academic institutions are not beyond reproach, and there have repeatedly been instances where the messaging was misleading or false - look no further than the discourse surrounding covid starting early last year. Latest example being the lab origin hypothesis - a cooky, right wing, xenophobic conspiracy theory, until it wasn't. Fortunately media outlets are finally backtracking on their politicized "fact checking" in this case: see the editor's note here [0] for example.
There are understated psychological consequences to casual sex, particularly for females. Only in my 30s did I begin to understand the damage that my ostensibly harmless casual relations caused to many past partners, particularly those who grew attached before the end of the casual relationship.
Pair bonding is crucial to social organization and casual encounters erode the psychological capacity for such bonds, without nullifying the innate human desire for long term companionship. The result in a "sex positive" society is a growing proportion of perpetually lonely and frustrated people, or dysfunctional relationships. One of the few instances in my opinion where ignorance truly may be bliss.
So, to your question, it's quite possible that we will rediscover the purpose of monogamous marriage, if we can reason past the barriers of some recent ideologies.
>Based on its chemical abundance pattern, we speculate that SPLUS J2104−0049 could be a bona fide second-generation star, formed from a gas cloud polluted by a single metal-free ~ 30M⊙ star.
Most interesting part for me. If Im interpreting this correctly, this star is once removed from the first generation of stars to appear in the universe. That's kind of cool. Sort of like a living dinosaur. And the evidence is the low proportion of heavier than hydrogen atoms.