It's too bad that there are probably meant to be so many example comics in that article, judging from how it's written, and what's really there is just ads where the comics are probably supposed to be. Wonder what happened.
I guess I didn't phrase it well- after Thiel killed Gawker, it and all it's affiliated sites (like Kotaku) were sold off for parts and their images were replaced by ads by the new owners, who may have kept the lights on but farmed all the content with a ton of ads.
most improper ones are simply capitalizing on the name recognition, some may have the idealism but fail in the implementation. if you do enough research it is pretty clear that only AMI accredited teachers implement the original method as designed by maria montessori. AMS comes close. and everyone else never received any form of montessori training at all.
I’m basically saying the lying is going one way because equally absurd claims by the left are suppressed as crazy, but only because they aren’t allowed to become as ubiquitous as crazy right wing claims.
Left wing people suppose it’s a free speech issue, but it’s just the normalization of criminal behavior. I can accuse the government of anything and they can’t respond, but the Republicans will always they can retaliate against lies. If I said about a CEO what they said about FEMA employees I’d go to jail.
No you just have an opinion. If you believe two contradictory things you’re just lying to yourself. Left wing people comprise 90% of the population of Earth. They just don’t owe media outlets. I don’t know a single Republican and it’s like they are hiding their views all the time in shame.
I'm not sure what to say to you. If left wing people comprised 90% of the earth's population, we wouldn't see right wing governments anywhere. It just wouldn't happen. Republicans are certainly not hiding their views in shame, especially right now. In fact, they're winning. They have no reason to hide in shame.
Here's a good example of what I mean by them mimicking each other. This issue of gun shootings in the US is really fascinating if you look at it from far far away with no emotional tie to the subject (which is hard to do for many people, including me).
When Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were assassinated by gunshots in their home a few months ago, many right wingers seemed indifferent and some right wingers were even condescending and insulting. Meanwhile, left wingers were correctly very upset. They accused the right wing of condoning and applauding gun violence and assassination instead of peaceful dialogue. At least, that's what I saw on social media.
Now we have the other side when social activist Charlie Kirk got assassinated by gunshot. It's a mirror image. Many left wingers seem indifferent and some left wingers are even condescending and insulting. Meanwhile, right wingers are correctly very upset. They accuse the left wing of condoning and applauding gun violence and assassination instead of peaceful dialogue. At least, that's what I saw on social media.
I see the right wing accusing Antifa and other groups of being domestic terrorists without acknowledging their own side's problems. I see the left wing accusing Proud Boys and other groups of being domestic terrorists without acknowledging their own side's problems. The two sides just like to point fingers at the other side over and over again. Just a ton of whataboutisms. This is probably the biggest symptom that makes overt their polarization. They don't share the same perceived reality.
If you can't agree with that, then we're just another example that don't share a perceived reality. People need to be able to ask themselves, "What if I'm wrong?" People don't do that anymore. I'm trying to though. I hope you do too.
What you just said is completely compatible with what the parent comment said. I would say you're saying a 95% match to the parent while subtracting only the political undertones.
Perhaps, but that was not how it was worded. Like I said, I’m genuinely asking. If the original author wants to say “oh, I don’t think the student part is relay relevant”, then it’s all good. Otherwise it’s still all good but I want to understand their choice of mentioning the student.
If this is the case, isn't it quite clear why "student finds it" sounds more impressive than "expert finds it" or "professor finds it"?
Now I'm not saying that a student shouldn't be able to find it. But in conventional wisdom it seems quite clear why one sounds more impressive than the other if you ask me.
A student is still learning. Not at the peak of knowledge/ability. While an "expert" or in the context of academia, a professor, would seem more knowledgeable. In that context, the wording seems expected / understandable.
Of course in reality in some real life contexts a professor might be more "stagnant" than a student that's trying to get a big discovery in order to earn a doctorate/professorship or course. But that's not "conventional wisdom" for the masses.
> (…) sounds more impressive (…) sounds more impressive (…)
You keep saying that, but my question was why they considered it to be more impressive. I understand an article might want anything to sound more impressive for clicks.
> If this is the case, isn't it quite clear
And no, I don’t agree that taking so long immediately makes it more impressive that a student did it. How many experts are actively searching? And how many students? There are always more of the latter than the former. After long, fortuitous encounters (which anyone can have) become more common.
Some people are finding "story-based" thinking, as you phrase it, to be the case in general among many people. Here's a recent study that makes similar points.
