Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Sexism is just one aspect (Score 2) 707

I think the headline and summary gives a wrong impression. Sure, sexual harassment is tolerated but the wider picture the writing paints is about dysfunctional organisation. Specifically:

  • There was the sexual harassment that gets all the discussion.
  • One of the other sexist aspects is the fact that she was denied a transfer. This seems to be due to the some half assed policy to increase the number of women in organisation with the net effect that her transfer was blocked because her current manager wanted/needed women in his team.
  • The third documented "sexist" thing is not buying leather jackets to female employees due to larger unit price. I don't think the problem here is sexual in nature. This same could have happened to fat people or any other minority group. Don't get me wrong, the company is wrong in doing this and excluding a number of people of any sort of team building exercise is really bad. Especially when it's done to save a few hundred bucks.
  • The main problem with the Uber organisation seem to be the utter politicisation of all aspects of management. From the description I'm willing to guess that the organisation is filled with power hungry people, who in turn hire and promote others like them. You know the type. A corporate version of these all talk, no action politicians.

Comment All these words (Score 4, Insightful) 103

Sound like high minded excuse to start use the platform for political purposes. All these words "bullying", "fake news", etc. are code words involved in liberal virtue signalling. "Fake news" is something that those evil right wingers do (especially it does not apply to New York Times, et al. or any garbage coming from BLM or other such outlets). "Bullying" is anything that makes a member of a designated minority group feel bad. Facebook is going the same way as Twitter.

Given Facebooks enormous reach, I think we can say that rarely has world placed such a huge power in the hands of one individual. We are unfortunate that the individual in case is Mark Zuckenberg, a man so insecure that he needs constantly signal his virtue. I guess it was only a matter of time until he would succumb to this. This is going to be a slippery slope and is going to get worse. As it does, it will become harder and harder to call out liberal bullshit (Trevor Martin -type of misinformation) as contradictory views to orthodoxy is hidden deeper and deeper.

People who are repelled by this (I think term "red pilled" is used) feel (with justification) that they get better information from such luminaries as infowars.com and breitbart.com. O tempora, o mores. Five years ago I didn't expect that I would seriously say that there are any sane reasons that one should pay any attention to infowars.com. (Just to make it clear: I am NOT endorsing infowars.com in any way possible. I'm just saying that due to general drop in quality in other news, it has become relatively better.)

As a side note, this trend has pushed me back to the Slashdot. It seems that, one again, this is almost the only place where even some sane voices are heard. (Ten years ago it Slashdot was for the place to be for a different reason.) Reddit has become unreadable, twitter also, now facebook, and so on. Case in point, the coverage of PewDiePie -scandal in past day was covered best here on slashdot. Decent analysis, perspective, opposing views, etc. in comments that was not available anywhere else. Thanks folks, keep it up. You might be the last best hope for humanity until news media fixes it self.

Comment Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score 0) 892

despite being orders of magnitude more honest than her opponent

I don't think this statement survives any kind of honest and serious scrutiny. Given that she really didn't give that many interviews, didn't held that many press conferences, her lies-to-statements made ratio is quite high. In fact, I have hard time of finding any serious statement she made about her past positions or those emails that wasn't a lie.

Sure, Trump lies when it suits him but to say that he lies orders of magnitudes more than Hillary Clinton just does not add up.

Given the extremely partisan nature of you comment, I will assume that you are a Democrat. (It would be fair to state such a thing aloud.) You lost the elections because you nominated one of the most corrupted career politician available to be your nominee. And why? Because it was "her turn" and because "being the first female president" trumped all other considerations.

Comment Bad news (Score 2) 415

This is bad news as these fact checkers have proven to be just as biased as any other news souce such sa MSNBC or Fox News. They are fake authorities to decide what is true and what is not. This will lead to ever more tighter group think in the left leaning segments of the society while the right leaning segments will get alienated even further by what they call "mainstream media" institutions. It only takes one false positive identification of "fake news" to discredit this as cencorship by any right leaning person. (And trust me, the bias is there, so the false positive is something that will annoy right leaning people, not left leaning.)

In short: Don't do it. Please. Instead try to work it so that people get exposed to other points of views.

Comment Re: They didn't succeed though (Score 1) 667

Christ, you guys sound like the naive Obama supporters in 2008.

The president is not going to save you. He's not the messiah, he's not even a dictator. You're supposed to vote for the better person, the smart one, the one who knows what they're doing.

I'm the first to admit that Hilary isn't really smart enough or good enough to be a good president, but Trump isn't even close.

Donald Trump is really smart. Denying it is denying the facts. Here's Marke Halperin's analysis, which nails it: http://www.mediaite.com/online...

Comment Re:They didn't succeed though (Score 1) 667

Do you know who came up with 'Drain the swamp'?

Mussolini.

I decided to check this. Turns out that when Mussolini was talking about 'Draining the swamp', he meant that he wanted to... drain a swamp. Like a swamp with still water and mosquitoes. They had a problem with malaria, which was (and still is in Africa) a real killer.

More information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You need to calm down with your hyberpole about Donald Trump. He's quite a personality but a Mussolini he is not.

