Well if you casually observed the last two generations of my Hispanic family, you would say we made it work too. But that is because the culture pushes the youngest daughters to not get married and have no children. So now we have multiple women in our family who are bitter, boring, poor, and have destroyed their careers prospects because "it works" for the rest of the family.
Would those career prospects be substantially different if those women chose to have children? Or if they chose to postpone their careers to care for aging parents when the time came? Maybe their career goes well but to remain in it becomes a financial hardship so care can be paid for while they still work. Hard to say, lots of variables.
That framing comes across like "Women are losers with no lives anyway, amirite?! So, fuck em!"
Ideally, a healthy social contract benefits all involved parties and doesn't sacrifice some particular subgroup so that everyone else can be happy, but they're screwed no matter what they do because all options open to them are horrible.
We don’t have a healthy social contact. My impression was that’s what this thread was about, and what my comment you’re responding to observes (I don’t call women “losers”, nor do I believe that they are or that they have no lives).
Most options are poor options, through little fault of the individual. You’re doing the best you can with the hand you’ve been dealt.
I was a homemaker for a lot of years. It's a thing I've thought a lot about.
When 1+1=3 and you divide the pie such that everyone gets more than they would have on their own, no, it's not all downside and it's not unhealthy.
It's all downside when 1+1=3, but one party consistently gets less than what they would have on their own. Then, why should they go along with this?
That's where you get bitter people.
Edit: For the record, you've done a lot of editing of both of your comments here, which potentially changes how my replies look. I did my best to not personally accuse you of anything and to only state that the way the comment was written was not coming across well.
Does the U.S. president claim that the Chinese are paying the tariffs on the EU products too ? I still can't tell if our all tactics and no strategy president understands how tariffs works.
“The US first filed the case in 2004, arguing that cheap European loans for Airbus amounted to illegal state subsidies.“
“The US was given the go-ahead to impose tariffs on $7.5bn (£6.1bn) of goods it imports from the EU following a World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling on Wednesday.”
The WTO imposed the tariffs against the EU due to a recent ruling.
One of most surprising headlines I saw this week is that in NYC you can be fined $250,000 for calling someone an "illegal immigrant".
I can understand that such an accusation may be slanderous under civil law. But the criminal law seems to only apply to that specific phrase, not the accusation.
Does anyone understand how such a seemingly unconstitutional law could get passed ?
This is coming from the "NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Immigration Status and National Origin."
The relevant text is: "the use of certain language, including “illegal alien” and “illegals,” with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination." The law does not (in this context) explicitly include the phrase "illegal immigrant."
ETA: "The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived “alienage and citizenship status,” and “national origin,” among other categories, by most employers, housing providers, and providers of public accommodations in New York City. The NYCHRL also prohibits discriminatory harassment and bias-based profiling by law enforcement."
I would recommend reading the article which classifies that if this speech is used to threaten, demean, or discriminate then the fine is imposed.
This is how most free speech laws work, they don't impede your free speech unless you are endangering others with it. Threatening someone or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are not protected.
Before quitting, try your best to make changes that will reduce stress and improve the project's manageablity with or without permission. Your work sounds so mission critical you could probably do whatever you want with no chance of getting fired.
Just be able to justify your action and communicate your decisions clearly. You'll start earning respect and that alone will reduce your stress levels. Standing up for yourself is hard to do at any age and "learned helplessness" is a concern if you don't push yourself.
Imagine if this headline read "Research on drunks' preference for aggressiveness and sobers' for politeness". Would anyone argue that nurture and societal norms is the reason drunks behave more aggressively ?
As someone who has been drunk on testosterone most of their life, I can testify it is a powerful and fun drug. Perhaps if research was framed in terms of hormonal differences rather than sex differences it wouldn't be as intrinsically controversial.
It shouldn't be controversial at all. There are sex differences. A good chunk of those differences are the effect of hormonal differences that stem from sexual dimorphism that in turn likely stem from some other evolutionary selection process.
Does culture play a role in behavior? Probably. But is there an inherent difference between the sexes? Yes.
In the nature vs nurture debate, every time someone argues for all nature or all nurture it’s an ideological position. That biology has no influence on behavior is as absurd as that society has none. The division into nature and nurture is also not as clean-cut as people think it is. There are many things in human culture that are that way because of biology and our culture influences our biology over the long run.
Sure, but that's the point. Paraphrasing brodo's reply, anyone who says outcomes here are all culture or all nature is full of it. However, we've swung all the way to the other end where to imply that nature might play a role in outcomes here is grounds for excommunication from many circles (see Damore and Empathizing–systemizing theory).