When Truth Trumps Facts: Studies on Partisan Moral Flexibility in American Politics
This article presents results from a series of online surveys—conducted among American voters during and after the Trump administration that show how voters from both parties provide explicit moral justification for politicians’ statements that flagrantly violate the norm of fact-grounding. Such justification is inconsistent with prevailing theory, whereby partisan voters’ tendency to mistake misinformation for fact is what drives their positive response to misinformation purveyed by partisan standard-bearers. The studies presented here provide consistent evidence of such factual flexibility. Yet they also provide consistent evidence of moral flexibility, whereby voters justify demagogic fact-flouting as an effective way of proclaiming a deeply resonant political “truth.” A key implication is that political misinformation cannot be fully eliminated by getting voters to distinguish fact from fiction; voters’ moral orientations may be such that they prefer fact-flouting. More general lessons pertain to the role of democratic norms in liberal democracies and to how moral orientations relate to perceived interests.
Relevant quote, p. 227:
Table 6 presents responses that attest to a range of distinct but overlapping themes in these qualitative data. In particular, some articulate to moral flexibility as a strategy in partisan politics, such that they weigh the “deeper truth” more than commitment to fact-grounding. One such example, expressed by a respondent who supported the DeSantis statement, was presented in the introduction of this article. “I believe that there are times when it is more important for a leader to send the right message, even if it is not entirely accurate” (respondent 216). Another respondent, who assessed the “the right message” as more important that objective evidence when evaluating Biden’s statement said: “In a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it was more important for President Biden to appeal to American values of patriotism and the willingness to step up for others. Most people are aware that while vaccinations greatly reduce the spread of disease, there is no vaccine that can completely, utterly stop it. However, Biden was using strong, emotional, positive language to encourage Americans to do what was morally correct and patriotic at that moment, and I feel that was entirely appropriate” (respondent 37).
People for some reason have an inability to separate the goals of DEI/EDI from the practice. It's possible that the goals are important and correct, but the implementation sucks. I am of this belief for many DEI programs I've seen. But I'm still pro-DEI. It just gets implemented often too simplistically and naively, enabling the creation of more controversy and also likely many poor outcomes in organizations. As for what percentage of DEI programs result in such poor outcomes, I dare not guess, I have too little data.
However, the comments that Zuckerberg is making makes me think he really thinks that the goals of DEI are themselves intrinsically bad. He seems to be leaning into the stereotypical type of thinking that causes the issues that DEI is trying to address in the first place.
I'm disappointed. I would have hoped that he'd be capable of diving into more nuance.
The goals of most DEI programs can't be achieved without discrimination on the basis of protected class. If software developers are 18% women how can a company achieve 40% women software developers without discrimination? And that was a DEI goal a previous employer used. In fact they had the same goal for electrical engineer too despite being 10% women.
Ambiguous goals like "make people feel welcome" doesn't require discrimination. But those are not the DEI goals people object to. 3 out of the 4 companies I've worked at implemented DEI goals in the form of numeric thresholds, and used discrimination to achieve them. Only one carried out DEI in the innocuous manner.
I'd argue if you're looking to achieve DEI goals in the short-term rather than over decades, you're going to fail because the backlash and other consequences will destroy any progress you think you made. And I think that's what we're seeing. You can work towards DEI goals without achieving them in the short-term and still look to make good changes over the long run. But it requires a systems view of everything, including helping kids from various backgrounds to get access to the education they need and then helping them to be in an environment where they can actually successfully learn stuff. That's a multi-generational multi-decade problem, not a corporate fiscal year problem.
This is sort of no-true-scotsman argument. Sure, there is "DEI" that doesn't amount to a dog whistle for discrimination. That was the case at 1 out of the 4 companies I've worked at. But it's the exception to the norm in my experience, and in that of my peers. It sounds like Meta has reached the same conclusion.
You seem to be an example of what I'm saying. There are very few people that are able to separate the goals of DEI from the practice when doing their analysis. If we're able to do that, we'll be able to find better solutions. And the solutions can't be found by or within individual corporations IMHO. It's much more complicated than that.
It's also possible that you and I have a different idea of what the goals of DEI are and should be.
Fallacy aside, nobody has successfully proven that holding a few spots at Harvard each year is enough to bring the likes of American Blacks back to socioeconomic parity.
You say that 3/4 of companies you are familiar with used discrimination to achieve numeric thresholds of 40% women software developers. I can't name a single medium or large tech company that is 40% women software developers. Can you?
Only one company had 40% threshold, the others had 33% and 30% respectively. They also didn't always hit those thresholds. But yes, the recruiters explicitly had 40% women in tech roles as one of their OKRs at one of my previous employers.
The only company I know of that has over 40% women software developers is ThoughtWorks. But they are an Australian company and it is legal for them to discriminate against men in that country. They are transparent about their use of a strict 1:1 gender quota: https://www.thoughtworks.com/en-es/insights/blog/beyond-quot...
furthermore, he is blaming the company's decision on his COO and not on himself as CEO. more than almost any other founder, he maintained control over his company and for better or worse it is clear that he alone bears the responsibility for what the company does as a result of that control. blaming one of his most trusted, respected, and successful deputies for what he now describes as a failure does not reflect well on him as a leader in my esteem.
