241–249 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's Republican / Libertarian and his worldview is grounded in economic and biological realities, which will absolutely get you run out of many (perhaps most) SV tech companies... for example, James Damore.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but James D'amore was being an asshole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but James D'amore was being an asshole.
Which part specifically of the GIEC memo was Damore being an asshole?
He should have stopped himself when he needed to add a disclaimer that he doesn't believe in prejudices and stereotypes. The need for such a statement is a giant red flag at which point one can ask themselves some critical questions.
When he is fired for this, a lot of conspiracy theories abound, up to and including in this thread. But he should work on the awareness to know what he was saying is a fireable offense by reasonable people. Apparently NLRB concluded the same.
This is all not the same as him being unforgivable or a bad person. In googling after this thread I noted an interview about him and autism. So he may very well deserve our sympathy and have an alternate explanation. The way people on forums like this one use him to allege a massive conspiracy at Google remains unwarranted despite this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the thing about "children learning language" is that all sorts of bad habits are often picked up that don't conform to standard grammar, not to mention following rules without really understanding why they're there or what they do. Social rules are even less concrete, meaning that learning the amorphous set of unwritten rules, guidelines, best practices, etc.,through analysis more than osmosis may let you know wh…
There is not really such thing as a bad habit in language. If you are understood by others, that is the grammar of the language. Full stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the thing about "children learning language" is that all sorts of bad habits are often picked up that don't conform to standard grammar, not to mention following rules without really understanding why they're there or what they do. Social rules are even less concrete, meaning that learning the amorphous set of unwritten rules, guidelines, best practices, etc.,through analysis more than osmosis may let you know wh…
There is not really such thing as a bad habit in language. If you are understood by others, that is the grammar of the language. Full stop.
There is an abundance of social stratification in language, and the ability to code switch in different social environments is an important skill. It doesn't matter that you would still be understood if you did not do so, what matters are the pragmatics and social labeling attached to speaking in/out of the current group's mode of speaking.
It is true that the formal study of linguistics (which was my own area of advanced degree) does not consider there to be an absolute correct way of speaking, that "grammar" is not some unchanging and inherently correct set of rules. They are, instead, a social convention. And like many other social conventions, breaking their rules has consequences, and understanding those rules and consequences is important to navigating in social environments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > why would you favour naturally oily hands over clean hands? > At the end of the day, with your accelerated oil producing hands, that became that way because you are constantly stripping them of it, your hands are much more goopy than mine. my hands are certainly not "goopy", but if you associate soap with that, then you obviously haven't found the right soap for you. > > you are sacrificing everybody's hygiene fo…
> my hands are certainly not "goopy", It's all relative. What you consider normal, is quite slimy for someone who is not engaged in your activity. > but if you associate soap with that, then you obviously haven't found the right soap for you. I just told you, this is not due to soap but to the increased oil production in response to you stripping the oils from your skin. Do you not understand this? > this sounds like…
most people can distinguish between slimy and not slimy. I bet you can guess what they'd do if they felt that their hands were slimy..
you try to make it sound like a sordid act whereas in fact, it is quite the opposite, and whatever sensation you attribute to it is invalidated by society's expectation.
> I just told you, this is not due to soap but to the increased oil production in response to you stripping the oils from your skin. Do you not understand this?
then find a soap which doesn't affect oil production if that is your preference or requirement. you're not expected to suffer, or sacrifice, or join a cult. just be clean and responsible. or is that too much to expect?
> Jesus Christ, how did you construe that I thought that dirt caused disease?
I didn't, hence "it's not about dirt", and no mention of causation. besides, you can't really cause bacteria, but you can hinder their growth and spread. with soap.
> You dare blame "MRSA" on someone advocating for less routine and systematic destruction of germs everywhere and anywhere? How do you think the "MR" part of "MRSA" got to be that way, hmm?
the arguments around antibiotics (medicines) seem tangential here, let's save that one for another time. I'm talking about preventative measures for the benefit of all. why do you think they have sanitation stations in hospitals, on farms, in kitchens?
> The human body is complicated and tuned to a particular environment.
bacteria are simple organisms and present in virtually every environment.
> Radically changing it by smearing chemicals on it several times a day will have many short term and long term unintended effects.
if you are worried about certain chemicals, or perceive promoting cleanliness and hygienic practice as radical and unintended, then you should re-evaluate your options or seek advice from a pharmacist. there is no excuse.
> If that were true how did humanity evolve in the first place?
by enduring near extinctions, adapting to new environments, and eliminating the weak? human evolution has been a slow process among a relatively small population. my point is that if we all stopped washing our hands it would mean bad news for all of us, faster than the rate of our evolution.
> Our species thrived quite fine before people engaged in obsessive hand washing.
by becoming aware of the dangers of not being clean. did we choose to live in trees or caves with rot? did we scavenge decaying food? did we favour unclean water sources? it doesn't have to be obsessive, just regular and thorough.
> I wasn't aware other species used soap?
I was referring to our veterinary use on animals and resistance use on plants. I'm sure many species are instinctively aware of natural bactericides, salts, etc.