It seems to me that if it is the case that testosterone is responsible, then it would be much better science to identify that and have "high testosterone" vs "low testosterone" groups. You'd be able to predict more strongly if the evidence isn't binary but rather a variable.
This is similar to the claims that "race" predicts health issues, when actually it's usually some specific gene which is only correlated with race.
I don't see how it helps to introduce that extra layer of indirection.
> hormonal differences rather than sex differences it wouldn't be as intrinsically controversial.
it is controversial only if you assume that
- we can control sex differences more than hormonal differences (in fact it's quite the opposite)
- cultural differences are more controllable than biological differences (same as above)
it doesn't matter how you frame it, the study shows a clear tendency, we can discuss the implications or the correctness of the study, methodology and title
For the first a functioning brain it's enough, for the rest we are subject to burden of the proof.
As much as I want to believe climate change can mitigated by individuals making conscientious decisions, it seems as naive as telling someone in 1970 that if they care about the smog then they can just buy a catalytic converter for their own car.
Climate change progress, like the catalytic converter, will be 1% innovation and 99% legislation. If you care about this problem please vote. Voting is arguably the most important action you can take.
No, voting is passive. Be politically active: talk to your neighbors, at your local sports club, at work and at local events on climate change. Contact your local legislators. Give options to local polluters by researching options for subsidies. Write to your congressmen and ask for the most pressing local actions.
Democracy does not start with a vote. That’s just a step in a large process.
Read No Shortcuts [1]. But in summary, determine the group of people you want to organize (a bounded group, not "everyone"), reach out to people (face to face conversations), identify community leaders who are on board, try doing a small bit of activism, and see what percent of your target group showed up. Identify leaders who got people to show up, and look for different leaders where they didn't work. Repeat, using any success as incentive to get more people interested in participating next time.
If you want to be active, I just formed a non profit to fund litigation initiatives for kids and young adults to sue the government and corporate interests that are responsible for restoring their constitutional right to a freaking future. Consider donating to fund similar litigation.
I think your suggestions are exactly right for individuals. If someone's reaction is "What can/should I do?", what's the best response? Serious question. What are the more reputable resources for providing these answers?
Montreal Protocol was a success. We already have a legislative framework, starting with Kyoto Protocol. What is needed is technical alternatives that made Montreal Protocol a success, i.e. innovation.
Setting an example is great and doing what you personally can to reduce your footprint is certainly not wrong but it’s completely and utterly wrong to focus on that and talk about it. That’s just the wrong approach.
Deniers and their ilk will talk about nothing but personal failings, not systematic approaches. That’s a rhetorical strategy they are comfortable with and where they will always be able to win (since society is currently structured in a way that makes it very hard to reduce your footprint).
People might think that them personally doing something might solve the problem, which couldn’t be further from the truth. People might think that since they did something they don’t have to do anything more.
Focusing on personal responsibility is the completely wrong approach. This needs taxes, this needs bans, this needs huge political changes. There is no alternative. There is nothing you can personally do to solve this when those things don’t happen.
Being a loser with no money and/or friends, possessions, status, whatever, will affect your ability to influence greatly.
I find a lot of activist types are afraid of wealth or status, which usually translates to them having none. Unwashed, bearded folks are an anti-example. We need well-adjusted, respectable, active, socially able members of society setting an example.
Once the cool kids go green, everyone will. Make it cool, make it have status, make it hip. Think Tesla.
A "startup" typically implies hyper-growth. That means raising money, hiring, and motivating the team to execute quickly, all of which is easier with the right vision/idea.
If you were a VC or a prospective employee deciding between many companies wouldn't the "idea" be the first filter you use ?
"To enroll, brands need to provide a government-registered trademark number."
I had heard some US sellers get a trademark from a foreign country since the process is often faster and they can then enroll in Brand Registry sooner. But does anyone know if you register with a non-US trademark, can you then still sell that brand in Amazon's US market ? Or is it only the region/country that issued the trademark ?
"it is not very good at explaining the process it has gone through to reach such a conclusion".
The above statement is just too convenient and practically superstitious.
AI is data hungry. That implies that there are so many past incidences of corruption you can generate large training data sets. So perhaps even a random guess would be too efficient since it is right more often than not.
"it is not very good at explaining the process it has gone through to reach such a conclusion".
To be fair, generating human-understandable explanations of predictions in a complicated nonlinear model is difficult in general. You typically need to come up with some kind of simplification of the model (like LIME [0]), and it's far from perfect or generally-applicable.
