Because then you're just applying a subjective set of rules and only protecting speech you agree with. The purpose of free speech is to ensure a world where no entity (such as the government) can dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable speech based on the sole views whatever party happens to be in control. I.e. do you want a trump administration to modify free speech to be "mostly free speech, except for extremists"? Do you think your view of extremists closely aligns with their view?
"If your executive team is mostly white guys I'm staying away too"
Um, what? Why does the race or ethnicity of the exec team have anything to do with anything? Insert any race into that sentence. Completely ridiculous. This guy is a nutball, and so is the company culture.
This was my thought too. Poker is quite "solvable" meaning, whenever you're confronted with a decisions -- there is always a "correct" answer which does not have to depend on the other players' behavior or style. And you can find that answer by simulation, or game trees, and other methods.
It's also important to keep in mind that the best AI can still lose, and the worst AI can still win (and everything in between). Poker involves randomness, obviously whereas chess/go/etc does not.
People don't want to leave their bubbles, for the fear of uncovering uncomfortable truths. For example, I have friends who flat out refused to read any of the WikiLeaks e-mails that could potentially reveal something bad about Hillary, her campaign, the DNC, or any entity on the left.
That's just how some (probably a lot of) people are. When some people encounter something that challenges your pre-existing beliefs, it's easier to just ignore it and stay in your bubble of comfort.
And that mindset, IMO, is not an easy thing to fix.
To play devil's advocate, we could use the same line of thinking to incriminate the Clinton's. In fact, a lot of people have done so. And they get labeled conspiracy theorists or idiots for not having "facts" to back up their claims.
I'm not bringing this point up to start a side tangent argument, but just pointing out that in this election cycle, a lot of people held pre-existing beliefs and would justify them in any way they could (i.e. cognitive dissonance).
You only know that in hindsight. The FBI didn't know if anything was there before they had a chance to investigate, and they also didn't know how soon the investigation could be completed. So, yes, they did risk a possible scenario of coverup accusations if they decided to not notify congress the moment they started investigating again.
I'm not asking only how Trump would benefit Russia, but what evidence exists to suggest that this entire ordeal was some elaborate scheme concocted by the Russian government?
EDIT: If this claim was such a stark truth, surely there must exist a smoking gun somewhere? So, where is the evidence?
What evidence exists to suggest that this was a deliberate attempt by Russia to influence the results of the US election in a way that would benefit them?
When I read this, I actually came away with the impression that he was able to accurately and eloquently express certain ideas/beliefs/concepts that I agree with and can grasp in my own mind, but I would be unable to express these same ideas coherently to another human being.
Another interesting thing about the war on drugs is that during prohibition, the constitution was amended for the government to legally be able stop the sale of alcohol. On the other hand, for other "hard" drugs, there is nothing in the constitution that supports the criminalization of drugs. Unless I am missing something.
Completely aside from that fact, I do agree that it should be treated as a public health issue. Not a criminal matter.
What you say is true. However, I think a lot of millenials draw incorrect conclusions like assuming this is "unfair!" Perhaps things are just back to normal now? Who's to say what college and housing should cost? Who's to say how much jobs should pay? I always preach about self empowerment. Too many millenials whine, cry, point their fingers, share memes on facebook, get angry, and blame the world around them for how "unfair" the times are. I'm within the millenial age bracket. But I focus on the things I can control, like how much I spend. How much I save. How hard I work. And never ever ever does it creep into my mind that things are unfair. I never blame the rest of the world for my own hardships. Keep focusing on what you need to do, meaning the things you can actually control in your life, and your standard of living will improve. Not over night. We still live in a great country where anybody, in any circumstances, can overcome any struggle at all with enough hard work and persistence. This is the message we should be sending to millenials, not victimizing them.
I am happy to be proven wrong if the data supports it. I am also not ashamed to make speculations which are backed by logic; which is what I have done. If I am wrong then so be it. But I don't think this supports the discrimination hypothesis. In fact I think you are the one with subconscious bias, and I'll explain why. What I essentially state was "hey I have a hunch that this is the way things are, but I am not certain." You, on the other hand, have jumped to a concrete conclusion based off of a single NY times article that happens to align with your preconceived notion. That is the kind of bias that results in discrimination today. You have jumped to a concrete conclusion based off one article. Re-read my post and see how I specifically use language like "probably" and "I'd bet." The difference is I form opinions and hypotheses, but do not jump to premature conclusions that I think are absolute certainties (unlike what you have done). I keep my mind open and moldable, never stating things with 100% certainty unless there is sufficient evidence. You confidently state "Nope. Male nurses still make more..." -- which in my opinion, is premature to conclude based on a single NY times article.
Nursing is a field dominated by women. And there are very large salary gaps between nurses with 0-10 years of experience and nurses with 10-20 years of experience. I'd also bet that there are much more women with 10-20 years of experience than men. So if you broke it down in the same way as the tech industry and did not control for job title or years of experience, you'd find a reverse gender gap in the same way you see in the tech industry. Controlled for job title and experience, you'd probably find it equal just like this study shows. I don't think there is any more discrimination in the tech industry when it comes to salaries than there is in nursing. I think both do not suffer from gender discrimination.
FYI, he meant if there were 1M people in a random geographic area with a dam that was going to collapse, would all of those 1M people be Obama supporters? The answer is no, there would be a mix.
I seem to remember some recent articles about MSFT which detailed how they had really turned things around. They've been missing the boat for years, and finally got their act together. They had a really aggressive goal for getting windows 10 on XYZ millions of devices by June or July this year. And now....this?! This does not fit Satya Nadella's recent narrative. Why would MSFT do this?