Comment Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score 1) 1083

And again, I reiterate what I said earlier. Where do rights come from?

You're missing the whole point of what the founding fathers and the US constitution was attempting to create.

These inalienable rights "come from" nowhere. They exist innately and the constitution was written largely to express this, and to prevent laws from being created which would stifle or try to remove them. The social construct aspect applies insofar as to how to balance things when the desires or actions of one person impact the rights of another person.

Funny thing that the majority opinion that you are defending clearly says that these rights are social constructs and not only that but that they are found.

Comment Re:well.. (Score 2) 760

This ain't the US. Finland does have a justice system that deserves the name.

Money doesn't buy you a get out of jail card there.

To make this statement you would need to have intimate knowledge of both Finnish justice system and US justice system.

Your "example" about money shows that you don't have knowledge of either of them. Finland's justice system, and obviously so for those who pay any attention, is quite corruptible and incompetent. It is wasteful and inefficient. This statement is backed by the fact that I do live in Finland and I do pay attention to our legal system.

I do not know how our system compares to others. I can fully expect similar problems with other legal systems as they also are run by people.

By the way, just to make a point about you silly point about "money buying out of jail card": In Finland white collar crime usually goes unpunished. In rare cases where it is punished, the punishments are in range of "fines or 2-20 months of jail time." Compare this to Mr. Madoff rotting in jail the rest of his life or 150 year which ever is shorter.

Comment Fear mongering (Score 1) 290

a possible arms race that could lead to a nuclear war

Yeah. For the clarity to other readers, this statement is not supported by any logic nor by any argument. It is just that "some analysts" (i.e. probably some dude the author met in a pub) say that something could lead to "nuclear escalation". It is there to attract eye balls and clicks. Now that we have agreed that the whole talk about "nuclear war" or "nuclear escalation", we can focus on discussing this pretty cool sounding hypersonic weaponry stuff.

Comment Re:Mr. Thiel (Score 1) 441

Mr. Thiel,

You were born rich to obviously rich parents who could afford to send you to Stanford for your undergraduate and graduate degrees.

You're still rich today.

Congratulations. You did not lose your fortune, something almost impossible today due to favorable taxation for the wealthy.

Once you're rich you stay that way forever in the United States unless you're a very stupid person.

Sincerely,
The 99%.

The fact that he has wacky ideas does not surprise me. Rich people are born that way, being given every advantage in life. People don't get rich by being particularly intelligent. They pay people to do everything for them, and unless they're very stupid they get much richer in the process.

Please make even some rudimentary research before posting stuff like this. I know that social mobility is not that large in US but to imply that Mr. Thiel doesn't owe his fortune to his smarts and character is just silly. He's been making good bet pretty consistently, been optimistic about future and exemplary in his way of trying to achieve something by his own work. You can disagree with him on certain matters but if you are willing to read what he writes, you will have to admit that he's pretty smart guy. Also, his family was just a normal middle class family with father doing chemical engineering.

Comment Re:Zero emissions (Score 1) 695

It's time for the alarmist side to stop pretending there are any policy choices on the table to prevent the warming they are predicting.

What the *fuck* are you talking about? There's plenty of stuff that can be done. The only reason that they're not being done is that the wealthy would have to foot the bill, and they don't want to.

Good to know. Would be so kind and tell us what these solutions are and how the wealthy are stopping us from putting them in practice.

And then a note to everyone modding parent Insightful: I know that you are having your monthly Let's Blame It on Rich field day here. But I think that you could even try to pretend to have an intelligent discussion here. Like if someone says "I don't think there are solutions" then an answer saying "Yes there is but rich folk are not allowing them" does not count as a constructive discussion.

Comment Re:more pseudo science (Score 1) 869

Oh this is rich. The AC calling the scientists ignorant about how the peer review process works. Nice try AC, but GP is right, peer reviewers systematically try to tear pretty much anything that comes their way to shreds. I'm a scientists, and not only do I see this happening to my papers, I do the same to the papers I get to review. Extremely critical reviewers are an essential part of the scientific process.

Contrary to GP, I feel it's normal that it's so difficult to get a paper published. What is not normal is that scientists are under such high pressure to get so many papers published per year; the process could benefit from some "slowing down". But that's an entirely different discussion.

It is well documented that climate science circles are small and papers with a right conclusions are easier to publish as papers with the wrong conclusions.

The fact that in your field the process works well, does not mean that it works well in another fields.

Comment Re:more pseudo science (Score 2) 869

Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.

All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.

That's because all scientists are skeptics.

This is just patently false.

James Hansen, one of the leading scientist sitting on top of the time series, called for trials of energy company executives for "high crimes against humanity and nature". When a human commits himself to such political ambitions, it becomes much harder to objectively accept position which would undermine the strong political stand he's taking.

Or how about the personification of "climate scientist", Michael Mann? Well, he refers to his fellow scientist who are not sharing his preconceived opinions as "not helping the cause".

These examples does not speak about scientists excising scepticism but more like political activists doing group thinking.

Slashdot Top Deals

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...