> Do I really need to explain to you correlation vs cause and effect? Just because people started washing their hands and started to live longer does not mean that one caused the other.
I'm no expert, but I would expect that there is a strong case for correlation, and probably a causal relationship, between sanitation and life expectancy.
> If soap is meant to prevent disease, namely infections, and blood pressure medication is also meant to prevent disease, namely strokes and heart attacks, then how is not a medicine? What is it, if not, and why are you pushing its use so hard if it isn't?
again, not a medical expert, but my understanding is that strokes and heart attacks are incidents governed by risk factors, not diseases themselves like CVD or CHD. bad examples aside, soap is used for preventing the spread of harmful bacteria. medicine is used for treatment of an established condition. blood pressure medication is specifically for treating high blood pressure. as a side effect it lowers the risk of heart disease. I'm not against using medicine. I am pushing for the use of soap because my culture deems it acceptable to shake hands, share toilet seats, and eat food, with staph-ridden strangers like you.
> Are you insane? You don't think scenarios where you ask if I would choose to live rather than die is not supposed to be taken rhetorically?
I admit it was a cheap shot. but if it saves lives then is that not more important than your perception of harm?
> You get that I'm not advocating for the banning of soap use anywhere and everywhere, right?
sounds like progress.
> If it only targeted germs that we are incapable of becoming immune to, and had no other effects, that sure, why not? The problem, though, is it reduces our exposure to all germs, and our immune systems do not develop properly in this sort of environment. There are many studies that show a connection between over sanitized environments and allergic reactions due to the immune system going haywire, as well as getting sick easily when they are then exposed to dirtier environments.
washing our hands does not reduce exposure to all germs. if they're not on our hands then they're on the rest of our body anyway. I don't use soap in my eyes or lungs. washing hands has one simple purpose: to prevent spreading bad bacteria through a specific medium. it's simple risk reduction. many diseases and infections have a faecal-oral route, with hands as the main carrier. why on earth wouldn't you wash your hands after using the lavatory? it's bizarre and vile. I'm not concerned with cherry-picked studies on such a complex subject as immunology, just common sense and decency.
> I am a "we" as in I am in a human being in the human race. You really cut those dividing lines deep, don't you?
if something is detrimental to the continuation and progression of a race, it does by its own being not belong.
> Am I asking for a ban on sanitation?
you are advocating for and contributing to the spread of bacteria and disease. am I sounding unreasonable?
> Sorry, I don't want my body to overproduce oils all the time and then have to wash those oils away every day to prevent being covered in my own body oils. We've lived like that for tens of thousands of years, it won't kill us all.
it's the twenty-first century, there really is no excuse. I suspect it's more to do with mentality than physiology.
> Sanitation isn't wholly and exclusively comprised of hand washing. Me advocating for not doing it, isn't being against sanitation entirely.
I never said it was. it's just the most basic form and first line of defense.
p.s. what are your thoughts on toothpaste?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, you describe things that might be awkward, and even then it's only awkward if the people make them so. It's not at all fraught with "you're fired" potential if everyone remains calm and professional about such differences. Not only that, but you're think it ng entirely too narrow if "being yourself" only means expressing political and cultural beliefs. Otherwise, I work in an environment in an industry that is…
>You simply refrain from injecting situations with those views when they're not called for In other words, you tend to avoid sensitive topics at certain times.
But, if in every meeting I attended I went on a rant about how 4-year colleges inflate student debt for marginal gain and future earning potential (yes, the issue is more complex than that) then I would be labelled some flavor of asshole, unprofessional, etc.
However, consider the context of admissions standards and policy for the institution. It would not be inappropriate to discuss aspects of that idea. How some segment of our population may not be good fits for the institution or 4 year college in general, that they would be better served by some other path of advanced education and job training, and how it is part of our job to set students on a good path rather than chase tuition dollars that put the student in debt for no likely tangible benefit. That would be appropriate to do, and in fact I do this on a somewhat regular basis, backed up by rigorous data analysis (my own area of work) from both my own institution and national data, when we are setting enrollment goals and other related benchmarks.
It's also been perfectly fine for me to discuss other controversial/unpopular opinions with colleagues outside of meetings during non-work related breaks or side conversations so long as I do so respectfully. Roughly two decades of steady career advancement would indicate that none of this has hurt me professionally: I have literally never failed to be awarded a promotion I was seeking, and quite contrary to negative consequences I have developed a reputation of speaking honest, unvarnished opinion backed by solid evidence.
I've gotten a long ways in my technical career from being able to ask sensitive questions. (In the business environment, I've focused more on them being "critical questions".) It has been really great for me, and I've tried to make it as painless as possible for others. It started simply enough. For real business reasons, there are things that I either needed to know, or I needed to be confident that the other person…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Avoid confrontation, not people. Plus, a manager at a company presumably has money to buy a couple of sweaters, even if at Goodwill or equivalent.
I'd have to agree that it's necessary to view the professional sphere in terms of investment and investment is not only financial it's also effort and agency If you're a professional you ought to have some sort of professional persona that's not so directly tied to your 35 year mortgage If all your money is tied up in interest payments to where you can't hardly afford a stitch of clothing what fault of it is mine who…