I hate to break it to you, but non-whites, women and children (for the most part) didn't put a man on the moon or discover the scientific breakthroughs which created the vast wealth that enables you to sip your latte and whine about white male privilege on an complex, fantastic global network.
Slaves (along with low-skill immigrants) are actually anti-technological in nature. In the economic equation of labor vs capital, they bring down the wage required to achieve certain goals and weight the scales massively in favor of using labor to solve problems. When you have fewer people, automation, capital and 'smart solutions' to business problems become more incentivized.
Why is having a company consisting mostly of white people a 'bad thing'? It's a scientific fact that groups vary in their propensity towards institution building, cooperativeness, IQ, etc.
When America was 90%+ white (before ~1965), it experienced a huge surge of productivity, along with much higher levels of social trust and cooperation. We've seen a concomitant decline in all those variables as the country has become more 'diverse,' and as the smartest/most capable women have abandoned motherhood to become cogs in the capitalist machine, only to end up in their 40s with lots of cats, lots of money, no husband, and no family.
Anyway, I find it interesting that cultural Marxism has infected mainstream tech to the point that this article has 172 upvotes. Thankfully, people are beginning to wake up,
That's a LOT of code in the controllers. If I had to guess, it sounds like they're putting business logic in their controllers, which is a fairly well-established anti-pattern.
A couple key points:
- More people in the US are struck each year by lightning than are killed by police. (373)
- Of the 1,491 persons that died from police use of force from 2009-2012:
915 (61.4%) were white males
481 (32.2%) were black males
48 (3.2%) were males of other races
28 (1.9%) were white females
15 (1.1%) were black females
4 (0.2%) were females of other races
- Of the 56,259 homicides from 2009-2012, 19,000 (33.8%) were killings of black males.
Comparisons by types of homicides of black males:
481 (2.5%) were the result of police use of force
152 (0.8%) were the result of a negligent accident homicides (i.e., child playing with a gun)
648 (3.4%) were the result of a justifiable homicides by private citizens acting in self-defense
17,719 (93.3%) were criminal homicides (murders)
More blacks are killed in justifiable self-defense scenarios than are killed by police. And overwhelmingly more are killed in homicides, mainly by other blacks.
Also note: According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks. (Whites are being lumped in with Hispanics here.)
It's fairly clear that there isn't an epidemic of wide scale police violence against blacks. Instead, a few incidents have been blasted onto social media, and uncritical leftists have picked them up and ran with them. I see Black Lives Matter more as an expression of intergroup competition and aggression against traditionally white power structures. Other leftist groups take the same approach, e.g. with feminist fabrications about mass rapes on college campuses - college campuses are in fact among the safest places in the world, but feminists treat them as though they're some Mad Max-esque raping dystopia by claiming nonsense like 1 in 4 college girls get raped. They're mysteriously silent about places where real mass raping occurs, such as Africa and the Middle East.
I could go on, but suffice to say, I believe we're in a period of mass hallucination and hysteria, with entire movements justifying their existence on statistically nonsensical claims. This has happened many times throughout history, and it's leaned to both the right and left axes of the political spectrum. This time the wind just happens to be blowing to the left.
This is a great example of an entrenched incumbent/monopolist backlash against an earnest attempt to cut costs and increase the efficiency of government. This same story happens every day throughout the world in numerous ways, and solving it so the 'good guys' win is in my opinion one of the of the most important things a country can do to improve its institutions.
I've spoken to a number of developers who work in DC, and they pretty much tell the same story: huge tech companies/consulting firms who want to lock in a long-term contract use unnecessarily complex technologies and solutions (I'm looking at you, Java EE) that create big legacy codebases which are very difficult to switch away from, ensuring that the contractor has a job forever. Furthermore, once they've got the government agency 'by the balls' (AKA, the contractor has built a complex, poorly documented monster which only it can understand), it can charge a ridiculous amount of money for maintenance and new feature development.
I did a cursory lookup of the author on LinkedIn. It appears that she hasn't done anything really substantive in the startup world and that her primary role is to serve as a 'diversity mentor,' 'journalist', and 'strategy consultant.'
She had a startup for two years named BUKIT that was supposedly a distressed debt platform - sounds like it could be a lucrative idea/market, except for the fact that a google search for BUKIT reveals absolutely nothing.
Overall, this whole post reads like a frustrated SJW who hasn't been able to accomplish anything real in the tech world, so she takes out her grievances on 'socially backwards venture capitalists.' In my opinion, these types of people are a cancer in tech and should be called out as such.
