That sounds like an easy way to discount any criticism of your own actions or views, which doesn't seem a particularly healthy way to go through life. You could almost mistake it for being the same thing you're saying causes others to be not worth engaging with...
If you assume there is nothing you can do to change someone's mind, there is little to no reason to interact with them with regards to that thing. Without that interaction, you won't get their concerns and criticisms. Not interacting with people about something you and they disagree on is a good way to make sure there's nothing they can do to change your mind, and I wouldn't be surprised if they view you in a similar way to how you described them originally.
The only solution to that is to engage, and engage with the assumption that change is possible, for both of you. Otherwise you're just lecturing someone, and that's not engagement.
Again, Im just not following. This has little to do with the point my comment was making.
I said, anyone who would tune out The Guardian article as noise because they disagree with the topic is not the target audience of the walkout.
How much someone chooses to spend their personal energy or personal time “debating” contrarians just isn’t relevant to my comment…
You seem determined to change the subject away from who the walkout was for into this boring and repeatedly beat-to-death discussion, so, here’s where I stand: You can say they somehow have an obligation to spend their valuable time and valuable energies engaging with people who would tune it out as “just more SJW noise” or whatever, but I would personally argue, if they’re already tuning out an article because they disagree, rather than wasting time on them, there are thousands of ways to better use one’s time.
The second part of my argument would be, I understand that some of these people who would ignore it as noise have convinced themselves that everything has to do with them. But they should be asking themselves, “Why do I think this walkout was to convince me?” and “Why do I think they would spend their time and energy to do this walkout for me?” and “Why do I think my opinion is even relevant to this company where I don’t work and people I don’t even know?” and then, they if they’re honest with themselves, at least one of the conclusions they’ll come to is, “omg, im so vain that i believe these people i don’t know at a company i don’t work for should be seeking my approval…” which should lead themselves to ask the most important question of all…
But yeah, this topic of “you ought to spend your limited personal time and personal resources convincing contrarians” is boring af. we’ve read it in comment threads tens of thousands of times by now and with people who still can’t figure out how to break out of the elementary level loop they’ve gotten themselves stuck in.
So to sum it up, people who have tuned out the article as noise because they disagree are absolutely not the target audience. And if they find this basic fact troubling, they should reorient themselves to figure out why they would even imagine they are.
> I said, anyone who would tune out The Guardian article as noise because they disagree with the topic is not the target audience of the walkout.
No, you said "There is almost nothing which would change the minds of the people who don’t already understand these as problems." That's far more expansive than a statement about the people that read the Guardian that don't agree ignoring it. It's one thing to say people may not trust one source or how it's presented, it's an entirely different thing to say they are unwilling to consider any source or argument. One is stating the people have a bias around a source and/or topic, the other is painting a large group of people themselves as entirely unreasonable, and to me it seemed your statement was conveying the latter.
If that's not your intent, then we can just chalk this up to some combination of poor expression and poor interpretation and call it a day.
Depends what you're going to the gym for. If it's just to lift weights, sure, reasonable safety precautions and you're good to go at home. If you're into martial arts, gyms are a hard requirement.
Amusingly we have a case study for this: the Shakers.
"They practice a celibate and communal lifestyle, pacifism, uniform charismatic worship, and their model of equality of the sexes, which they institutionalized in their society in the 1780s."
Important to note that Gabe gave the product rights that the fired team were developing. Said team went on to have a successful Kickstarter (250% successful!), and then failed in actually delivering results.
In hindsight, seems smart to pull the plug so far in advance.
I'm sure the complaints about informal power groups, careful politicking being required and gaurded groups are true... if only because that's true in every office I've worked in.
> In hindsight, seems smart to pull the plug so far in advance.
Not knowing the product, this looks like it may be a valid interpretation; could another be that the project would be more likely to succeed with the commercial backing of a company like Valve?
Absolutely, let me walk back my language so that its clear I'm extrapolating from very limited data.
Edit: I can't edit it anymore. Was going to change it to "Based on this limited insight, it may have been the best option for both parties to part ways given the project teams complaints and valves lack of interest in the product"
>Other studies have looked at the effect of famine. When mothers were exposed to famine during pregnancy, as was the case in Holland in 1944 and 1945, their children had a higher incidence of obesity and coronary disease compared to mothers not exposed to famine. The higher risks were traced to reduced DNA methylation of a gene producing an insulin-like growth factor. Such epigenetic effects can be inherited over several generations.
>Exposure of parents to cocaine may affect memory.
I can't find evidence of it, but it seems reasonable to extrapolate that long term life style choices will also affect epigenetics for the better.
There have been similar studies on male fitness level at the time of conception.
There is growing scientific evidence in human and animal studies that should inspire every father-to-be to start exercising more and eating healthier before conceiving a baby. A wide range of studies have found that fathers who are obese at the time of conception pass on a predisposition to their children and grandchildren to be overweight, to develop diabetes, or both.
Most of those high-level epigenetics findings are on shaky ground.
Even if true that their children had higher rates of obesity this could easily be due to nurture - e.g. those Mothers could've been more likely to stock up on food at home and feed their children more due to the trauma, with the methylation explanation being post-hoc.
>PM's are good at figuring out the theta, and Engineers are good at the r.
I'm only familar with the options definition of theta and the reproductive strategy of r. Could you expand? Something like, PM's are good at long term (e.g. our product needs this feature, then this feature) and Engineers are good at fine detail (e.g. the feature should work like this)?
Thus PMs are good at figuring out in what direction to concentrate their effort, and then the engineers make progress in that direction. That's how I interpreted it at least.
