truculent

62 ms·

1. 631.▲
   by truculent 8y ago

   I think I disagree with this. To take a look at the first few points: * I don't follow why the distribution of women in different fields "Does not look discrimination". Seems to me it could be adequately explained by either M
2. 632.▲
   by truculent 8y ago

   It's a good job we don't base hiring decisions on something as simplistic as # of citations then, isn't it?
3. 633.▲
   by truculent 8y ago

   > arguments should be fought with better arguments I find it surprising that you can follow up a comment that has no substance beyond invoking a vague emotional response with this. If you think arguments are the way for constructive disc
4. 634.▲
   by truculent 8y ago

   > Some good points. Which do you think are good points specifically? I am struggling to find them myself. It's very hard to engage with your comment without knowing exactly what your argument(s) are.
5. 635.▲
   by truculent 8y ago

   I think "realistic" kind of depends on your goal. If you want to make it under 2C, I don't believe this is particularly realistic (i.e. not soon enough). If you want to avoid controversial actions and major changes to people&
6. 636.▲
   by truculent 8y ago

   Not soon enough though, is it?
7. 637.▲
   by truculent 8y ago

   That doesn't mean it can't be a pollutant. To take a simple example, fertilisers are biodegradable and yet run off + eutrophication is incredibly ecologically damaging.