galacticpony2

18 ms·

31.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
> This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive. Maybe you should elaborate on why it is innumerate and disconnected. As for calling it "offensive", that's entire
32.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
No, I'm not. I didn't mention the word "biological", I'm not making any claim on what the underlying reasons for the distributions are. Does it have to be "clean" anyway? What does "clean" even
33.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
First of all, you didn't answer my question. Where is your research that brings evidence to support your prediction? Sociology in particular isn't very diligent in actually applying the scientific method. Secondly, you're
34.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
> Maybe it's one thing that the more concerning elements of the left are aggregated into certain universities, but it is something else to also exist in the services and companies most everyone relies on (and that has control over t
35.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
You know, I for one maintain that he shouldn't have to do any of these things to avoid getting fired and getting branded a sexist by the dishonest media. But that's exactly what happened. Being more scientific wouldn't have
36.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
> When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear. That's a bold prediction su
37.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
Given how strongly he's had his view misrepresented, I don't think giving references would've helped him. He was very careful to pick his words, to no avail. It's the science itself that these people don't want to
38.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
When people say "orwellian", they're often thinking "1984". I'm thinking "Animal Farm". It's a process , a takeover of the mind. It doesn't start with government and doesn't end at gov
39.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
It's not news though. I've positioned myself squarely on "the left" without much of a thought before the Brendan Eich case. Then I discovered that "the left" has no intellectual integrity whatsoever. The dishon
40.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
Of course Google throws their employees under the bus for the sake of defending their "diversity" facade. Thanks James, for being the canary in the goldmine.
41.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
> What is the distinction you want me to make? That it has a different icon in your OS task bar? That's one! So, it's already not exactly the same. Figuring out the rest shall be left as an exercise to the reader. > My arg
42.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
> But that's exactly what you're getting when they're run as Electron apps. Well, no it isn't. If you can't even make that distinction, then having any further conversation with you is going to be pointless. I su
43.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
> If you're going to put in the effort to write a proper desktop application with native components through Qt, .NET, Java or OpenGL or something, go ahead but please don't bother with webapps with a browser wrapper, just leave
44.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
No offense, but what makes you think (potential) customers like you are so valuable that serving their pet peeves becomes a sane business decision? Everyone is moving to web technology because it cuts down on cost on many fronts, not becaus
45.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
The tool that does the minification isn't necessarily the same tool that does the concatenation. Here's a very lengthy discussion on how the very popular minifier UglifyJS (version 1) originally removed trailing semicolons, causin
46.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
> bundling is not just concatenation, and certainly not in the "common" case. Fair enough, the common case is minification and concatenation. Or what else is it? The problem with the semicolon remains. > Please have a look a
47.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
The common case of "bundling" is just concatenating files, which works fine if people add their damned semicolons. To quote the author: "not using any semicolons at all is a very popular trend in JS these days, so it is very
48.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
> If we wanted to forcefully distribute the money while leaving the people at the top intact (let's call this "blunt force redistribution") such that the current top 10% has 10% of the wealth, then each person in the botto
49.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
I'm not a right-winger and I'm not dismissing the statistic. The statistic is correct. The question was "why aren't wages tied to productivity?". The answer is, an employer will only pay as much as necessary, even i
50.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
Ponchaud's book was not full of errors, it was based on accounts that were (at the time) unverifiable and Chomsky went on to question their credibility. For an outline of the points brought forth, you may read this: http:/&#x2F
51.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
You're missing the point entirely. I'm not saying inequality doesn't exist. Of course it exists. I'm asking again: What happens if we take the wealth not just from the top 1%, but the top 10%, then spread it among the re
52.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
First of all, I'm talking about the inequality of income between the super-high-earners (1%) and the rest. Those people are not the ones pricing everyone else out of housing. Secondly, it's not true that rent/house prices inc
53.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
Not really. He was - as always - exaggerating the ills caused (directly or indirectly) by "western imperialism" while simultaneously dismissing the reports of the atrocities by communist regimes as "propaganda". When the
54.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
Well, those 1% could in theory have 99.99% of all income. So the justification that "because it's only 1%" (of people) is wrong. In fact, neither the median nor the average supports my point, but the share of the income tota
55.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
I doubt Chomsky really has any ideals at this point. Politically, he's been occupied with relativism for decades, the utility of which is questionable. He's a master of weasel language, to the effect that he can deny ever having m
56.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
Planned obsolescence is an interesting topic, but suffice it to say that while I do own a handful of decades-old appliances that still work, they did cost much more at the time. It also depends on the brand. Some will offer warranties at
57.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
> Why couldn't they be on par with the rise in productivity? Because wages are tied to supply and demand, not productivity. Increased productivity will rather lower wages. > Yes, quite frequently. Here's an article with numb
58.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
Percentages are misleading. Going from 1$ to 10$ is a 1000% increase, yet it's not significant. Do the math again, this time with actual dollar amounts, then try again. Take all the money the top 10% have, then spread it among the res
59.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
Two points that keep coming up: "Real wages have gone down" Well, how high should they have risen? They can't rise indefinitely. Yet, the products you can buy for the same money have vastly improved. What car could you buy fo
60.
by galacticpony2 9y ago
Mind that the "clockspeed" is noted as 100khz.

More ›