Eric Smith Roberts (one of the founders of the open source movement) wrote a great short essay on this topic: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
Are you implying that the media obfuscates reality with selective reporting to push a politically correct/leftist narrative that implicitly demonizes white men? Why, that's absurd! #BlackLivesMatter
Agreed. Given the events the author described, the claim that Amazon sees its customers as 'disposable' is completely unfounded. If I were running a shipping business and a customer had three refunds issued in a brief period of time under unusual conditions, I would want to check in and see what was going on as well.
Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Every psychological dynamic you see playing out in mass societies liberated from artificial constraints on the sexual market flows from this premise. This means, as a systemic matter, women are coddled, men are upbraided. Women are victims, men are victimizers. Women need a leg up, men need to man up. Women have advocacy groups, men have equal opportunity violations. A woman subjected to the indignity of eavesdropping on a tame joke about dongles makes national news, while the chilling fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men barely pings the media consciousness.
It is what it is, and it will never change so long as humans are a sexually reproducing species. All the laws in the world can at best only paper over the very primal compulsion of people to value the life of the average woman more than the life of the average man, and sympathize accordingly. Railing against it is akin to shaking a fist at sunspots and gamma rays. It’s therefore folly or self-serving disingenuousness to act like there’s some moral high ground to stake out by imparting culpable agency to an indifferent, organically emergent biomechanical phenomenon. Rationalizing favoritism toward women as some sort of payback for male privilege, or refusing to acknowledge this favoritism altogether, is an example of the cognitive calisthenics and evasive sophistry most people will indulge to avoid grappling with the cold, black void of an uncaring evolutionary replication machine.
I find the premise of the article rather silly, though I still enjoyed reading it. From my experience in interacting with college students, media workers and business executives we're living in an era of hair-trigger shock instincts, where a sizable minority of the population jumps at the chance to be 'offended' and 'shocked' on behalf of whatever is the oppressed group or social issue of the week, thereby gaining power for themselves by seizing a newly constructed moral high ground.
Want to shock the average person who considers himself an 'intellectual' or 'politically enlightened?' Say something inegalitarian (whether it's true or not doesn't really matter in terms of the emotional impact it will cause) about a population group other than southern whites.
Other fun hot topics include eugenics/dysgenics and the cultural attitudes and government policies that drive population quality, the concept of population quality itself, immigration and whether it should be restricted, whether the 2-parent family unit is important to society's long-run health and how feminism played a role in its decline, etc.
This is a great summary of the pitfalls of laissez-faire economics. Do you have a blog where you write about your political/economic beliefs? Also, what books/resources have you found most useful in attaining a more accurate perspective on the way economies actually work?
I have a question about bitcoin in general - how do transactions on the network get verified? Does it mostly happen through miners? If so, what happens when mining reaches the point where it becomes economically worthless to everyone except a few electricity thieves? Will there just be a massive backlog of unprocessed transactions?
Unless I'm wrong somehow, I could see this becoming especially problematic as bitcoin becomes more popular and the daily transaction volume grows. How does the bitcoin foundation/community plan to tackle this issue?
I've read much the same - it seems to me that the West's current political ethos is largely a reaction to the racial idealism propagated by the Nazis in WW 2, which was used as an ideological justification for the Holocaust. Consequently, any discussion or idea which even tangentially broaches the topic of eugenics/dysgenics is a massive hot potato.
China doesn't have that kind of baggage associated with its history and on top of that it's ambitious to establish itself as a superpower. Thus, Chinese people are far more welcoming of genetic engineering and it won't surprise me at all if China is the first country to implement it on a widescale basis. Then, like you said, competitive pressures will virtually guarantee that the rest of the world will follow its lead.
Very interesting. This topic has some rather pertinent parallels to our current civilization.
Suppose:
a) Human intelligence is heritable.
b) Less intelligent humans are more fertile than their brighter peers.
c) The breeding of the less intelligent is subsidized by society over a long period of time.
What are the long term consequences going to be? I'd bet Peter Thiel has secretly considered this among his theories of why innovation has slowed, but wouldn't dare say so in public.
Slaves (along with low-skill immigrants) are actually anti-technological in nature. In the economic equation of labor vs capital, they bring down the wage required to achieve certain goals and weight the scales massively in favor of using labor to solve problems. When you have fewer people, automation, capital and 'smart solutions' to business problems become more incentivized.